Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   

View Poll Results: Which lens would you buy if you have the money for it?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Canon EF 28-105mm 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM

    3 17.65%
  • Canon EF 28-135mm 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

    4 23.53%
  • Tamron SP AF 28-75 F2.8 XR DI ASPHERICAL

    9 52.94%
  • Keep my Canon 17-85mm IS USM?

    1 5.88%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    301

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

    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 PowerShot G9

    ALL GONE! NO SLR
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II (sold)
    Canon 50mm f1.8 II
    Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG non-APO
    Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC
    Velbon CX-444 tripod
    Canon BG-E2
    Kata W92

    http://flickr.com/drew_viii - add me up to your contacts
    Photography is not just a hobby. It's a pleasure and a privilege!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by 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...
    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)
    Canon dSLR User

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    301
    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
    Canon PowerShot G9

    ALL GONE! NO SLR
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II (sold)
    Canon 50mm f1.8 II
    Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG non-APO
    Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC
    Velbon CX-444 tripod
    Canon BG-E2
    Kata W92

    http://flickr.com/drew_viii - add me up to your contacts
    Photography is not just a hobby. It's a pleasure and a privilege!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    301
    and is my poll stupid or what? just wondering...
    Canon PowerShot G9

    ALL GONE! NO SLR
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II (sold)
    Canon 50mm f1.8 II
    Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG non-APO
    Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC
    Velbon CX-444 tripod
    Canon BG-E2
    Kata W92

    http://flickr.com/drew_viii - add me up to your contacts
    Photography is not just a hobby. It's a pleasure and a privilege!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    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. . .
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Wierd list.

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Thumbs up Considering...

    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!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-19-2006 at 04:12 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    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.
    Last edited by Rhys; 04-19-2006 at 05:57 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Please explain...

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

    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
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    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/showthr...t=18469&page=4
    Last edited by ReF; 04-19-2006 at 06:34 PM.
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •