PDA

View Full Version : Lens question



D Thompson
03-14-2005, 09:09 PM
I have the 20D with the following lens.
EFS 18-55 that came with the kit.
EF 75-300 f4-5.6 III.

I am looking at either the EF 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM (abt $300) or the EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 USM IS (abt $410).

Another possibility would be the EFS 17-85 f4-5.6 USM IS (abt $600) which would pretty much do away with needing the EF18-55.

Any views on these lenses as to their quality? It appears to me that either would fill the void in my range and the money is close enough not to be a issue. Any other suggestions apprecitated also.

Thanks.

Dennis

jamison55
03-15-2005, 03:24 AM
If you are looking to up your optics a notch, my current favorite is my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. It is right in your price range, and is fast and SHARP. Here are a couple of samples from mine:

Right out of the camera: http://www.fphoto.org/jamiewexler/paige%26ryand%20057p
With a touch of post processing: http://www.fphoto.org/jamiewexler/alex%26max%20283a


If you are looking to improve your wide end, I have just ordered the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX. Reviews are good on this one, and it is also in your price range. To improve your zoom, try the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Ex. It will set you back around $700, but the results are on par with the much more expensive Canon L zooms.

All 3 of these lenses should give you pro level results at consumer prices, and they are all superior to the Canon lenses you have listed.

eagle17
03-15-2005, 07:52 AM
you could also add the sigma 18-125 for $250-$270, I would highly recomend this lens, or wait another month and get one of the new 18-200mm lens's from sigma or tamron.

the canon 28-135 IS is a good lens and the IS is VERY nice. I would stay away from the 17-85 unless you never use it below 24mm otherwise the CA will start to become visible and destracting.

D Thompson
03-16-2005, 09:53 AM
[QUOTE=jamison55]If you are looking to up your optics a notch, my current favorite is my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. It is right in your price range, and is fast and SHARP. Here are a couple of samples from mine:

Right out of the camera: http://www.fphoto.org/jamiewexler/paige%26ryand%20057p QUOTE]

Thanks Jamison55, it took a while to d/l on my dial up but is a very nice shot, lots of detail. You've definitely got me considering the Tamron lens. In your opinion would it be better than the Canon 28-135 IS? I only made the switch to digital about 5 months ago and have only used Canon lenses on my old A1. I know a lot of people use 3rd party lenses with good luck, but I've always figured stay with brand, (but then what do I know :D ) Is there a certain spec that makes or brakes a lens?

Thanks,
Dennis

jamison55
03-16-2005, 01:32 PM
I've not personally used the 28-135 IS, but by all accounts it is a workhorse. I have heard conflicting reports on it's sharpness, however, with it commonly reported soft wide open. I chose the Tamron, because I wanted a lens that was fast and sharp throughout its range. I read great reviews on the Tamron. I went into my local camera store and tested it on my 20D and was sold instantly. Real life use has backed up my initial impression...

If you want more evidence, here's a link to comparison shots against a $1200 Canon 24-70 f2.8L: http://www.pbase.com/norm/canon_v_tamron

The latest offerings by Sigma and Tamron (esp the ones that have been optomized for digital) are really remarkable when you consider price/performance. There's a new Sigma 18-50 f2.8 waiting for me at home (thanks UPS). I'll let you know how that stacks up.

D Thompson
03-16-2005, 02:23 PM
I think you may have sold me on the Tamron. I checked out your comparison and I couldn't tell any difference. The Tamron may have looked very slightly more saturated to me.

Do you lose any functionality with the Tamron and the 20D versus a Canon lens?

Also it looks as if there is a $40 rebate now on the Tamron.

Mr. Peabody
03-16-2005, 03:01 PM
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di

What does the XR & Di stand for?

Also how much does this lens cost compared to canon lens?

Your two shots were awesome.

I'm kinda disappointed that the lens that came with my 20D is so crummy compared to a really nice lens. It's like I bought a really nice expensive camera with a very limited inferior lens. Am I wrong? If I would have known that, I would have probably just bought the body kit and not wasted the extra $100 for the lens kit.

Anyway, I'm new to this so what do I know except that I'm learing everything the hardway.

D Thompson
03-16-2005, 04:56 PM
What does the XR & Di stand for?

Extra Reflective Glass and designed for Digital.

Also how much does this lens cost compared to canon lens?

I have found this online for about $350-375. After the $40 rebate final cost would be about $310-335 plus shipping.

Dennis

D70FAN
03-16-2005, 05:14 PM
Also how much does this lens cost compared to canon lens?

Anyway, I'm new to this so what do I know except that I'm learing everything the hardway.

Canon 24-70 f2.8 = $1139

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 = $369

Your not learning the hard way, just learning... Like the rest of us. ;)

Mr. Peabody
03-16-2005, 06:28 PM
I just ordered a Canon EF 75m-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. I already have the same lens without Image Stabilization. I figured having the IS might make my pictures turn out a little better. Probably pretty stupid of me. I found a guy to buy my old 75-300 lens.

When my new lens get here, I might send it back and order that Tamron lens. The lens I mentioned above was $414.

My dream lens is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I plan to wait till football season is almost here before I purchase that one. Any worthwhile Tamron or Sigma lens that match up to it ability wise and build wise?

timmciglobal
03-16-2005, 09:30 PM
You know the 70>200 2.8 IS is about 1600$ and its huge? In fact most stadiums won't let you use it unless you have a press pass.

In good lightning the 75>300 isn't bad, especially if you shoot @ ISO 800/1600.

Tim

jamison55
03-16-2005, 10:20 PM
My dream lens is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I plan to wait till football season is almost here before I purchase that one. Any worthwhile Tamron or Sigma lens that match up to it ability wise and build wise?

The "Magic Drainpipe" is really the holy grail of lenses, and there are no third party lenses that can touch it. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX comes pretty close optically for around $700, but it has no IS. I am planning to but the Sigma this year, and the Canon next (when I raise my prices)!

Mr. Peabody
03-17-2005, 01:20 PM
You convinced me. I went a head and ordered that Tamron lens.

I'll go ahead and keep my canon 75-300mm IS USM when it arrives too.

I'm excited about shooting photos through a lens with a f/2.8 for the very first time.

D70FAN
03-17-2005, 02:22 PM
The "Magic Drainpipe" is really the holy grail of lenses, and there are no third party lenses that can touch it. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX comes pretty close optically for around $700, but it has no IS. I am planning to but the Sigma this year, and the Canon next (when I raise my prices)!

Although... for real long shots maybe the Sigma 80-400mm F4-5.6EX OS would work in a pinch. One of these days I'll have a reason to try this lens, and the 50-500 as well.

Any experience with these? Seem to get good comments around the boards.

jamison55
03-17-2005, 06:20 PM
Although... for real long shots maybe the Sigma 80-400mm F4-5.6EX OS would work in a pinch. One of these days I'll have a reason to try this lens, and the 50-500 as well.

Any experience with these? Seem to get good comments around the boards.


No experience with these, but I did try a Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS on a 1DS Mark II...the guy at the camera store referred to it as the "Divorce Maker".

speaklightly
03-17-2005, 07:24 PM
Come On, Jamison-

You tried the lens. How did it do? Well, because it is NOT in your current kit, must we assume that the lens was only so-so??

I relate a lot to you and your work, which I really admire,, if I may say so. You see, I did lot of weddings in the 1950's with a Roleiflex. Now at 70, I am shooting with a Canon EOS 20D and still loving it. Yep, 50+ years, and the thrill is still there.

Sarah Weber

jamison55
03-17-2005, 08:41 PM
Come On, Jamison-

You tried the lens. How did it do? Well, because it is NOT in your current kit, must we assume that the lens was only so-so??

I relate a lot to you and your work, which I really admire,, if I may say so. You see, I did lot of weddings in the 1950's with a Roleiflex. Now at 70, I am shooting with a Canon EOS 20D and still loving it. Yep, 50+ years, and the thrill is still there.

Sarah Weber

I tried the lens because the camera store clerk was a little bored, and was trying to "help" me convince my wife that I needed to drop 10k on a kit to be a "serious" photographer :D (it almost worked too, until I opened my mouth to defend my lowly 20D - until I opened my mouth...story of my life).

Thank you for your kind comments on my work...compared to you I am only a newbie! A Rolleiflex, now that was/still is a great camera. I have a friend who still shoots weddings with one, and her results are amazing. Talk about sharp optics. I don't know how I would do with the 12 shots per roll limitation though...probably have to plan each shot more carefully!