Help me spend some money... - DPChallenge Forums

08/13/2004 04:46:08 PM · #1

With my DRebel, I have the kit (18-55) lens and the 50mm 1.8.

I'm debating between two choices right now:

1. The Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 which is $300 at B&H, ..... OR ....

2. The Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 AND the Sigma 70-300 Super APO Macro together, total of $440 at B&H.

I am not, nor will I ever, become a professional. I'm a dedicated hobbyist on a budget. I can't get L lenses. I don't like the 28-135 IS because of weight issues and the price.

I do hope to add a Canon 100mm Macro some day as well, and that's about it.

Should I go with choice #1, #2, or am I missing something?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

08/13/2004 05:14:34 PM · #2

I'll take a 50mm f1.8 ;-) Unless you meant spend money for yourself O_O

ps: reversal adapter thingy... altho I dunno where to get one.

Message edited by author 2004-08-13 17:16:38.

08/13/2004 05:19:14 PM · #3

I've had no complaints with the 28-105 (my main lens), so I'd vote for your second setup.

Like you, I have the kit lens, 50mm 1.8, and a low budget, but I did manage to save up for the 70-200mm f/4L, and it's my favorite lens.

Message edited by author 2004-08-13 17:21:16.

08/13/2004 05:20:40 PM · #4

Kyebosh, go to bhphotovideo.com and search for 'macro coupler.' They're about $8.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/13/2004 05:28:01 PM · #5

What tripod and lighting to do you have ?

Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA

08/13/2004 05:43:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by Gordon:

What tripod and lighting to do you have ?

I have a QSX 700i Quanterray tripod which drives me nuts, and no lighting at the present time.

ramevi

Sony Alpha a7 II

08/13/2004 05:55:33 PM · #7

If you are (like me) a beginner in SLR, and you are planning to spend 300-400+ usd, What about option 1 plus 50mm 1.8 for a total of $370?
IMHO.

08/13/2004 06:08:34 PM · #8

Originally posted by ramevi:

If you are (like me) a beginner in SLR, and you are planning to spend 300-400+ usd, What about option 1 plus 50mm 1.8 for a total of $370?
IMHO.

I have the 50mm 1.8. WONDERFUL lens! I guess I'm trying to decide whether to use the kit lens as a walk-around, and add a 70-200/300, or move to a better walkwaround like the 28-105 (which is still quite affordaable), OR put all my marbles (for now, at least) into a hyper-zoom. I've been to two full-fledged camera stores, and they both highly recommend the Tamron 28-300, telling me that things have changed a LOT in the last few years in terms of what zooms can do, and telling me they sell more of this lens than any other, and so on.

But, when I read the forums on the net, so many people caution against the hyperzooms saying there are too many compromises and such, and then a few people chime in with how much they love the lens and the convenience factor. Again, I'm not trying to get L-quality images from consumer-level lenses, but if the 28-105/70-300 makes a better kit in terms of image quality than the 28-300 I'll give up the convenience in a heartbeat and spend a few more dollars...

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

08/13/2004 06:16:33 PM · #9

Canon 35-350mm L (sigh). Someday, someday...

jmlelii

Nikon D850

08/13/2004 06:43:55 PM · #10

Originally posted by scalvert:

Canon 35-350mm L (sigh). Someday, someday...

They all ready have the 28-300mm L =)

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/13/2004 07:28:08 PM · #11

Originally posted by boomer:

Gary,

As a hobbiest, without intention to get deeper into it (at this point) and with what you already have, go with a 70-something zoom (70-300). These are primarily hobby lenses but will allow you take many photographs pertaining to your interests. The primary advantage of a "do it all" lense like a 28-300 is when traveling. But the disadvantages are many for strong quality photographs. If changing lenses is problematic, then I would consider one of the 10x prosumer 6-8 megapixel cameras where you do not change lenses. SLR's are not for everybody.

Regardless of what camera you have, a good flash and solid-easily adjusted tri-pod are essential.

Wishing you the very best.

If you already have Canon glass, then consider staying with them.

Message edited by author 2004-08-13 19:30:32.

FSCNitro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/13/2004 07:54:00 PM · #12

Boomer, I'm in pretty much the same boat with you, I need a little more reach for my 300D but don't have a ton of money to spend.

The thing is, I keep thinking "Well, $300 for a 70-300mm lens from Tamron or just keep saving and get something like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM for like $550".

My question for the experts is, is there THAT big a difference that I should wait?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

08/13/2004 07:58:13 PM · #13

Originally posted by FSCNitro:

There is NO comparison! the 70-200 f/4L is in another league, the "L" league. It is well worth the wait.

08/13/2004 08:19:28 PM · #14

Agreed. I thought the 28-105 was pretty good until I used the 70-200 f/4 L.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/13/2004 09:14:58 PM · #15

Originally posted by FSCNitro:

My question for the experts is, is there THAT big a difference that I should wait?

See here for a comparision