XT kit lens vs EF 28-105

[michaelb]

I will be purchasing an XT shortly. I was going to start with the kit lens, but do you think I would be better off getting the EF 28-105mm? I also thought about the Sigma 18-125mm - any recommendations?

[coldrain]

The 28-105 will miss some wide angel end... for the rest it will be a very nice lens to start with. How about both the kit lens and the 28-105?

[JTL]

I was seriously considereing the 24-105 L f/4 IS...the bit of extra wide angle is more noticable than you would think. But in the end, I couldn't/wouldn't part with the cash...

[Rhys]

I was seriously considereing the 24-105 L f/4 IS...the bit of extra wide angle is more noticable than you would think. But in the end, I couldn't/wouldn't part with the cash...

I'd go with the 17-85 for a normal kind of range if I was stuck with just one lens. Either that or the 17-50 Tamron.

Really, with a 1.6 crop dSLR 17 isn't IMHO wide enough BUT it's adequately wide for most people. I prefer a range from 12 - 200mm although that's covered by several lenses.

[coldrain]

We just had a whole thread about how the 17-85 is not a good lens, ESPECIALLY for the money. *sigh*...

Not that a certain someone will read that, since i am on ignore.

But anyway, try and avoid that EF-S 17-85, it is NOT** a great lens, and even that 18-125 Sigma will give more pleasing results.
The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is just a real bargain in Canon's lens lineup. If you use the kitlens for now for when a bit more wideangle is needed, you will have a lot of pleasure with the 28-105.

**Sorry for making Clyde choke on his cornflakes with my typo. well... you can not really call it a typo, when you miss a whole word!

[michaelb]

.....The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is just a real bargain in Canon's lens lineup. If you use the kitlens for now for when a bit more wideangle is needed, you will have a lot of pleasure with the 28-105.

I know the kit lens is only an extra $100, but I was trying to get away with just one lens for now. My wife is already harassing about this purchase!!!

What about the Sigma 18-125? - but I've heard that the Canon 28-105 is a better quality lens. Any personal experience with these lenses, especially versus the XT 18-55 kit lens?

[snap]

I have the 17-85 IS and like it as a walk around utility lens. It is inconsistent occasionally but I have had some good shots with it. I like the focal length range and it's light. The color is OK and usually easily tweeked in some photo editing software. It is a little soft sometimes for landscape and articture. But, I really like it for portraits. I borrowed a 24-70 2.8L which was very sharp. I was considering it for a walk around lense. However it was too heavy to carry around all day, and a little overweight for my Rebel XT. It also lacked the extra mm on the wide end. So, lens choice is always a tradeoff. One of my frustrations has been to find a good lense of any focal lenght. The more lens reviews I read, the more I am convinced that You need to try some lenses to see what you like. A month ago I orderd the 24-105 4L IS. I did some comparison shots, using my 17-85 IS as one of the comparison lenses. I sent the 24-105 back for another copy. With the new copy, the 17-85 again performed better. I sent the 24-105 to Canon for calibration. It came back and I did another lens test. Again I sent the 24-105 back to Canon repair, where it is at this time. I have a couple of other stories with Tamron lenses, but I won't bore you with those. Bottom line: try some different lenes to find what works for you.

[ReF]

But anyway, try and avoid that EF-S 17-85, it is a great lens

you mean, isn't, right?

[ReF]

I know the kit lens is only an extra $100, but I was trying to get away with just one lens for now. My wife is already harassing about this purchase!!!

What about the Sigma 18-125? - but I've heard that the Canon 28-105 is a better quality lens. Any personal experience with these lenses, especially versus the XT 18-55 kit lens?

it seems us canon users are having more autofocus problems with 3rd party lenses like tamron and sigma. if you wanna go with the sigma 18-125 and this is really all you can buy then maybe you'd do better with a nikon d50. it seems the nikon users aren't having any issues with AF using sigmas.

[michaelb]

Maybe I should just go with the 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime to really learn the camera. :confused:
I really like to take portraits and the 50mm would be great for that - especially low light shots.

Part of me would really like the 28-105 though - I've read some excellent reviews on it.

How is the performance of the kit lens vs the 28-105?

flip-flop, flip-flop!!!! :D

[Rhys]

Maybe I should just go with the 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime to really learn the camera. :confused:
I really like to take portraits and the 50mm would be great for that - especially low light shots.

Part of me would really like the 28-105 though - I've read some excellent reviews on it.

How is the performance of the kit lens vs the 28-105?

flip-flop, flip-flop!!!! :D

I have both the 50 f1.8 and 18-55. I find the 18-55 is soft unless it's stopped down 2 stops, which makes it quite dark. The 50 is a bit soft too.

Instead of spending $150 on the two, why not look at the Canon 24-85, secondhand from KEH.com or even just get a Canon 28 f2.8 and use that as your standard lens until you can afford wider and longer lenses?

[DonSchap]

LOL...

After my short time with the Tamron SP AF28~75 F/2.8 Di... I have to tell ya, it is a killer lens. It's light.. fits both full sensor and digital croppers.

I am exceptionally pleased with it's low light response... checked it out today, in a darkened classroom and it was great. Focused every time at 75mm f/2.8, where the Tamron SP AF28~105mm f/2.8 had some real issues at full draw (105mm).

I'm not sure what may be at work, here, and I am going to bring the lens (28-105) in for a thorough going over. AT home, it responded as expected... so I don't know. It is several years old... so who knows? But, happily... the 28~75mm, fresh out of the box... works... and works well.

The Tamron 28~105mm is by no means a "walk around" lens. More like "lug around". For that extra 30mm of focal length, it weighs easily twice that of the 75mm... and has a massive snout of 82mm. It'll do well on my tripod... and anti-shake... you can't shake... it weighs too much. You are more like straining to hold it... so natural "inertia" is the anti-shake in this lens. :D Well, it not quite that bad... but still... a day using this lens will make your wrist ache for the good stuff.

So... if you don't need the extra 30mm of telephoto, when it comes to Tamron...the 28~75mm f/2.8 is the choice. Priced fairly and shoots the best of their line, that I have had the pleasure, so far. 18 oz. of pure joy... non-alcoholic, of course. :D

To be fair, though... I have not had the opportunity to really use the SP AF11~18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II enough to be able to fairly evaluate it. I bought it for an excellent price and because I had nothing at the bottom of my focal selection. I actually did wait and wait for a Canon EF-S 10~22mm f/3.5-4.5 to come down in price, but the closest I ever got was $570... and that just didn't get it for me. $500.00 is my max for glass this year (A man need to know his limitations!). From what I have taken... I am content. It saves me from backing up a lot. :)

[michaelb]

LOL...

After my short time with the Tamron SP AF28~75 F/2.8 Di... I have to tell ya, it is a killer lens. It's light.. fits both full sensor and digital croppers.

I am exceptionally pleased with it's low light response... checked it out today, in a darkened classroom and it was great. Focused every time at 75mm f/2.8, where the SP AF28~105mm f/2.8 had some real issues at full draw (105mm).

I'm not sure what may be at work, here, and I am going to bring the lens (28-105) in for a thorough going over. AT home, it responded as expected... so I don't know. It is several years old... so who knows? But, happily... the 28~75mm, fresh out of the box... works... and works well.

The 28~105mm is by no means a "walk around" lens. More like "lug around". For that extra 30mm of focal length, it weighs easily twice that of the 75mm... and has a massive snout of 82mm. It'll do well on my tripod... and anti-shake... you can't shake... it weighs too much. You are more like straining to hold it... so natural "inertia" is the anti-shake in this lens. :D

So... if you don't need the extra 30mm of telephoto, when it comes to Tamron...the 28~75mm f/2.8 is the choice. Priced fairly and shoots the best of their line, that I have had the pleasure, so far.

To be fair, though... I have not had the opportunity to really use the SP AF11~18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II enough to be able to fairly evaluate it. I bought it for an excellent price and because I had nothing at the bottom of my focal selection. From what I have taken... I am content. It saves me from backing up a lot. :)


I didn't realize that the 28-105 was so heavy....thanks for the info.

I hadn't considered the Tamron 28-75mm. Would this be a better choice than the kit lens?....I would have to sacrifice some wide angle, though.

[Rhys]

I didn't realize that the 28-105 was so heavy....thanks for the info.

I hadn't considered the Tamron 28-75mm. Would this be a better choice than the kit lens?....I would have to sacrifice some wide angle, though.

It's a nice lens but it's a heavy lens. I have one.

[Vich]

50mm is a wonderful length for portriats on the XT. On another site a "desert island lens" survey was taken. The Canon 50mm f1.4 (about $350) didn't win but it was close. The cheaper f1.8 version ($80) isn't in the same league but, apart from being a little inconsistant on focusing and not quite rendering pro-quality features like color, contrast, bokeh (blur quality), etc, it is no slouch.

If you really want to get the kit lens, take note they're a dime a dozen on various sites (usually around $60, sometimes less) because so many people dump it once their skills grow. That way you could use it then resell without a loss.

I have the Tamron 28-75 Macro (like Don) and would highly recommend it ($350) once your budget allows. Or, skip the others, stretch your budget, and get this one (the Tamron) only.

[coldrain]

I didn't realize that the 28-105 was so heavy....thanks for the info.

I hadn't considered the Tamron 28-75mm. Would this be a better choice than the kit lens?....I would have to sacrifice some wide angle, though.
Geez... the 28-105 from Canon is not heavy at all!!! He is talking about a lens from 28-105 from Tamron(and which is not that heavy anyway). The Canon lens is NOT heavy, and it is better than the Tamron 28-75 in colour, and focussing. And the funny thing is, he now finds out that you can ot rely on a Tamron focussing right. If you have a GOOD copy, it will if the light is not bad, if you have a bad copy... like his Tamron 28-105 f2.8... it won't. The Canon 28-105 is more reliable than both.

There are about 3 people here that actually do have that EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM (II) lens, and they all think it is a very nice lens for the money.
All I can do is say it again, the 28-105 just is a very nice lens for the money.
And I would prefer it above the Tamron 28-75, in fact I will get one in future.

[cdifoto]

Geez... the 28-105 from Canon is not heavy at all!!! He is talking about a lens from 28-105 from Tamron(and which is not that heavy anyway). The Canon lens is NOT heavy, and it is better than the Tamron 28-75 in colour, and focussing. And the funny thing is, he now finds out that you can ot rely on a Tamron focussing right. If you have a GOOD copy, it will if the light is not bad, if you have a bad copy... like his Tamron 28-105 f2.8... it won't. The Canon 28-105 is more reliable than both.

There are about 3 people here that actually do have that EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM (II) lens, and they all think it is a very nice lens for the money.
All I can do is say it again, the 28-105 just is a very nice lens for the money.
And I would prefer it above the Tamron 28-75, in fact I will get one in future.


Whatcha think Coldy...should I make them all come over and shoot with Bigma handheld for a day? That'll give 'em a taste of what a heavy lens really is! Even my 70-200 2.8 is a lightweight compared to that bad boy...

[coldrain]

Whatcha think Coldy...should I make them all come over and shoot with Bigma handheld for a day? That'll give 'em a taste of what a heavy lens really is! Even my 70-200 2.8 is a lightweight compared to that bad boy...
Haha... you just want to show off your endurance :p.
But seriously... that 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is a serious lightweight, at 375 grams! Compare that to that 510 grams of the Tamron 28-75.

My main objection to that Tamron is that the shown samples seem to show reflected light of the different glass elements causing a haze so that the lens is not as contrasty and lively as it could be.

[cdifoto]

Haha... you just want to show off your endurance :p.
But seriously... that 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is a serious lightweight, at 375 grams! Compare that to that 510 grams of the Tamron 28-75.

My main objection to that Tamron is that the shown samples seem to show reflected light of the different glass elements causing a haze so that the lens is not as contrasty and lively as it could be.

Nah man I have no endurance left for that sucker. I've shot very little with Biggy lately and feel like I haven't got the oomph I used to have since stepping "down" to the Ls and prime. They're SO much lighter.

That Tammy does look a little contrast-less but I wouldn't have been able to tell it was reflected light off the elements. I'm not advanced enough to identify that....or is that what haze always is? Basically just inferior coatings?

[snap]

The Tamron may be a very good lens. Some people swear by it. I sent two back because they were not right. As I've noted, I have had similar problems with Canon. Recently I called Canon after my "calibrated" lens came back no better than when I sent it for repair. The fellow at the repair facility apologized and immediatly sent me via email a FedEx postage paid overnight shippment to the factory. Good service. I read many horror stories about Tamron buyers who experienced long delays had big hassles with repair. So, I gave up on Tamron. But, this is one person's experience only. If you want to explore other owners' comments about a variety of lenses, check out
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=all

[michaelb]

Thanks for all the info guys.

I'm now leaning towards just getting the kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 to start off with. I think I could have plenty of fun and learn alot with these two lenses, from the research that I have done on them. ;)

[michaelb]

One other thing to throw into the lens mix.....my wife has a film Rebel with the kit lens (Canon EF 35-80mm 1:4-5.6) - I doubt its a great lens, but I suppose I could play around with this as well. Here are some shots taken with it, some of which are on the 350D:

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2132

[Rhys]

One other thing to throw into the lens mix.....my wife has a film Rebel with the kit lens (Canon EF 35-80mm 1:4-5.6) - I doubt its a great lens, but I suppose I could play around with this as well. Here are some shots taken with it, some of which are on the 350D:

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2132

In that case, try the Tamron 17-35 f2.8 and you have the whole range from 17 - 80 or in 1.6x format, 27.2mm to 128mm. That's a pretty health range to have. You could even go wider and get the Tokina 12 - 24 and although you have a gap in the middle (which really isn't a big deal) you'll have a range from 19.2 to 38.4 and 56 to 128. You'll be amazed how addictive wide-angle is for landscapes.

[24Peter]

I'm coming into this discussion a little late and may have missed something but... I like my Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 a lot. It is - as coldman pointed out - a very light lens. And at times it is exceedingly sharp. Sharper than a $229 lens should be. (Here's one of my favorites taken with the 28-105 - caution large file -
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/kids1/IMG_8986cc.JPG )
That being said, I owned the Tamron 28-75 XR Di 2.8 lens and it can be a very nice lens. These shots were taken with the Tamron (caution - large file sizes):
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/malibupier/IMG_2876.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/downtown/IMG_0954.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/franklincanyon/IMG_2486.JPG
The big problem many of us with XT's have had with the Tamron is a focusing/softness issue wide-open (f2.8-4) both at the wide end and long ends of the zoom (middle seemed to be OK). If it weren't for that, I probably would have kept the Tamron.

[DonSchap]

The Tamron SP AF28~105 f/2.8 weighs in at a hefty 31.4 oz. (880 grams)

&

the Tamron SP AF28~75 f/2.8 is going at 18.0 oz. (510 grams).

That's a significant difference when you're just walking around, neckstrapped to the rig. You can try and deny the Tamron's quality up against the Canon 28-105, but I'm not buying it.

Canon's lesser aperture EF 28~105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM weighs in at 13.2 oz. (375 gram). Let's face it, it weighs less... because it obviously doesn't do f/2.8 either. Glass is glass. Better optics get the light, plain and simple.

And the Canon EF 24~70mm f/2.8L USM comes in at 38 oz. (950 grams) and the wonderful price of... ding ding ding $1,350.00!

At your worst pricing, the Tamron 28~75mm is $399.00 with no rebate... and the $30.00 rebate is going on until April 30th. Get in line!

This has to be one of the goofiest analysis efforts we've done... because we are not comparing apples with apples.


Can we all agree that the "high-end" kit lens (17~85mm, not the 18~55mm) is NOT worth the money you pay for it? If you HAD TO suffer with a walk-around lens, the Tamron 28~75mm f/2.8 ZR Di has the "best bang for the buck"?
That an aperture setting of f/2.8 is NOT the same as f/3.5-4.5?
and that the Canon 24~70mm f/2.8L is one of the heavier & most expensive designs in the group?


Can we? :eek:

Don't go including ultra wide-angles with superior contrast. That's a different parameter and scope than what was originally intended by this thread, just confusing the outcome :confused: . Good gosh! :(

Next month, should it become available, I will get my hands on the Tamron SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 Di II and see what it can do. If it is anything like the 28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di... I do believe it will be choice. :)

[cdifoto]

And the Canon EF 24~70mm f/2.8L USM comes in at 38 oz. (950 grams) and the wonderful price of... ding ding ding $1,350.00!

Actually it's only $1139 or so unless you're talking full local retail. Heavier and pricier than the others but have ya ever shot a picture with it? Doesn't take long to forget what your bank account looks like and your arms will soon enough forget the weight. It's amazing what an awesome picture or 2 thousand will do. :)

[cdifoto]

Can we all agree that the kit lens is NOT worth the money you pay for it? If you HAD TO suffer with a walk-around lens, the Tamron 28~75mm f/2.8 ZR Di has the "best bang for the buck"?
That an aperture setting of f/2.8 is NOT the same as f/3.5-4.5?
and that the Canon 24~70mm f/2.8L is one of the heavier & most expensive designs in the group?


Can we? :eek:

1. No. It's worth it if you get it with the camera body...quick & easy & cheap WA for like 50 bucks in most cases.
2. Nah can't say I consider focusing issues a great bargain no matter the cost. I almost never shoot in daylight. Guaranteed I'd have focus problems with what I shoot. If the 24-70L was only a dollar and I couldn't rely on it, it still wouldn't be a bargain to me.
3. No of course it's not. It's also heavier and pricier too. Usually much pricier. Your comparison is actually quite flawed because you are not comparing apples to apples. Variable aperture zooms and fixed aperture zooms are not one in the same. That's why I called it a wierd poll awhile back. However, without reliable focus on an XT body (let's face it..most folks considering the 28-105 are most likely at the price point of having an XT. Pro/pro-am shooters with 20Ds and up generally aren't looking for a bargain lens in the first place)
4. The group you presented is wierd. And if I remember correctly you excluded the lens. So it's not really in your group anyway. Unless you actually are including it. I don't know. You talk about so many lenses that are off topic it confuses me.

[DonSchap]

The big "C" must have another side to it that we don't see... that's in the domestic legal department, because when a wife sees just how much money her spouse has invested in glass purchases... man, the black and blue budget begins. :rolleyes:

I really did not want to debate "L"-glass-Champagne versus a six-pack of beer budget. If money is no object... we need to dump the third party and low-end Canon arguments altogether... and concentrate on only the WHITE lenses.

Once again... this has been about what can you get for less than $500... that will offer excellent shots and roughly f/2.8 performance. Remember... half-a-grand! Ready... begin. :D

Just evaluate a Canon EOS 20D/30D married up to a Tamron SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di as a "kit style" offering. Wouldn't that be a decent start for anyone? Just imagine... no barrel distortion... not having to ebay the thing, after a month, because it is just an over-priced gimmick. :eek: I mean, WOW... less aggravation... what a concept!

[cdifoto]

I just realized this isn't the poll thread. Oye there are so many threads on this same focal range...

[drew_viii]

wow, another thread for lens suggestions? hehe, this is getting fun around here for canon users huh? hehe...

by the way... OP, check some of the threads around here :) guess starting at kit lens is not a bad idea...

oh yeah guys, just sold my 17-85 :) and ordered my 28-105 :) hope i got a good copy! off-topic... hehe

[DonSchap]

Where did the lucky recipient come from... Siberia? :D

Where do we send the Advil? :rolleyes:

The Tamron SP AF17~35mm is a f/2.8-4 (variable aperature) Di lens and one of the reasons I'm not settling for it. It's like reading yesterday's news, unless you are shooting 35mm film, also. The newer release (exclusively for APS-C sensors) is the Tamron SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 Di II, the 'fixed' alternative. I honestly think it is worth the short wait (Late Spring 2006)... and everyone that is planning on considering a "kit lens" may just want to consider this one instead and save themselves future grief. Let's face it, f/2.8 is a "light-grabbing beasty that would be hard work to duplicate with anything less. You want predictable DOF... then I suggest you start with f/2.8 and work your way up... eh, wider!

[coldrain]

Canon's lesser aperture EF 28~105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM weighs in at 13.2 oz. (375 gram). Let's face it, it weighs less... because it obviously doesn't do f/2.8 either. Glass is glass. Better optics get the light, plain and simple.

The maximum size of aperture has NOTHING, totally NOTHING to do with the quality of the optics. Zilch. Nada. Niets. nothing...

[DonSchap]

I could remove the entire lens and get an f/1.0 exposure... yeah, you're probably right, no optics involved... other than Mother Nature. Sorry... I had inadvertently overlooked that aspect of this discussion. :p

May I suggest we just focus on what's important... IQ and the amount of liquid cash available.

[coldrain]

I could remove the entire lens and get an f/1.0 exposure... yeah, you're probably right, no optics involved... other than Mother Nature. Sorry... I had inadvertently overlooked that aspect of this discussion. :p

May I suggest we just focus on what's important... IQ and the amount of liquid cash available.
Which brings us right back to the Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM (II).

[aparmley]

Man alive.

I made it to somewhere in page 3. . . :confused:

Are we really doing this, again?

Mike - check out past threads, do a search if need be, you'll find anything you want to know about most everything. . . . .

Normally, I'd jump in with the rest of the guys, give my 2 cents, but seriously, wasn't that thread still going yesterday????

I hadn't laughed as hard as I did when I read "lug around lens" all weekend! Thanks Don - always good for a giggle or three. . .

[DonSchap]

880 grams is a "serious lens" for all day use. Couple that with a pound of camera (20D)... and the twin batteries and the battery-grip, for another 12 oz of fun... and you've got yourself a good mittful.

The loss of f/2.8 in favor of the cheaper Canon EF 28~105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ~$300.00 or the even cheaper :eek: EF 28~105mm f/4-5.6 USM ~$150.00 is in the eye of the camera-holder, so to speak.

f/2.8 is a "status symbol", if you will. It means... you are willing to spend big money for the sake of gaining at least 1/2 a stop across the board on your focal length. This could be rather significant and most meaningful when you are playing for that "shallow DOF" look.

DonSchap:: "The junior member... in the third row... you had your hand up?"

JuniorMember:: "Uh, yes sir, Mr. Schap... I wanted to ask: Is 'shallow DOF' critical in a zoom lens?"

DonSchap:: (quizzically scans the audience, then says...) "Yes... I do believe so. In fact, what isn't critical in zooming, these days? A true lack of controllable DOF was probably the most significant element in early digital photography that was missing... and eventually lead to the eruption of dSLRs on the market."

JuniorMember:: "Thank you, sir. Uh... one more thing... Are there going to be snacks after this?"

DonSchap:: (Long, uncomfortable pause) :rolleyes:

Recent history has shown us that most photographers have begun to shy away from even minimal use of prime lenses. Admittedly, the lenses aren't very flexible and are (IMO) almost useless in the outdoors. Having a "do-it-all" lens in your bag or mounted on your rig just seems prudent, practical and most of all, expedient.

In fact, I challenge you to find someone, running around outdoors, other than CW (aka Mr. 300! Excuse me! ) that has a 'prime' routinely mounted on their light box. Just ain't gonna happen... unless the example is rigged. It's just old-style thinking and basically a mistake waiting to happen.

Heavy lensing is no fun, no matter what your doing. Cheaper, lighter, faster, more durable, more flexible, less distortion, wider maximum apertures and metal mounting rings... is where it is at. You cover those bases, you are in business.

Bottom line... f/2.8... coming to camera bag near you! :eek:

[cdifoto]

880 grams is a "serious lens" for all day use. Couple that with a pound of camera (20D)... and the twin batteries and the battery-grip, for another 12 oz of fun... and you've got yourself a good mittful.

The loss of f/2.8 in favor of the cheaper Canon EF 28~105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ~$300.00 or the even cheaper :eek: EF 28~105mm f/4-5.6 USM ~$150.00 is in the eye of the camera-holder, so to speak.

f/2.8 is a "status symbol", if you will. It means... you are willing to spend big money for the sake of gaining at least 1/2 a stop across the board on your focal length. This could be rather significant and most meaningful when you are playing for that "shallow DOF" look.

DonSchap:: "The junior member... in the third row... you had your hand up?"

JuniorMember:: "Uh, yes sir, Mr. Schap... I wanted to ask: Is 'shallow DOF' critical in a zoom lens?"

DonSchap:: (quizzically scans the audience, then says...) "Yes... I do believe so. In fact, what isn't critical in zooming, these days? A true lack of controllable DOF was probably the most significant element in early digital photography that was missing... and eventually lead to the eruption of dSLRs on the market."

JuniorMember:: "Thank you, sir. Uh... one more thing... Are there going to be snacks after this?"

DonSchap:: (Long, uncomfortable pause) :rolleyes:

Recent history has shown us that most photographers have begun to shy away from even minimal use of prime lenses. Admittedly, the lenses aren't very flexible and are (IMO) almost useless in the outdoors. Having a "do-it-all" lens in your bag or mounted on your rig just seems prudent, practical and most of all, expedient.

In fact, I challenge you to find someone, running around outdoors, other than CW (aka Mr. 300! Excuse me! ) that has a 'prime' routinely mounted on their light box. Just ain't gonna happen... unless the example is rigged. It's just old-style thinking and basically a mistake waiting to happen.

Heavy lensing is no fun, no matter what your doing. Cheaper, lighter, faster, more durable, more flexible, less distortion, wider maximum apertures and metal mounting rings... is where it is at. You cover those bases, you are in business.

Bottom line... f/2.8... coming to camera bag near you! :eek:



Wow talk about BROAD, SWEEPING, false generalizations!

[Vich]

Recent history has shown us that most photographers have begun to shy away from even minimal use of prime lenses. Admittedly, the lenses aren't very flexible and are (IMO) almost useless in the outdoors. Having a "do-it-all" lens in your bag or mounted on your rig just seems prudent, practical and most of all, expedient.

In fact, I challenge you to find someone, running around outdoors, other than CW (aka Mr. 300! Excuse me! ) that has a 'prime' routinely mounted on their light box. Just ain't gonna happen... unless the example is rigged. It's just old-style thinking and basically a mistake waiting to happen.
I'll chime in on this slightly off-topic point.

I disagree.

I think there comes a time where we get a taste of the outstanding quality of primes and get addicted.

The high end zooms (eg: 70-200L's) lend themselves to making more shots possible, but we still know that the results fall short of the better primes. We may be forced to forfit quality for convenience sometimes, but we still revel at an afternoon of prime quality.

When I had my 135L I don't think I was ever without it. It wasn't mounted on every shoot but probably for about 1/3 of every other one.

So maybe some of the masses are abandoning primes as you claim (I would disagree - its uncommon to find someone who disputes prime superiority), but there's a good population who appreciate and use primes, at least on an occassional basis.

PS: Don, cheers for sticking up for the Tamron 28-75. Its a great lens albiet has bad copies. Its no prime and I'd take a 24-70L over it any day, but it is a wonderful walk-around lens and is an excellent recommendation to anyone not willing to spring for the $1000 lenses. As CDI says, its not for a pro needing good low-light lens (although some might use it), but it'll be pass for most users.

[cwphoto]

I'll chime in on this slightly off-topic point.

I disagree.

I think there comes a time where we get a taste of the outstanding quality of primes and get addicted.

The high end zooms (eg: 70-200L's) lend themselves to making more shots possible, but we still know that the results fall short of the better primes. We may be forced to forfit quality for convenience sometimes, but we still revel at an afternoon of prime quality.

When I had my 135L I don't think I was ever without it. It wasn't mounted on every shoot but probably for about 1/3 of every other one.

So maybe some of the masses are abandoning primes as you claim (I would disagree - its uncommon to find someone who disputes prime superiority), but there's a good population who appreciate and use primes, at least on an occassional basis.

PS: Don, cheers for sticking up for the Tamron 28-75. Its a great lens albiet has bad copies. Its no prime and I'd take a 24-70L over it any day, but it is a wonderful walk-around lens and is an excellent recommendation to anyone not willing to spring for the $1000 lenses. As CDI says, its not for a pro needing good low-light lens (although some might use it), but it'll be pass for most users.

I use 'em all. To put it simply: the primes are for show but the zooms are for dough (to borrow an old golfing term).;)

Don Schap; you crack me up.:D

[kvdnberg]

If it's any help at all I've researched the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 a lot and decided to go for this as my walkaround lens. If I find I miss the wide angle too much I will probably try to get a kit lens secondhand (I get the 30D body only before these considerations). The thread about the 28-105 is linked in my signature.

[ReF]

In fact, I challenge you to find someone, running around outdoors, other than CW (aka Mr. 300! Excuse me! ) that has a 'prime' routinely mounted on their light box. Just ain't gonna happen... unless the example is rigged. It's just old-style thinking and basically a mistake waiting to happen.

Heavy lensing is no fun, no matter what your doing. Cheaper, lighter, faster, more durable, more flexible, less distortion, wider maximum apertures and metal mounting rings... is where it is at. You cover those bases, you are in business.



wow this is so off-topic

i don't think it's a challenge at all to find people out and about with 28,35,50, and 85mm primes glued to their cameras. BTW i commonly use 15mm, 50mm, and 400mm lenses.

"heavy" or not, getting great results is fun.

[ReF]

Can we all agree that the "high-end" kit lens (17~85mm, not the 18~55mm) is NOT worth the money you pay for it? If you HAD TO suffer with a walk-around lens, the Tamron 28~75mm f/2.8 ZR Di has the "best bang for the buck"?


funny, i complain about the tamron a lot more than the 18-55 kit lens. in fact, i don't think i ever complain about the kit. it's like, what, $65 used? micheal, like someone else suggested, if you pick up the kit lens used you can sell it for the same price if you decide to upgrade.

[michaelb]

Alot to digest here - thanks for all the info. Decisions, decisions......

[coldrain]

Alot to digest here - thanks for all the info. Decisions, decisions......
Haha... and after all this he decides he likes the *istDs more for its brighter viewfinder. Well, whatever you decide to get, I do hope you will have a lot of joy with it! :)

[aparmley]

In fact, I challenge you to find someone, running around outdoors, other than CW (aka Mr. 300! Excuse me! ) that has a 'prime' routinely mounted on their light box. Just ain't gonna happen... unless the example is rigged. It's just old-style thinking and basically a mistake waiting to happen.


All I have to do is take a look in the mirror - All I shoot with really is my 35 2.0, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. I guess that makes me a mistake. :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

All I have to do is take a look in the mirror - All I shoot with really is my 35 2.0, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. I guess that makes me a mistake. :rolleyes:

Didn't you know lowlight flash-less capabilities are evil? Even moreso if you have to use your Nikes to change FOV. ;)

[aparmley]

Didn't you know lowlight flash-less capabilities are evil? Even moreso if you have to use your Nikes to change FOV. ;)

my docs or my New-B's [New balance] Sucka!

[michaelb]

Haha... and after all this he decides he likes the *istDs more for its brighter viewfinder. Well, whatever you decide to get, I do hope you will have a lot of joy with it! :)

I have a Canon XT and often wish I had a brighter viewfinder and manual focussing options as well as AA battery compatibility.

Apparently I'm not the only one bothered by the XT's viewfinder!! It's amazing how much easier it is to see your subject with the Pentax. And I like to use manual focus!!! But there are alot of other factors to consider - especially lens compatability. This is becoming a very difficult decision!!!

[aparmley]

Apparently I'm not the only one bothered by the XT's viewfinder!! It's amazing how much easier it is to see your subject with the Pentax. And I like to use manual focus!!! But there are alot of other factors to consider - especially lens compatability. This is becoming a very difficult decision!!!

The only thing difficult about it is that we can't buy what we want right away. Make a list of what you want and just start saving there really is no better way to do it. I've been wanting the 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 since I bought my XT last year, I still don't have either . . . But, then again I'm not saving for either right now so I am no closer to owning those lenses than I was last year. I've found that I like primes a lot. so I'm taking the prime route - its the best bang for your buck route. Point is don't make a decision based on "instant gratification" make it on quality and then work towards it. ;)