DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Your Opinion on Lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/21/2005 04:44:33 PM · #1
I would like your feedback on which lenes to purchase. I'm getting out of the film and digicam world and into the DSLR world and want to make sure I'm starting off on the right foot. My subjects will range from my children, large family portraits and scenic shots. Here is what I had in mind:

350D Digital Rebel XT and...either

Lens package A:
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4 Convertion lens
Wide Angle: Tamron 17-35, Sigma 12-24, 10-20, or 15-30???

Lens Package B:
Sigma 18-50 2.8 (In place of wide angle also)
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4 Conv lens

Any suggestions and variations would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to keep things as simple as possbible. Budget is around $2,000 including the body. Weight is some what of an issue.

Thanks in advance.

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 16:46:28.
02/21/2005 04:49:54 PM · #2
Package A looks like my wish list.

I have both the 5omm 1.8 and 70-200mm F4 L and they are both great, next on my list is the Tamron from 24-75 2.8 (many members here seem to rate it highly). so I think I would go for package A.

Good luck with the 350.
02/21/2005 04:55:14 PM · #3
70-200F4 is one of the best lenses around.
For wide angle, consider also the new 17-85 stabilizer.
Seems to get pretty good comments from the users.
02/21/2005 04:55:39 PM · #4
I think lens package B looks pretty good, nice range of lenses...

However, I would look at the 28-135mm IS Canon lens as another possible addition.

Hope you like the 350 when it is released:)

Steve
02/21/2005 05:03:44 PM · #5
I'd say if you need the wide angle, go for plan B, if not I think plan A is better optically.
02/21/2005 05:06:47 PM · #6
Do you already own any lenses? Also, what type of shooting do you plan to do?

-Terry

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 17:13:45.
02/21/2005 05:09:54 PM · #7
package A
02/21/2005 05:57:59 PM · #8
Originally posted by mitähä:

... For wide angle, consider also the new 17-85 stabilizer. Seems to get pretty good comments from the users.


The 17-85 is way over priced. I have seen it referred to as "a $100 lens with a $400 Image Stabilizer". And it won't go with you if you upgrade to a full-frame size Canon DSLR in the future.

The Tamron 28-75 will serve you better for less money. It's very sharp.
02/21/2005 07:18:30 PM · #9
You have put together some very well-considered package choices. I very much like your "package A".
The 70-200 f/4 is one of Canon's finest zooms, period. It should pair well with the 1.4 teleconverter. I would recommend the Canon converter over the third-party ones, but if you decide to go third-party, get the Tamron.
For the wide angle side, the Tamron 17-35 is pretty well thought of. I bought the 19-35 bifore the 17-35 was released, and based on the reviews, I wish I had been looking later.
If in the future you feel you really need wider than 17mm, get a 15mm fisheye. You'll be amazed how flexible it is, and it has a horizontal FoV equivalent to about an 11mm rectilinear lens (89 degrees on the 350D), and goes to f/2.8 to boot. Both the Sigma and Canon 15mm fisheyes are good lenses.
As you've surmised, the 50/1.8 is a must-own (unless you elect for the f/1.4 of course!). The 50/1.8 is possibly the best value going, but if you're after buttery smooth bokeh, the 1.4 is a definite improvement. And there's that extra stop...
The Tamron 28-75 would be my second choice in that range, behind the Canon 24-70 2.8L. Only consider the Canon version if the high price does not bother you, however. I think you're unlikely to see a large difference except at f/2.8, and even then the difference will probably not be night and day. There is of course a difference in build, and AF speed, but again, unless this is worth the extra $$$ to you personally...
I would add that you might want to get a set of Kenko extension tubes to give you some real macro capability. A good investment if macro interests you.

My 2¢
02/21/2005 07:29:15 PM · #10
If you are new to SLRs, I would get the camera and 1 (my choice would be the Tamron 28-75) lens and possibly the 50mm f1.8 to start. Figure out the camera first before you start adding all the lenses into the equation. By all means, save the extra money for new lenses when you have a better idea what you want.

You also don't mention a flash unit, but for your people shots, even outdoors, a good flash will help you tremendously. The on-camera flash is extremely limitied in its usefulness.
02/21/2005 07:29:47 PM · #11
I have the first 3 lenses in Package A and they are all excellent. As far as the wide angle lens, the 18-55mm kit lens is actually really good. I'm not sure why it doesn't get much recognition. I would do some test shooting with that first and see how you like the results.

If you like them I would spend money on the Studio equipment and a very good tripod, IMO.
02/21/2005 08:38:01 PM · #12
I'd say get the canon EF 75-300 III. Some say it's soft at above 200, but I just think that if you don't push it to 300 all the time, it does just fine. I've shot with it on some really overcast, bad light days and it did fine for me...and mine's the cheapo, non IS, non USM and I have yet to get camera shake or anything. Just keep your shutterspeed at 1/(focal length * 1.6) and you'll be fine...especially with the XT and the low noise sensor -- I'd shoot at ISO 400 all day long and wouldn't be one bit afraid to hit 800 on occasion.

Here's a sample...shot at 270mm

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/148658.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/148658.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/21/2005 08:47:16 PM · #13
Originally posted by deapee:

I'd say get the canon EF 75-300 III...


With due respect, though, all of the lenses originally proposed by the OP are really far superior to any of the versions of the 75-300. That's not to say the 75-300 can't produce nice work, quite the opposite. I once had a Canon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 which is rated below average "by the numbers", but I managed some excellent shots out of that lens. It definitely did a very respectable job in decent light and if I didn't push it's envelope.
Once you've shot with really exceptional glass, though, you don't go back. You really learn how good your results can be. The 350D is going to be hard on lenses, 8Mpx on a 1.6 crop sensor means the lens must resolve more than 55 line pairs per millimeter. It takes a really good lens to take full advantage of that sensor. I advocate buying the best glass you can afford, you will not regret it.
02/21/2005 08:53:27 PM · #14
I hear you...but a budget of 2000 isn't that much considering what the price of the xt may be. I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to leave room for a 70-200 f4, teleconverter, and everything else.
02/21/2005 08:55:19 PM · #15
Hey - I really appreciate all of the feedback. Thank you. I think at least I know I'm on the right track.

Here is another option:

Plan C:
Canon 20D with kit lens
50mm 1.8 with extension tube
70-200 f4 with 1.4 extension

Each of these options including the camera body is around $2000-$2200.
What do you think???

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 20:56:24.
02/21/2005 08:56:59 PM · #16
Well, I seem to be horrible at making decisions, but I like the XT over the 20d...for the price, it doesn't really offer anything less.

what about xt with kit lens and the 70-200 f4 with 1.4...then next paycheck get the 50mm 1.8 and any other goodies you need?
02/21/2005 08:59:41 PM · #17
Plan C is going to run you about $2400, but it's a very good start. I think you will be very happy with all the lenses, especailly the 70-200mm f/4L. The detail is amazing. You could also use the lens as a billy club, if anyone tries to steal it....;-)

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 21:00:22.
02/21/2005 09:03:13 PM · #18
Originally posted by deapee:

I hear you...but a budget of 2000 isn't that much considering what the price of the xt may be. I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to leave room for a 70-200 f4, teleconverter, and everything else.


You are correct on the total outlay. The 350D body should be $900, making the total about $2500 USD per today's pricing on the lenses on B&H.
Substituting the cheapest version of the Canon 75-300 would save about $400, but the results are going to be comoletely underwhelming compared to the rest of the specified glass. Better, IMO, to get the 28-75, 70-200 + converter, and the 50/1.8, and put off the WA for a bit. One can always shoot/stitch panos.
02/21/2005 09:09:10 PM · #19
I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di and it is an awesome lens.

Also, I am going to be getting one of these after using a friend of mines a few times. Great reach and truly stunning sharp pics from this lens. Something to consider. Sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 EX OS The OS on this lens works really great.
02/21/2005 09:35:23 PM · #20
Originally posted by RickH:


Lens package A:
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4 Convertion lens
Wide Angle: Tamron 17-35, Sigma 12-24, 10-20, or 15-30???

Lens Package B:
Sigma 18-50 2.8 (In place of wide angle also)
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4 Conv lens



I see that in both packages you are looking at you have chosen the 50/1.8. If you need any 52mm filters for that lens I may have a few for sale.

' . substr('//i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/03/77/48/26_2.JPG', strrpos('//i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/03/77/48/26_2.JPG', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//i21.ebayimg.com/03/i/03/77/2f/16_2.JPG', strrpos('//i21.ebayimg.com/03/i/03/77/2f/16_2.JPG', '/') + 1) . '

Hate to get all mercinary here, but I'm on a mission.

.

02/21/2005 09:39:36 PM · #21
Originally posted by nsbca7:

...Hate to get all mercinary here, but I'm on a mission.

.


No harm in that! Would that by any chance be a 300/2.8 IS Mission?
02/21/2005 10:00:36 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

...Hate to get all mercinary here, but I'm on a mission.

.


No harm in that! Would that by any chance be a 300/2.8 IS Mission?


It's a thought. I haven't made up my mind yet. I just bought a 70-200/2.8 USM a few days ago and I don't know whether to go with the 1D Mark II and the 300/2.8 IS or to just get the 1Ds Mark II and use the 70/200 and crop. At almost 17Mp I don't see where that would be a problem. I already have a 600/4, so I'm good on long. Just wanted something intermediate for those in flight shots.

If I decide to get the 1Ds Mark II I don't think I want to put out all the extra money to get the 300 too.

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 22:01:42.
02/21/2005 10:16:41 PM · #23
hey nsbca...you seem to be selling a lot of canon equipment lately -- are you making a switch to nikon? And no, I'm not just talking about the filters -- they'd fit a nikon too I think...what gives?
02/21/2005 10:21:53 PM · #24
Originally posted by deapee:

hey nsbca...you seem to be selling a lot of canon equipment lately -- are you making a switch to nikon? And no, I'm not just talking about the filters -- they'd fit a nikon too I think...what gives?


I still have a fat reserve.
02/21/2005 10:38:36 PM · #25
Originally posted by coolhar:

The 17-85 is way over priced. I have seen it referred to as "a $100 lens with a $400 Image Stabilizer". And it won't go with you if you upgrade to a full-frame size Canon DSLR in the future.

The Tamron 28-75 will serve you better for less money. It's very sharp.


I disagree there, about the lens quality at least, although I admit the 17-85 could be cheaper.

Example with the lens (he says shamelessly self-plugging):

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10170/thumb/145014.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10170/thumb/145014.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I've had mine for 6 months now and absolutely love it. I use it more than any other lens I have, although that is largely a result of the zoom range.

If I were to go on vacation and wanted to not take a bag of lenses this is undoubtedly the lens I'd take. As for quality, I can't fault it, although I am doubtless not as picky as many are as I an not an expert by a very long way indeed.

I guess I can sum up how I feel about the lens in the fact that if I smashed it I would replace it with exactly the same item, well, I mean replace it with an unsmashed version at least ;)

I like that it is an EFs lens, although I agree that it is not good that it then limits which bodies you can use it on (without radical warranty ruining surgery on the lens).

I Also have a Tamron 17-something (35 I think) and haven't even connected it to the camera since I got the 17-85.

My problem with my lens lineup is that I have a gap between the 17-85 and my 100-400, but one day I hope to close that with the 70-200 which is a sensational lens I hear. The 400mm is wonderful when needed, but a lot of the time I don't need that much reach.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 04:11:58 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 04:11:58 AM EST.