| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2006 03:17:23 AM · #1 |
I have been looking at the hardware threads, checking photos and lenses of those who have the same camera as I own, and otherwise trying to figure out what lens I should buy next. I own a Canon 20D with the kit lens and a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. Next week I will be able to spring for another lens for up to $600-700 (although I would be happy to spend less). I don't have a predetermined type of photography in mind (portraits, landscapes, macro, etc.) as I am experimenting with alot of images and I am still learning.
What I am trying to avoid is buying a lens and deciding after I own it that I should have bought something different. If you owned the couple of lenses that I own, would you spend $$ upgrading the kit lens to something with better glass, or would you go in another direction? Do you have a favorite lens that would be compatible with the two I already own without simply duplicating what my lenses will do? This may be the last lens I buy for a while, so I'd like to make it count.
Thanks for your help. All ideas are appreciated. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:32:55 AM · #2 |
| somebody is going to say the tamron 28-75 2.8 at some point so it might as well be the first suggestion. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:41:45 AM · #3 |
oh and somebody else is gonna say get the 50mm 1.8... i say get the 50 1.4 altho the 1.8 has served me well as of yet, i'd rather have the 1.4.
the 85mm 1.8 is great too. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:53:42 AM · #4 |
| If you plan on shooting awesome macros, you'll need the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro....but don't try getting Rikki to sell you his (I already did) |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:55:04 AM · #5 |
| oh, and the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L is sweet too, and within your budget |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 04:24:43 AM · #6 |
| note that the tamron 28-75 does 1:2 macro shooting... not as good as the macro lens which does 1:1 of course, but it's suprisingly good at closeups. I really enjoy the lens. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 04:48:33 AM · #7 |
| I would like to suggest 17-40 f/4L. A superb lens, my standard lens. The 70-200 f/4L is also a superb lens as is the 50 f/1.4. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 05:58:45 AM · #8 |
I'm in a similar situation, and will most likely be going for the wide angle 10-22, or the EF-S 60 mm macro.
I'd like to get the 70-300 DO, but it's a tad expensive. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 07:09:00 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Ekenborg:
I would like to suggest 17-40 f/4L. A superb lens, my standard lens. The 70-200 f/4L |
I would agree with both of these. I love both of mine. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 07:18:12 AM · #10 |
| Are you satisfied with the results you're getting from the 70-300? If that's the case then I would suggest upgrading the kit lens. Others have mentioned the Canon 17-40/f4 and I agree, it's a sweet lens. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 07:36:34 AM · #11 |
| If you want to go inexpensive and get a good walk-around lens, I'd try the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. It's not L glass, but it still takes sweet pictures. You can get it on line for less than $250 and still have leftovers for more toys. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 09:05:57 AM · #12 |
What's mising?
You have 18-50 and 70-300, right?
I see two big gaps - no macro and no low light lens. The problem is, once you get one or the other you get to experience 'good glass' and will be disappointed with what you have now. So I have an idea for you.
You could fill the missing holes with a macro -
canon 60 macro, sigma 70 macro(new lens), canon (or sigma or tamron )100 2.8 macro.
all fast, good glass and well within your budget. Good for low light, portraits and of course, macro.
You could upgrade your kit lens. The canon 17-40 is fine, but IMO the tamron 17-50 2.8 or sigma 18-50 2.8 are better - more range, one stap faster and only 2/3 the price, and the sigma is optically as good (don't know about the tamron, i've not researched it).
You could....get the sigma 70-200 2.8 now, sell your 70-300 to pay the difference, and then perhaps get a tamron 1.4x TC if you feel you need that 100mm difference (i don't think you will)
The canon 70-200 f4 is a very nice lens too and withing your budget. Once you have used a 70-200 2.8 lens though (camaro vs corvette - a camaro is fine, till you drive a corvette and then the camaro is just, well, too slow)
So if it was me....
Sell the kit lens and 70-300. add in your cash and see if you can do:
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX (409 at b&h)
canon 70-200 f4 (585 at b&h)
the sigma 70-200 2.8 is 839 (the new macro one is 889)
You upgrade all your glass this way and while you get no new capability directly, you said you're fine with what you have - so it's time to move up to good glass my friend. You have a 20D, not a rebel, so you're gonna notice the differrence.
Message edited by author 2006-07-29 09:10:43.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2006 09:09:50 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:
If you want to go inexpensive and get a good walk-around lens, I'd try the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. It's not L glass, but it still takes sweet pictures. You can get it on line for less than $250 and still have leftovers for more toys. |
If you're gong to think on the one lens bit, check out the Tamron 24-135 SP 3.5-5.6 Wider, longer and gets better reviews and does macro too. lacks the USM though.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2006 09:15:47 AM · #14 |
For what it is worth...I spent a lot of time contemplating my upgrades. In the end I only got 2 lenses...
Tamron 28-75 and Canon 17-40L...both are excellent...
the 17-40 is my fav. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 11:28:27 AM · #15 |
| Thanks to everyone who commented. You've given me some good ideas and some good selections to check out. Looks like I will be busy this week following up on your ideas. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 01:21:28 PM · #16 |
For me, the real hole in your arsenal is the lack of true WA capability. The Canon 10-22mm would be a life-changing experience; I don't know anyone who's mounted it (or its third-party equivalent) who hasn't marveled at how its changed their entire way of "seeing".
Also, for my money at least, the Canon 60mm macro is a better choice than the 100mm macro; it's much lighter and more compact, it's every bit as sharp, and in your case it actually fits in the gap between your existing lenses.
Robt.
|
|
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 07:48:35 PM EDT.
