| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2005 09:14:23 PM · #1 |
Hi, I have approximately a $500 lens budget. I will get more sooner than later as well. But for now that's it. I will be using a Canon 350 so I will probably get the kit (unless talked out of it).
Primarily, I will be doing architectural and landscape/nature. I have an interest in macro as well, but that may have to wait. I was thinking something wide (unsure how the 18-55 kit will do, may need wider?). Telephoto I guess I can get later. Zooms seem to be the best way for me to go as well.
What would you all recommend? Help a guy out here. I am open to all suggestions. I tried to give all pertinant info, but feel free to ask more if needed. Thanks in advance for the great suggestions. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:20:16 PM · #2 |
| Tadpole - I just got the Canon 17-40L lens and I wish now I had not gotten the kit lens and used that $100 towards it. The difference in quality is really noticeable and I've only used it for a week. Haven't used it for landscapes yet, but I like the length and think it will be my primary lens for landscapes. B&H has it for $679 which I know is over your budgets, but if you take the $100 off for the kit lens it brings it down to $579, just a little over. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:42:35 PM · #3 |
The Canon 17-85mm IS lens is $599 at B&H. If you forego the redundant kit lens, that gives you a little extra width for landscapes and architecture plus a LOT more reach and image stabilization for low light situations (like interiors). It won't be quite as sharp as the 17-40, but there are many times (jncluding a photo shoot I did this morning) where 40mm is frustratingly short at the long end.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 22:15:59. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:45:58 PM · #4 |
| Can't really tell which to get, just not the kit lens. Its a piece of crap. I work at wolf camera and i have had numerous people have problems with them. Good luck. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:06:46 PM · #5 |
| The 50mm Canon 1.8 is the best deal around... you should look into it |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:12:56 PM · #6 |
| Canon 100mm USB 2.8 macro, best money I've ever spent. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:14:37 PM · #7 |
I agree but it's a lot of money. If I could only have one lens it would be a toss up between the 100 2.8 and my 100-400.
Originally posted by gibun:
Canon 100mm USB 2.8 macro, best money I've ever spent. |
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:15:33 PM · #8 |
This Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 MACRO XR Di LD-IF lens sounds like it might fit the bill and can be currently purchased at BUYDIG for $304.00 (after rebate). Sharp, reasonably priced, great warranty, and best of all it's a 2.8 lens. (I'm going to be pairing it up with the 20D).
You may want to peruse an earlier thread which inquired and discussed opinions on this lens.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:17:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
This Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 MACRO XR Di LD-IF lens sounds like it might fit the bill... |
That's my favorite lens, but probably not wide enough for your needs. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:36:12 PM · #10 |
the new sigma 180-125 might be a good thought...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:42:26 PM · #11 |
Howdy :)
I'm also wondering which extra lens to get for the 20D. I did get the kit lens but would like something with more reach and better quality. And already have the 100mm f2.8 macro and like it but still need an all around zoom.
I've narrowed it down between these :
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC
Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4L USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens
Canon EF-S 17mm - 85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR DI
The Tamron may not be wide enough for the 20D or 350D. And the 17-40mm is a little short reached for a general zoom and not too fast for indoor shots without a flash but I read it's a very good lens.
I'm really wondering how good the Sigma is compared to Canon's 17-85.
I read both Sigma and Tamron have a new 18-200mm. There haven't been any reviews on either yet, having such a large range is great but is it at the expense of image quality?
Message edited by author 2005-04-01 00:09:44. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:04:06 PM · #12 |
There are better lenses than the kit lens, but for hte money it is hard to get 18mm...
Tokina makes a 12-24 for $500. If you wanna go wide with a 350 you gotta go WIDE (the canon 10-22 is $800, the sigma 12-24 is $670). One of thse is on my 'long list'...
I skipped the kit lens and went with a $70 Tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6. Rates decent and for the money! The kit lens with the camera is $100, but can be found on ebay for $70 if you want one (sorta on my list too...)
So you could go tokina and tamron and be good for a while, and when money permits replace the 28-80 with a faster one or a 28-105 or an IS lens. The IS lenses get talked up a lot, but are heavy.
The ultra long range zooms (18-200, 28-300, etc) generally rate poorly, optically speaking, particularly at the extreme ends.
if architecture is important, then you might want to focus on a lens' barrle/pincushion distortion issues...
This site allows you to compare most every lens on multiple issues and rank them by overall rating. Very informative.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:15:39 PM · #13 |
Rather than the kit lens, if you want an inexpensive general purpose lens that doesn't act "inexpensive", I suggest the Sigma 18-125, which has more reach than most of the general purpose zooms cited, and it's my best and most useful lens ($300). And I have the kit (which I don't use), the 70-200/F4L, and the 10-22 EF-S Canon. Although the 70-200 produces lovely photos, it's not very useful, it's bulky, and yet doesn't have quite enough reach.
The Sigma is really sharp, but it doesn't have USM, which is nice in my other Canon lenses, and it is F3.5 at wide angle, and F5.6 at 125mm. If you are shooting a lot indoors, I would go for the Canon 17-85. The IS might help you use a higher F stop, which will give you more DOF when you need it. I've become a big fan of IS since getting my Canon S1--IS really works. (I assume it works as well or better on an SLR!)
I forgot to mention that the new version of the Sigma is out, and it's 18-200mm. If it's as sharp as the 18-125, it would be a great lens.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 23:16:34. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:52:16 PM · #14 |
Wow, thanks guys, keep it up! I knew I could count on many differing opinions, which to me is great.
Yes, architecture is going to play an important role in my future photography, so I don't want to skimp on the wide glass. And as has been said before, with the 1.6x mag, you need to go REALLY wide.
I will look into all the supplied links and lenses offered up here. I hope I remember to let you all know of my decision. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:07:41 PM EDT.
