Which lens would you buy if you have the money for it?

[drew_viii]

Hi, i just want to know if which lens would canon users pick among these? im reselling my 17-85mm IS USM, and been wondering which lens should i get to replace this lens, thank you...

[ktixx]

Hi, i just want to know if which lens would canon users pick among these? im reselling my 17-85mm IS USM, and been wondering which lens should i get to replace this lens, thank you...
Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 - Definitely
or - Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS (not sure how this one actually is (not out yet) but it seems like it will be a nice lens)

[drew_viii]

hahhaa, i havent post my poll yet here comes a post hehe... oh well, i didnt put any L lens in it the poll, its obvious everybody would go for the L ones. hehehe... that lens sounds nice, and nice focal length, better than 17-40 obviously... again... L lens is too much for me, need some basic walk around lens that can amaze me and better than the 17-85mm, thanks :)

[drew_viii]

and is my poll stupid or what? just wondering... :confused:

[aparmley]

In that list, even though I own the 28-105, I say get the Tamron. I was kinda scared about getting a dud and it also not sending proper distance info back to the body when using a flash so I steered away from it, but I think thats the lens I should have first purchased when I got my camera. . . so I voted for it. . .

[cdifoto]

Wierd list.

I vote Tamron if only for its constant, fast for a zoom, max aperture.

[DonSchap]

that I just bought the Tamron SP AF28~75 f/2.8 XR Di LD two long hours ago, it was a "no-brainer." LOL

BTW, the 28~75mm f/2.8 is an "L" lens

Tomorrow... we go hunting. Yeah! :D

[Rhys]

I have the Tamron 28-75. If I were buying again, I'd go for the 24-70 or the 28-135 (IS) Canons instead. In fact, I'd go for:

Tokina 12-24, Canon 28-135 IS, Tamron 100-400.

But if I had the Canon 17-85 then I'd stick with that and get something like a 70-200 Sigma to complete my range.

[DonSchap]

Rhys, why was your experience with the SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 a disappointment. :confused:

I'm having some difficulty understanding the reasoning behind your desire to switchover to the lesser light EF 28~135mm f/3.5-5.6. Seems like you'd lose some serious DOF control this way. Cost-wise, it's almost a draw... light wise.. not even close.

Thanks

[ReF]

as a guy who has owned the tamron, shot thousands of pics with it, and then sold it because of lousy AF, i can't recommend it. BTW my copy was sharp as h*ll but like i used to say, what good is great optics if the focus is off (blurs) or the moment passes you by while the AF is slowly trying to do it's thing. when you do get a good shot with it, it's pretty nice though. BTW, non of the ppl who have voted for the tammy so far have actually used it right? parm, cdi, the tammy's like an f2.8 shitty-fitty with more range. well, from what i've seen, sharper than a 50mm f1.8 mk II. why do i sound so crabby in writing? i'm a happy guy, :) see?

28-135, nice range, IS useful, pretty nice IQ at f8 or above. below that it's soft, really soft. take any one of your lenses and keep it at f8 or above for a day or two - you'll quickly see that it's only for use outdoors or with bounce flash at a high setting. no good for shots with selective focus/blurry backgrounds either. kept this one for about 5 months.

17-85 even softer than the 28-135, constrast was awful, IS not really useful in this range. having to stop down loads to get decent sharpness means not really being able to use the IS at short focal lengths in low light like one would think of using a sharp 17-55 f2.8 IS. used it for a week (because it was my only lens) then returned it. took some test shots against the 28-135 and 17-40 and it was sad. it really should cost a less.

28-105 alright, i've never actually used this one, but it's pretty sharp wide open from what i've seen and if it focuses as well as any canon USM lens should, it would be quite a performer. larger aperture than the 28-135/17-85 and costs next to nothing.

have you seen this thread? http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18469&page=4

[cdifoto]

Yeah I admit I never used it. If it can't focus for snot when it counts, then scratch it. Save some cash. Go for the 28-105.

[Vich]

Yes, wierd poll. You say "if you have the money..." implies "money no object" in which case I'd do the Canon 24-70L f2.8 for mid-range zoom and 70-200 f2.8 for tele zoom. For me; my next purchase will probably be the 35 f1.2L prime - talk about WOW!

However; I own the Tamron and have more satisfaction about that purchase than any other lens I've bought (50 f1.8, 18-55 kit, 50 f1.4, 24-105L, 135L). I think once I get the focusing fixed on my 50 f1.4 it'll become the favorite. The 135L was just a wierd length for me but otherwise amazing - sold it for the funds. The $1200 24-105 seems to have slight distortion with IS on (my imagination?) so I also need to get it looked at (but IS off its great albiet still only f4). EDIT: the 24-105 bokeh stinks too. I hate any shot with those awful little shiny dots. So ex those shots off the "great" list. They're rare though.

For sharpness and CA, the Tamron offers nearly identical results as the Canon 50 f1.8 prime when the 50 isn't mis-firing (that happens too often). I think the Tamron's results have an extra undefinable quality but the 50 is no slouch (when it's behaving).

EDIT: Saw Ref's comments on Tamron focusing. I used to get only about 20% in focus and was unhappy. Then I started being very careful about holding still and pre-focusing every shot and it went up to about 80% in focus (in good lighting). The USM on my 24-105 has very very good focus and almost never misses. However; I have to PS the shots to add PUNCH - everything seems to have a faint white film over it. I'll go for 80% focus and superior image any day.

Note: shooting at f2.8 severely hampers the in-focus percentage. I also stopped shooting f2.8 when I didn't need it and that contributed to the 80% in-focus. Maybe combining f2.8 with soso focusing isn't the best. That's why I suggest the 24-70L f2.8 USM (although, the $1200 is beyond budget).

Oh, I forgot to mention. The 28-75 has very average bokeh (blur quality). That's a big deal when you start actually utilizing the wider apertures. Not bad, just not pleasing either. The 24-105 has awful bokeh (little shiny dots). The 50 f1.8 really bad. The other primes are excellent and the 24-70L is quite nice (albiet not prime level).
END EDIT

I've heard the 28-105 is a good bet and the test results prove that out, but I believe the Tamron offers just a little more punch.

For $300 new and 6 year warranty, and offering L-like punch, the Tamron just seems like a no-brainer.

BTW: If you JUST got the 17-85 IS yesterday, you may be in for a full refund. Check out the return policies.

[ReF]

Yes, wierd poll. You say "if you have the money..." implies "money no object" in which case I'd do the Canon 24-70L f2.8 for mid-range zoom and 70-200 f2.8 for tele zoom. For me; my next purchase will probably be the 35 f1.2L prime - talk about WOW!

However; I own the Tamron and have more satisfaction about that purchase than any other lens I've bought (50 f1.8, 18-55 kit, 50 f1.4, 24-105L, 135L). I think once I get the focusing fixed on my 50 f1.4 it'll become the favorite. The 135L was just a wierd length for me but otherwise amazing - sold it for the funds. The $1200 24-105 seems to have slight distortion with IS on (my imagination?) so I also need to get it looked at (but IS off its great albiet still only f4).

The Tamron offers nearly identical results as the Canon 50 f1.8 prime when the 50 isn't mis-firing (that happens too often). I think the Tamron's results have an extra undefinable quality but the 50 is no slouch (when it's behaving).

EDIT: Saw Ref's comments on focusing. I used to get only about 20% in focus and was unhappy. Then I started being very careful about pre-focusing every shot and it went up to about 80% in focus (in good lighting). The USM on my 24-105 has very very good focus and almost never misses. However; I have to PS the shots to add PUNCH - everything seems to have a faint white film over it. I'll go for 80% focus and 100% glass any day.

Note: shooting at f2.8 severely hampers the in-focus percentage. I also stopped shooting f2.8 when I didn't need it and that contributed to the 80% in-focus. Maybe combining f2.8 with soso focusing isn't the best. That's why I suggest the 24-70L f2.8 USM (although, the $1200 is beyond budget).

Oh, I forgot to mention. The 28-75 has very average bogeh (blur quality). That's a big deal when you start actually utilizing the wider apertures. Not bad, just not pleasing either. The 24-105 has awful bogeh (little shiny dots). The 50 f1.8 really bad. The other primes are excellent and the 24-70L is quite nice (albiet not prime level).
END EDIT

I've heard the 28-105 is a good bet and the test results prove that out, but I believe the Tamron offers just a little more punch.

For $300 new and 6 year warranty, and offering L-like punch, the Tamron just seems like a no-brainer.

BTW: If you JUST got the 17-85 IS yesterday, you may be in for a full refund. Check out the return policies.

hey vich, don't see you around here enough

does your 50mm f1.4 have problems too? mine is back focusing by about 1/2-3/4 inch. pretty dissapointing

tamron? yeah, sharpness and contrast were amazing. great for landscapes and such. it never worked for me when trying to shoot anything that moves, even somewhat slowly. for some reason when i switched from 300d to XT, i couldn't even get it to produce focused images at f5, even when used with the AF beam from the external flash :confused: my 50mm f1.8 mk I doesn't work with the XT either :confused: :confused:
hey, you're right about the bokeh of the tamy - i never saw anything wrong with it, but now that i think about it, the bokeh never wowed me either. and yeah, the 50mm f1.8's bokeh is an eye sore LOL

[drew_viii]

can i get a full refund? i bought it as a kit, so im wondering if i can do that... anyways... seems liks the tamron is on the winning side... i know its a no brainer question to put tamron in hehe but wait? did somebody just said tamron is not good for moving objects? im sorry,was kinda late here and pretty tired so dont know if im reading the right thing... if tamron couldnt get a descent slow moving objects, i might reconsider it... cuz i want a lens that is like the 17-85mm "versatility" (is this the right word?) good lens to eqquiped your camera with all the time... im slightly leaning on to 28-105... to think about its price which i could get another lens if i pick this one... while tamron, said to be have good contrast, sharper image and etc.. i really need to bang my head on the wall on which lens to keep... keep coming for the suggestions guys, really love to read all your suggestions and comments, and thanks by the way :)

[drew_viii]

i know its a stupid poll vich, what i meant about if you have the money, means i dont want to hear comments regarding the price about these 3 lenses... thats why i didnt put the L series lens.. cuz obviously everyone would go for the L series, well somehow this poll has obvious answers as well, but still i want to know the results of it :) my curiosity really makes me look stupid in this forum.. but pardon me hehe :D

[Vich]

hey vich, don't see you around here enough
Thanks. Family, work, ... such distractions to this wonderful chit-chat corner. :)


does your 50mm f1.4 have problems too? mine is back focusing by about 1/2-3/4 inch. pretty dissapointing
Yeah, about the same. Very consistant. But the object behind the POF comes out looking very nice so I can't wait to drop by Canon and get it fixed!


tamron? yeah, sharpness and contrast were amazing. great for landscapes and such. it never worked for me when trying to shoot anything that moves, even somewhat slowly.
A USM it is not! I got used to the limitations and managed to get quite a few in-motion kid shots. When they ran towards the lens it was impossible so I simply stopped trying, but predictable shots worked.
for some reason when i switched from 300d to XT, i couldn't even get it to produce focused images at f5, even when used with the AF beam from the external flash :confused: my 50mm f1.8 mk I doesn't work with the XT either :confused: :confused:
Hmmm. Maybe the 20D focusing makes a difference on this lens. Also; I've heard that some Tamrons require an upgrade to work properly on the Canons. Appearently mine was post-upgrade. ... or was that Sigma. Byebye memory.

hey, you're right about the bokeh of the tamy - i never saw anything wrong with it, but now that i think about it, the bokeh never wowed me either. and yeah, the 50mm f1.8's bokeh is an eye sore LOL

Here's a bokeh one from the Tamron. Not AMAZING but not a flop either. Sort of "jigsaw like", but not dramatic enough to throw the picture off entirely. It was still a keeper (albiet requiring some glare removal to bring out the colors and make it less flat, this is the original). The 50mm f1.4 prime would have been nice and creamy and in a whole different class.
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/35418495-M.jpg

This is one of those shots where the lens has turned an otherwise great shot into an amaturish yet respectable attempt, IMHO (OK, bring on the critisisms about composition mistakes, I still really like it, chopped elbows and all). I think that's what the OP is looking for. He wants a lens that won't degrade his stellar shots, thereby making it a more rewarding hobby and upping his potential several notches. Aren't we all?

[ReF]

[QUOTE=drew_viii]can i get a full refund? i bought it as a kit, so im wondering if i can do that... anyways... seems liks the tamron is on the winning side... i know its a no brainer question to put tamron in hehe but wait? did somebody just said tamron is not good for moving objects? im sorry,was kinda late here and pretty tired so dont know if im reading the right thing... if tamron couldnt get a descent slow moving objectsQUOTE]

yeah, worn out story but i one time i packed tamy in the bag for low light shooting, even though i didn't need that particular range. it wouldn't focus at all even though more light was hitting the AF sensors with it's f2.8 aperture than the f4 on the 17-40. the 17-40 locked focus quickly, consistently, and accurately. the difference between quick focusing and not focussing at all is a pretty huge difference if you ask me. after than i decided to sell it. i did get some good shots with the tamy at other times but more misses than hits.

[ReF]

Hmmm. Maybe the 20D focusing makes a difference on this lens. Also; I've heard that some Tamrons require an upgrade to work properly on the Canons. Appearently mine was post-upgrade.[/IMG]

i think you're right. the XT's focusing isn't all that great. out of date tamy electronics? maybe, but i wouldn't know. things were in focus if i prefocused several times and the subject was still. i don't know what the heck was happening when i couldn't get anything in focus at f5 on the XT.

hey that picture is pretty nice. lacking in contrast and bokeh could stand to be "creamier" but that's not your fault.

well, i'm out

[Vich]

i know its a stupid poll vich, what i meant about if you have the money, means i dont want to hear comments regarding the price about these 3 lenses... thats why i didnt put the L series lens.. cuz obviously everyone would go for the L series, well somehow this poll has obvious answers as well, but still i want to know the results of it :) my curiosity really makes me look stupid in this forum.. but pardon me hehe :D
Actually its a very sensible poll put that way. You have narrowed it down to 4 directions and wanted opinion.

In thinking more; I'm leaning more with Ref's comments. If you could live with the range on the 17-40L you would sure have a WOW lens on your hands. For landscape shooting, it would suit you better anyhow. Just beware going below 24mm on portriats due to perspective distortion. Its not a lens shortcoming, just physics. For me, portriats work better over the 50mm range.

Maybe plan to get a 70-200 f4 later for zoo trips and the like. A 40mm - 70mm gap doesn't seem too unlivable.

I've found that a nice Tamrac shoulder bag with the lens pouch add-on makes carrying 2 lenses very workable even on casual outings.

[DonSchap]

I am planning on doing a quasi-extensive "town shoot", tomorrow, with the SP AF28~75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro.

I plan on snapping cars, trains, planes... a few folks as they pass... some architecture... greenery... you know, just a hundred or so shots... different lighting and what-not... to see where this baby "stalls out" when mounted on the EOS 20D.

I'm going to assume it will respond in like fashion when mounted to the EOS-3... but, that will be much later. Although with the EOS-3's eye controlled focus*... that may be a whole 'nudder story.

Anyway... it's just a lot cheaper to experiment digitally. In that way, I get instant feedback to correct for problems or to even realize I'm having any.

* High-Performance Eye Controlled Focus. Designed to work in conjunction with the 45-Point Area AF, Canon's new Eye Controlled Focus system offers much more intuitive operation and improved, real-time response. The user merely has to look at the subject to select the appropriate focusing point. Moreover, it works for both horizontal and vertical shots.

[Vich]

Regarding return of Kit lens. Just return the whole package and buy a body only. No big deal, one of your advantages to getting it new.

[coldrain]

Well you know my opinion already. your budget is limitted, you are getting a 50mm f1.8. So, you do not need a f2.8 for low light stuff, and the Tamron has trouble focussing in low light (on EOS 350D anyway) according to most posters. You say you do land/city scapes, and portrait kind of photos. So, 28-75 is not going to give you a very wide view, which often is nice to have in cities (and landscapes).
That is why I would go for a Tokina 12-24mm f4 wide angle zoom (it is practically distortionless above 15mm or so, great contrast, build quality), it is around 420 euros (and a bit above 400$). And then the Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. It has good sharpness and colour for the low price. It focusses silently (which you cant say of the Tamron), quickly and accurately. No distracted people from the zzz..zzzz...zzzzz of the AF motor.

If you think for some reason now you DON"T want to do landscape/cityscape stuff, then disregard my post. But if you do, 28mm is not getting you very wide (try it for yourself with the 17-85 to see the difference between what you get in 17 and 28mm).
The Tamron 28-75 is a nice lens, very sharp (if you have a good copy), but I do not think it is ideal for you and your budget.

And as someone else said, go back to the shop and return it because you are not satisfied (if indeed you are not satisfied with the 17-85). Not hard to not be satisfied, the contrast that is not there (blue like haze on pics...), the distortion at 17mm is not what you expected, the CA and blurry edges).
Get a lens-less body instead. You are in britain and you are allowed to return things when they are disappointing, I am sure.

[drew_viii]

alrighty :) i think i know what im gonna get... im still thinking if i should go back to the shop or not, they are pretty nice people and they really give me a very very reasonable price for the camera.... including everything, im jsut afraid if i return it, they will give me a not! reasonable price for the body only... you know how people do business, if you buy more stuffs, they give you more discounts, so why dont i just sell it on ebay? and ive been shooting almost 1000 shots with my 30D haha... is it fast for 1 week use?

here is the deal what happened in the shop, they gave me a price of 950 pounds with 18-55mm including memory card (2gb, 100X), and a descent camera bag(still want to buy lowepro, by the way, does any1 know a backback bag that can hold tripods? i know lowepro has one but kinda pricey though) then i ask for the 17-85mm IS USM, he gave me a 1225 punds, thats 275 pounds difference, if i could resell my lens more than that, then isnt better? i heard that i could sell it for more than 300 pounds :) so im trying to auction it on ebay :) hehe

[Rhys]

Rhys, why was your experience with the SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 a disappointment. :confused:

I'm having some difficulty understanding the reasoning behind your desire to switchover to the lesser light EF 28~135mm f/3.5-5.6. Seems like you'd lose some serious DOF control this way. Cost-wise, it's almost a draw... light wise.. not even close.

Thanks

Ah... My 28-75 f2.8 is a very good lens indeed. My problem is not with the lens itself but the range of the lens. I have a series of lenses:
18-55
17-35
28-75
70-300
50

I find that series (ignoring the obvious kit lens) is not quite wide enough on the wide end, a bit repetative (17-35 and 28-75 cover much of the same ground) and the long lens is just a shade too long, given a 1.6 crop.

Given also that I mostly shoot landscapes and landscape features, I lean more toward the wide-angle end. Also, I'd like to reduce the quantity of kit that I need.

Hence, I feel something like this would be more beneficial...
12-24, 24-105/28-135, 100-300/400.

Having said that, there's always the lure of primes and I've always been partial to primes....

[DonSchap]

My goal, today, is to do a "downtown" shoot. Historically, Des Plaines has been changing in the past year, incorporating rather tall condominiums on nearly every block around the METRA train tracks, as a way to get people out of the city of Chicago and living in the collar suburbs. It is my hope to be able to show this changing world with my cascade of shots, using just the SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or candid lens, a Cokin linear polarizer, the 20D and my monopod.

I'm not quite sure what I will wind up with... but that internal mirror will be a flappin' away. I just might get lucky and get that shot that tells all. Admittedly, I've been watching this happen over the past year or two, documenting it in one day... truly a challenge.

The temperature is 74 degrees and it's partly sunny. Perhaps not the biggest challenge for the 28-75mm f/2.8, but then again, you never know. :rolleyes: Here's to hopin'.

[cdifoto]

My goal, today, is to do a "downtown" shoot. Historically, Des Plaines has been changing in the past year, incorporating rather tall condominiums on nearly every block around the METRA train tracks, as a way to get people out of the city of Chicago and living in the collar suburbs. It is my hope to be able to show this changing world with my cascade of shots, using just the SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or candid lens, a Cokin linear polarizer, the 20D and my monopod.

I'm not quite sure what I will wind up with... but that internal mirror will be a flappin' away. I just might get lucky and get that shot that tells all. Admittedly, I've been watching this happen over the past year or two, documenting it in one day... truly a challenge.

The temperature is 74 degrees and it's partly sunny. Perhaps not the biggest challenge for the 28-75mm f/2.8, but then again, you never know. :rolleyes: Here's to hopin'.


Try a wedding with it. Any properly calibrated lens/camera combo should be fine in broad daylight and the AF motor whirr certainly wouldn't bother anyone on the street...including yourself.

[Vich]

The Tamron motor isn't noticably loud (like the Sigmas). Its not instant and starts failing (low-light) where the USM's still work fine. However; I've shot hundreds of shots at a nighttime reception with it and nearly all were sharp. When they dimmed the lights for the dancing is where it started failing.

However; I'm with Coldrain on getting something wider if the OP does mostly architecture and landscape. I was sort of thinking of this as a supplement to other lenses since it covers the walk-around range well. You know, rather than trying to fit wide, mid, and short-tele all in 1 package while expecting to be wowed.

Getting only a very wide + a 50 f1.8 would seem odd though. I'd say fill the normal range first, then add the ultra-wide later - unless the ultra-wide style is important (like he's an architect or shooting landscapes for brochures or such).

[drew_viii]

oh oh oh... i ve just found ou the tamron has won some awards about its optical quality, looks nice but again... i need something a normal zoom lens, like what Vich said :) so guess the 28-105 is enough :) the wide range, think ill get the canon 10-22mm, since i have a voucher for cashback, which i can use it well, does any1 here used the voucher already? i think this two combi lens would be perfect, i like the tokina 12-24 as well, but i somehow dont wanna waste my voucher, calculating it, i can get canon 10-22 in cheaper price compare to tokina's price if i use the voucher, so guess a canon 10-22 + a canon 28-105mm is good replacement for my 17-85mm right? :) then maybe after ill invest on L series or the tamron one :)

[coldrain]

The 10-22 EF-S is a good lens, yes. It is to the 1.6x crop DSLRs what the 17-40 f4 L is to full frame cameras.

[D70FAN]

Just a note on the Tokina 12-24:

Beware of heavy CA. The only downside (correctable in PP) to a kickass lens.

Here is the simple plan: Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

... and a Bigma to let the child come out and play.;)

[coldrain]

Just a note on the Tokina 12-24:

Beware of heavy CA. The only downside (correctable in PP) to a kickass lens.

Here is the simple plan: Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

... and a Bigma to let the child come out and play.;)
Or get a Canon... then you can trade the heavy 70-200 f2.8 for a lean mean 70-200 f4 L ;)

[Rhys]

Just a note on the Tokina 12-24:

Beware of heavy CA. The only downside (correctable in PP) to a kickass lens.

Here is the simple plan: Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

... and a Bigma to let the child come out and play.;)

There are pros and cons to fast lenses. The pros are better overall optical quality, shallower DOF and the ability to shoot at fast apertures.

The cons are cost and size. For a landscape photographer such as myself, f2.8 is a little bit of overkill. Having said that, I do like to shoot handheld. Something with IS but f4 (to keep weight down) seems a better bargain.

[drew_viii]

Just a note on the Tokina 12-24:

Beware of heavy CA. The only downside (correctable in PP) to a kickass lens.

Here is the simple plan: Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

... and a Bigma to let the child come out and play.;)

that looks like a nice combination.... how bout the price range then? and the picture quality of the sigma 24-70?

[Vich]

that looks like a nice combination.... how bout the price range then? and the picture quality of the sigma 24-70?
The Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 compete head-to-head. The Tamron typically squeaks out ahead in most debates I've witnessed, but that extra 4mm on the low end is a far site nicer than 5mm on the high end. Both are very respectable choices, while neither supplant the Canon 24-70L due to focus, bokeh, and build quality advantages.

For the long end, I would definately not overlook the Canon 70-200 f4.0. It is amazing. Unless you have a need for f2.8, my pick would be for the Canon. It may be a taste thing - I've never had a high-end Sigma and the cheapos are definately just that.

[DonSchap]

I stuck it out, with the Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO and did the walk.

Architectural 1/100sec. f/5 @ 28mm
11390
Crop
11391
Sign 1/100 sec. f/4 @ 40mm
11392
Crop
11393
Lakeside 1/60 sec. f/18 @ 40mm
11395
Crop
11394
The Train 1/320 sec. f/5 @ 75mm
11396
Crop
11397
People 1/200 sec. f/4 @ 75mm
11399
Crop
11400

I tracked that train all the way in... focus was awesome all the way. No stutter, just the shot.. in focus! I don't know about you, but I just sold myself this lens... again! Incredible!

IMO: Dump the Canon 17-85mm "kit lens", there is just no way it'll even come close to this kind of clarity, light response and those aperture settings. All I can say is... it was worth the jaunt and way worth the price... just to see this.

As much as I like the Tamron AF18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 XR Di II LD... from what I have witnessed, it just can't duplicate these shots. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any "bokeh issues" in the glare off the trainman's hat insignia. This is just awesome light response.

Buy it and make it so... ;) This debate is over, as far as I am concerned.

[coldrain]

It is quite sharp... but the colour is just not there.... Not "L" by a mile...

[D70FAN]

The Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 compete head-to-head. The Tamron typically squeaks out ahead in most debates I've witnessed, but that extra 4mm on the low end is a far site nicer than 5mm on the high end. Both are very respectable choices, while neither supplant the Canon 24-70L due to focus, bokeh, and build quality advantages.

For the long end, I would definately not overlook the Canon 70-200 f4.0. It is amazing. Unless you have a need for f2.8, my pick would be for the Canon. It may be a taste thing - I've never had a high-end Sigma and the cheapos are definately just that.

Are you speaking from experience or hear-say? Obviously, you have never shot the 18-125 DC or the 70-300 APO DG Macro ($230 and $184 respectively).

Doh! I forgot I'm on the Canon board. Sorry, my bad.

[D70FAN]

I stuck it out, with the Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO and did the walk.

As much as I like the Tamron AF18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 XR Di II LD... from what I have witnessed, it just can't duplicate these shots. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any "bokeh issues" in the glare off the trainman's hat insignia. This is just awesome light response.

Buy it and make it so... ;) This debate is over, as far as I am concerned.

Don, why would there be bokeh issues in the hat insignia? There is no DOF differentiation involved in that part of the shot.

Also, you're kidding about comparing the 18-200 to the 28-75 f/2.8... right?

[coldrain]

Are you speaking from experience or hear-say? Obviously, you have never shot the 18-125 DC or the 70-300 APO DG Macro ($230 and $184 respectively).

Doh! I forgot I'm on the Canon board. Sorry, my bad.
Lol George... but really they can not compare to the 70-200 f4 L. For their price they kick some serious ass though.
But then again, so does the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM, and that one certainly kicks Nikon's 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 D's ass (this is a Canon board after all ;) ).

That 70-200 f4 is a very good reason to trade in that funny looking D70 of yours for a nice and shiny new 30D ;) :p . It won't be so heavy in your bag either, compared to that 70-200 f2.8 Sigma you have been eyeing.

[Vich]

Very nice shooting Don. I'd call it a good test shooting in everyday conditions and not pushing it any.

For Bokeh, you'll need to use f2.8 and have your subject much closer than the background (percentage wise). Also; its not "awful", just squirely enough to keep you from getting published. In fact, not unpleasing (like my 24-105L :( )

I also find it a lens to write home about, albiet not the one to take to the light-dimming reception dance. As I said, of the several lenses I've purchased and used extensively, including 2 L's, its the one I'm most pleased with.

The .02 of this amature.

[D70FAN]

that looks like a nice combination.... how bout the price range then? and the picture quality of the sigma 24-70?

Tokina 12-24 f/4 ~$500

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ~$354

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ~$725

Bigma!!! 50-500 ~$1000

24-70 picture quality is superb.

While there is a gallery section for the 24-70 here there are shots scattered throughout. Also check the "Around The Valley Of the Sun" group as well. I'm champin' at the bit to take this lens to The Canyon.

Note: In addition, a lot of these gallery images are taken with the Sigma 18-125 DC.

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

[coldrain]

I am not impressed by the posted results... It really misses a lot of something, I think both colour and contrast are not great.
This is the very first shot I made with my new 12-24, just out of the shop and it was raining. Do you see what I mean when I say I find those Tamron 28-75 shots above a bit lacking?

[aparmley]

I am not impressed by the posted results... It really misses a lot of something, I think both colour and contrast are not great.
This is the very first shot I made with my new 12-24, just out of the shop and it was raining. Do you see what I mean when I say I find those Tamron 28-75 shots above a bit lacking?

Which bike is yours? LOL;)

Thats a nice image Cold - PP ?

[coldrain]

Different light conditions... late-ish sun on fresh clear early spring day, and a late in the evening long-ish exposure shot at ISO 200, 1 sec, f11, auto whitebalance. Both at 12mm. I still am not really impressed by the Tamron 28-75...

[coldrain]

Which bike is yours? LOL;)

Thats a nice image Cold - PP ?
Haha, no my bike is not in the photo. And no post processing, only scaled down straight from camera (jpeg). Same as the other 2.

[Vich]

Are you speaking from experience or hear-say? Obviously, you have never shot the 18-125 DC or the 70-300 APO DG Macro ($230 and $184 respectively).

Doh! I forgot I'm on the Canon board. Sorry, my bad.
Hi George.

Actually, I have a 70-300 APO DG Macro. I can only say, my copy is awful!

I've scared birds off from 50 feet from the noise, as it wound its way all the way out then back in again, only to find its spot about 10 inches off its mark. Then it goes "zzzt zzzt zzzt". The results were equally bad. Nothing was really in focus. The contrast and CA were very poor. Under high contrast situations, the optics even seems to blend ajoining objects together.

It may be a bad copy as regards the optics, but the noise seems representative of everything I've heard about this Sigma (very noisy). Actually; I've never heard anyone (besides yourself) rave about it much. Its a cheap way to get 300mm to try out that range, but most of the results need to be trashed.

Now I'm not trying to start something here, just saying that I have ample reason for not liking the cheap Sigmas. I love your photography and you are obviously very skilled and knowlegable. Sigma reportedly has some nice stuff, but does seem to lack that final polish. Time and again people who swear by Sigma eventually seem to "move up" to something else and admit to the shortcomings.

The 18-125 DC I have never tried and having looked at your gallery it seems pretty nice.

[DonSchap]

The issue was, if I am not incorrect... the Canon EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM kit lens vs... the list on his poll.

11405

I presented the Tamron...

11406

did the walk around... posted some of the results... and found the "kit lens" drastically over priced for the quality and hardly a comparison.

Now... I am deluged with comparisons to every other kind of lens... wide angles... super "L"s... and whatever. It there a chance we could stay on topic... puh-lease? Otherwise, this becomes a waste of effort.

All I can say is that I am very pleased with what I was able to acheive under the circumstances... quick purchase, quick shoot and unknown subjects. It turned out remarkably well... and yes, there might have been some adjustments I could have made, locally, to push the lens even further... but I was trying to get it done, along with some surprise yard work... and it left me runnin'. I had to admit that I am still learning this rig (EOS 20D)... and its digital adjusting points.

One of the unfortunate parts of today's shoot were the lack-luster colors I was dealing with. Des Plaines is not Florida! I always marvel at how gray things are in Chicago. Most of the boats in that line of paddle boats, at the lakefront, were completely sun-bleached. Sad looking... but you work with what you got, right? I was stunned how colorful they appeared in the photograph, after the Tamron got to them. Honestly, it just wasn't there and under that hazy sky... it seems amazing they look as good as they do.

I always was under the impression that "bokeh" was a kind darkening in the center of a bright spot... creating a kind of hollowed out or halo effect, due to either over saturation of the sensor or distortions in the lighting due to inferior coating on the lenses. I'll try and image what I am talking about. My understanding of the typical definition and the one you guys seem to be using are apparently different.

Bottom line, though, for the $270.00 I effectively paid for this lens (that's with the rebate), it is a pistol and I highly suggest that if you don't have a lens in this range... START HERE!

[ReF]

Time and again people who swear by Sigma eventually seem to "move up" to something else and admit to the shortcomings.


i see this happen too. people don't usually just spend 3x the price or more for competing OEM products just for the hell of it, well, unless they have issues or just loads of $$$. i sold my tamron 28-75, returned a sigma 24-70, and i want to trade in my sigma 500 super and 15mm fisheye for OEM stuff. if i were satisfied i wouldn't even bother thinking of it. actually, the sigma fishy is nice but doesn't focus fast enough for action - just have to MF and save yourself with massive DOF.

[ReF]

Are you speaking from experience or hear-say? Obviously, you have never shot the 18-125 DC or the 70-300 APO DG Macro ($230 and $184 respectively).

Doh! I forgot I'm on the Canon board. Sorry, my bad.

if someone who has used the same third party lens on both a canon body and nikon body could give us their opinion regarding AF - now that would be interesting.

[DonSchap]

I also grabbed a shot of this traffic light/street sign... with all the budding trees behind it.

Street light/road sign 1/200 sec. f/5 @ 68mm.
11408

CROP

11407

Look at the definition of that 1/8" yellow metal box around the DONT WALK light... from across the darn street! It was there... hot and sharp @ f/5! Not f/16... I sense... great focus. :o

The greens are defined and typically vibrant under the rather diffused lighting. I was shooting South, in the direction of the sun, although somewhat overhead at 1:20PM, so some backlighting did occur.

[aparmley]

I also grabbed a shot of this traffic light/street sign... with all the budding trees behind it.

Street light/road sign 1/200 sec. f/5 @ 68mm.
11408

CROP

11407

Look at the definition of that 1/8" yellow metal box around the DONT WALK light... from across the darn street! It was there... hot and sharp @ f/5! Not f/16... I sense... great focus. :o

The greens are defined and typically vibrant under the rather diffused lighting. I was shooting South, in the direction of the sun, although somewhat overhead at 1:20PM, so some backlighting did occur.


Don where are your other samples from today?

[DonSchap]

Here is the old Des Plaines Theater... I don't even what to tell you wants been going on with that place... LOL... you can read for yourself.

Des Plaines Theater 1/200 sec. F/7.1 (odd-setting...) @ 35mm
11411

CROP

11412

The color seemed decent enough with this shot. What are we looking for... it's Chicago... what color? :confused:

[aparmley]

Here is the old Des Plaines Theater... I don't even what to tell you wants been going on with that place... LOL... you can read for yourself.

Des Plaines Theater 1/200 sec. F/7.1 (odd-setting...) @ 35mm
11411

CROP

11412

The color seemed decent enough with this shot. What are we looking for... it's Chicago... what color? :confused:


Thanks Don -

I think your camera picked 7.1 appropriately - since the subject pretty much fills the frame who cars about the DOF. 6.3-11 gets the job done.

Anyway - I think its time you considered a free account at like photobucket or where ever so you can post some larger sized images . . . from what I see it looks like great results with that Tamy! I'd like to see some larger images though. . . just get a free image hosting account somewhere darn you!

[ReF]

The color seemed decent enough with this shot. What are we looking for... it's Chicago... what color? :confused:

i think you've proved your point about image quality from the tamy - a lot of people comment about the IQ of that lens anyways.

focusing speed, accuracy at f2.8, and focusing capability in tricky situations may or may not be something you discover further down the road

[DonSchap]

The 2:04PM train... pulling in.

1/250 sec. f/5 @75mm
11413
1/250 sec. f/5 @75mm (For entire sequence, except where noted)
11414

11416

11418

11420

11421

11422
1/250 sec. f/4.5 @ 75mm (for remainder of sequence)
11423

11424

11425

You don't even want to know what happened to the camera, next! :eek:

Anyway... the focus was quick and locked each time. It was tracking the train as it came down the tracks. I wanted to toss this sequence in... because it was important to the nature of shoot and... yeah, because I took the time to shoot it. :p I will do a grid with it... for the composition.

[DonSchap]

I suspect an instructor friend of mine might appreciate this final effort at the grid!

11426

Kind of looks... patriotic :D

[coldrain]

The issue was, if I am not incorrect... the Canon EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM kit lens vs... the list on his poll.

I presented the Tamron...

Now... I am deluged with comparisons to every other kind of lens... wide angles... super "L"s... and whatever. It there a chance we could stay on topic... puh-lease? Otherwise, this becomes a waste of effort.


The L remark about the Tamron 28-75 was made by you, and then you posted some pics. So, when I looked at them, I did not have that L feel at all. The pictures (colours) look unnatural, the contrast not being there. That is what I was saying, and that is why I posted pictures of my new lens, which I do find that often I am surprised at the colour and contrast it delivers. That is the reason I posted my pics and what my remark is about. That you like your Tamron is fine, you don't hear me complain about that.

Now, the Tamron does NOT usually cost 270$. That you found it at that price is fine, but it will cost more. And what really is the point here is the OP. He has 1 lens (17-85) and wants two things. One lens for portrait kind of stuff. One lens for wide angle stuff, and then less barrel distortion than the 17-85. And all that for not much more than the 17-85.

So, what to get for that budget? The tamron is obviously sharp. But also noisy AF and to me the colour seems "not right", just as they don't always seem right with my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC.

A 28-105 will get you (from what i have seen on posted samples from two Canon guys here) a more natural overal feel to the colour, and a fast reliable silent AF. Since the OP will get a 50mm f1.8, I do not think he will miss the step difference in the aperture much. The canon is also considerably cheaper, and will leave room for what you miss in both lenses: Wide angle.

So, if you want to define what is on discussion: A "portrait zoom" + "wide angle for land/city scapes" for a limitted budget. I am sure my 12-24 fits right in there.

[drew_viii]

nice shots coldrain and don :) i really like both lens, i hope there isnt much agrression in here huh? :D hehe anyways... sounds like having 2 lens is a nice choice for me... getting 1 WA and 1 protrait for starters, then after ive saved enough and learn more about my new and shiny 30D :p hehe i could get a better lens, lets say L series? i would like to see some1 trying the new 17-55 L IS lens, looks nice... :D and i really like the tammy shots, but again, im afraid of the focus problem for moving objects, i naturally like to take natural shots as well, lets say moving crowds... and budget wise as well, if i get the tammy, i can only have 1 lens with no WA and limited range as well... so i really have to consider by banging my head on the table hehe... so guess my combination would be a canon 10-22 or tokina 12-24 + canon 28-105 + 50mm prime :) with shiny 30D! hehe... then after that, ill get the tammy one :) i like the picture quality of tammy :) so might consider to buy one of that after a few months of saving some money :) agree? :)

[drew_viii]

by the way, does any1 here has a 28-105 sample shots? would like to see it and also the sample shots of canon 10-22? :) tnx

[Vich]

The L remark about the Tamron 28-75 was made by you, and then you posted some pics. So, when I looked at them, I did not have that L feel at all. The pictures (colours) look unnatural, the contrast not being there. That is what I was saying, and that is why I posted pictures of my new lens, which I do find that often I am surprised at the colour and contrast it delivers. That is the reason I posted my pics and what my remark is about. That you like your Tamron is fine, you don't hear me complain about that.

Now, the Tamron does NOT usually cost 270$. That you found it at that price is fine, but it will cost more. And what really is the point here is the OP. He has 1 lens (17-85) and wants two things. One lens for portrait kind of stuff. One lens for wide angle stuff, and then less barrel distortion than the 17-85. And all that for not much more than the 17-85.

So, what to get for that budget? The tamron is obviously sharp. But also noisy AF and to me the colour seems "not right", just as they don't always seem right with my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC.

A 28-105 will get you (from what i have seen on posted samples from two Canon guys here) a more natural overal feel to the colour, and a fast reliable silent AF. Since the OP will get a 50mm f1.8, I do not think he will miss the step difference in the aperture much. The canon is also considerably cheaper, and will leave room for what you miss in both lenses: Wide angle.

So, if you want to define what is on discussion: A "portrait zoom" + "wide angle for land/city scapes" for a limitted budget. I am sure my 12-24 fits right in there.
I wanted to comment that your sample images are impressive.

I've said I'm very happy with my Tamron 28-75 and I've considered myself pretty demanding, but certianly not above raising my bar. I did notice the Canon 135L had that extra pleasing quality I never got on the Tamron - it was just too odd a length for my use. I just didn't expect that in any zoom under $1000, and even then it'd be a stretch.

If the 12-24 does indeed have that L color/contrast as you say, it does seem to be a great choice for a wide zoom.

That said, the Tamron focus is NOT overly noisy. Comparing it with the Sigma, its night-and-day. The Canon USM is quieter, faster, and even more accurate, but the Tamron is almost always very accurate, fast, and is not noisy enough to be even noticable by the subject in normal settings. Sharpness and very low CA are it's promise. The color seem just fine to me, but its not unbeatable by any means. Bad color can be a camera thing as much as the lens, maybe more.

Regarding price, you're right. BH price after rebate is $349. However if he's springing for a 30D, he's not a starving student - his budget has an extra $80 if it'll make the difference. :)

[aparmley]

by the way, does any1 here has a 28-105 sample shots? would like to see it and also the sample shots of canon 10-22? :) tnx

check out - this thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17574) - everything but the Lincoln Douglas monuments were with the 28-105

&

This one (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18049) - Images 1 and 4 within that thread were not taken with it but the others were. . . .

[ReF]

by the way, does any1 here has a 28-105 sample shots? would like to see it and also the sample shots of canon 10-22? :) tnx

remember the link i gave you on the first page of this thread? well, go back to that link and 5 posts below my test image is jamison55's link to his tests that include the 28-105.

i forgot that you had that canon voucher. that 10-22 should be pretty nice.

[aparmley]

Don makes me laugh and cold helps us stay on topic! a good pair! And I just like to gibber-gabber and mix it all up! :D

The L remark about the Tamron 28-75 was made by you, and then you posted some pics. So, when I looked at them, I did not have that L feel at all. The pictures (colours) look unnatural, the contrast not being there. That is what I was saying, and that is why I posted pictures of my new lens, which I do find that often I am surprised at the colour and contrast it delivers. That is the reason I posted my pics and what my remark is about. That you like your Tamron is fine, you don't hear me complain about that.


I don't think Cold was being insulting here at all - but he wasn't giving you a bear hug either! Enter me - sorry Don, no bear hug, but I'll say that I think your results with the Tamy are very good! I can't speak to how you will find it low light. But under those circumstances it looks like you've managed to make images that are excellent and are all that can be reasonably expect from consumer level equipment. I mean, I think those images look sharp, color doesn't bother me, contrast seems good. . . I couldn't complain. But you and you alone know exactly what that lens felt like to you on your camera under those circumstances - it looks like you should be pleased and I hope you are - after getting new toys, playing with them and then getting good performance out of them is fun and exciting and I'm glad you shared! I really like that train colage as well.


Now, the Tamron does NOT usually cost 270$. That you found it at that price is fine, but it will cost more. And what really is the point here is the OP. He has 1 lens (17-85) and wants two things. One lens for portrait kind of stuff. One lens for wide angle stuff, and then less barrel distortion than the 17-85. And all that for not much more than the 17-85.

So, what to get for that budget? The tamron is obviously sharp. But also noisy AF and to me the colour seems "not right", just as they don't always seem right with my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC.

A 28-105 will get you (from what i have seen on posted samples from two Canon guys here) a more natural overal feel to the colour, and a fast reliable silent AF.

Cold is right here - Its a $380 dollar lens online and about a $500 lens if I would have bought it locally.

I love the USM on the 28-105 - quick, silent, accurate. But, I can't say that I don't think about having a constant aperture zoom in that range. The 28-105 is slightly soft wide open and at the tele end. So for me the lens is really a 28-105 4.5-5.6 USM II lens. Which for my style leaves the DOF control a bit lacking - But I'm going to be honest with you - I bought the lens because it was A] - cheap. B] - Good enough for a florida trip - I could keep it on the body most of the time - C]USM.

the OP might have different needs. For my style I don't think the 28-105 would be a good standard zoom. I just don't have the DOF control that I like. the range is nice though and so is the USM - I could sell it but I like it - is a fun lens and Its better to have than not to have. Plus I really plan on breaking this thing in this spring and summer and my view of it may completely change! you never know. . . But its going to be fun - so focus on the fun part and its hard to go wrong! But thats easier said than done!

Great points of view in this thread guys. . . . everyone has given the OP something important to think about look at and everyone is being civil - more than can be said about some places! Always a pleasure! ;)

[DonSchap]

Yeah.. it's here... mounted on the EOS 20D and ready for a trial run, tomorrow. Just came too late in the day, today, to do much other than check the filters out...

I've got classes in the AM... and the weather in the PM... isolated thunderstorms... hmmm, perfect... for bracketing :D

With enough light... polarized cloud shots? High drama?

To be honest, I have not attempted night-time lightning shots before... got a little dicey, one day about tens years back, when a bolt hit the ground about a 500 yards away me. The flash was fantastic... and the ear-splitting CRACK darn near blew out my ear drums! They say you never hear the shot that hits you... well, this one didn't... and man, did I hear about it. Took a couple hours to stop the ringin', as I recall.

Hmmm... f/2.8... MF at infinity... long exposure (1 sec)... ISO 1600... 32-foot electronic release... well, there could be something there. Wish I had that 'fitted' rain cover we were talking about a few weeks ago. Of course, leaving your rig in the rain... still sounds rather... well, like a better idea would be a water-proof throw away... or better yet, duck and cover :rolleyes:

If a tornado shows up... all bets are off, 'cause I'm out of there! After what happened to Tennessee, last month... someone else can witness the distruction. Of those who did, down there, not many were left to tell the tale. Geez... :(

[D70FAN]

Hi George.

Actually, I have a 70-300 APO DG Macro. I can only say, my copy is awful!

I've scared birds off from 50 feet from the noise, as it wound its way all the way out then back in again, only to find its spot about 10 inches off its mark. Then it goes "zzzt zzzt zzzt". The results were equally bad. Nothing was really in focus. The contrast and CA were very poor. Under high contrast situations, the optics even seems to blend ajoining objects together.

It may be a bad copy as regards the optics, but the noise seems representative of everything I've heard about this Sigma (very noisy). Actually; I've never heard anyone (besides yourself) rave about it much. Its a cheap way to get 300mm to try out that range, but most of the results need to be trashed.

Now I'm not trying to start something here, just saying that I have ample reason for not liking the cheap Sigmas. I love your photography and you are obviously very skilled and knowlegable. Sigma reportedly has some nice stuff, but does seem to lack that final polish. Time and again people who swear by Sigma eventually seem to "move up" to something else and admit to the shortcomings.

The 18-125 DC I have never tried and having looked at your gallery it seems pretty nice.

As a general observation Canon consumer dSLR's and Sigma lenses, cheap or not, seem to have more problems than other camera makes. Specificaly hunting for focus, which, without HSM can be noisy. Mounted on my camera the Sigmas I have used (18-125, 24-70, 70-300 APO, 28-300, 18-200) all focused quickly and accurately.

My reason for liking the Sigma 70-300 APO DG is that it offers the best value in that range, and I generally compare it favorably against the Nikkor 70-300G.

I am not swearing by Sigma, but simply stating that they offer limited budget shooters some of the best compromises in cost vs. image quality. A basic two lens system covering 17mm-300mm for $600 or a semi-pro f/2.8 two lens system covering 24mm-200mm for $1100 with great build quality (and HSM on the long zoom) allow photographers on a budget to shoot very good to great quality images.

With the introduction of lenses like the Bigma, 80-400 OS, and the very low cost 18-125 Sigma is at least trying to offer unique ranges and good to very good image quality to the budget constrained photographer.

[ReF]

I always was under the impression that "bokeh" was a kind darkening in the center of a bright spot... creating a kind of hollowed out or halo effect, due to either over saturation of the sensor or distortions in the lighting due to inferior coating on the lenses. I'll try and image what I am talking about. My understanding of the typical definition and the one you guys seem to be using are apparently different.



bokeh refers to the out-of-focus portions/subjects in an image. typical example is background blur. it sounds like you are describing what is sometimes called "ring blur," which is still bokeh but a characteristic of mirror lenses.

[DonSchap]

I was able to resolve the "bokeh" issue... and you are correct... the "bokeh" item must be beyond the DOF to acheive the proper definition. I sit here, corrected, and apologize for the misunder-comprehension-standing... uh, whatever. :o

I shall endeavor to refine my understanding of light capture and admit that I probably know less than many have forgotten. :rolleyes:

As always...GET THE SHOT!