Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 134
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    I was considering that one, but for $400, you can almost get the 70-200 L, not too shabby. But then again, that one only goes to 200, so it all works out in the end. I'll take all recommendations between now and next Wednesday and choose the final ones from that bunch.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex914
    I was considering that one, but for $400, you can almost get the 70-200 L, not too shabby. But then again, that one only goes to 200, so it all works out in the end. I'll take all recommendations between now and next Wednesday and choose the final ones from that bunch.
    Which lense are you talking about exactly? My dream lense is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L lense with IS. It runs about $1600. When I get that lense, I'm going to buy one of those extenders for it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody
    Which lense are you talking about exactly? My dream lense is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L lense with IS. It runs about $1600. When I get that lense, I'm going to buy one of those extenders for it.
    The f/4 version can be had for $500 after rebate right now. We wish to see the day when the f/2.8 IS version comes that cheap. It will... eventually.

    Speaking of which, I should add a small section on extenders and how they affect image quality and speed.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    196
    I would like to see your post about extenders.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    I can’t say for sure because i didn’t start the post, but i think the orignal point was to suggest high quality glass at a good price. I don’t think sigma 18-125 and 18-200 are really up to the level of the 70-200 (any version), 50mm, and 28-75 lenses but they are easy to suggest because there aren’t many 18-125 or 200 lenses out there and these seem to have a great price/quality ratio. Being a former owner of the canon 17-85mm IS and liking it at one point, i now feel that i would not recommend it because of its price. It’s just too expensive for the level of quality and IS at 85mm is really not necessary except on the rare occasion. Having done quite a bit of research trying to finding a good tele lens that reaches over 300mm, i’ve come to the conclusion(for now) that such lenses are very expensive if they are to be at the same quality level of the 70-200, 50mm, and 28-75 lenses. You definitely won’t find a new, unused one under $500. good quality tele lenses ARE EXPENSIVE, that’s just a fact of life. Heck i didn’t even think the $1400 canon 100-400mm L IS f/4.5-5.6 was up to the quality of the $400 (or less) tamron 28-75 f2.8. (i took a few shots with it in a store but the images 400mm at f5.6 and f.8 just didn’t make me feel like i was going to get my $1400 worth)

    If we are going to get into sub $500 lenses that reach 300mm then i believe we are looking at making suggestions for consumer level quality glass. This could get tricky because you could take some heat if someone decided to buy one of these lenses upon suggestion and found that it wasn’t up to their standards. All i can say is that i’ve heard that some people are quite happy with their canon 75-300mm (IS version is available) lenses considering how much (or rather, little) it cost them.

    After doing much research i’ve found a lot of positive feedback(but haven’t used them myself) concerning the:

    Sigma 100-300 f4 $750-$900
    Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 OS. $1000

    I don’t want to twist anybody’s arm into making suggestions but i believe ObiJuan had some good results with the canon 135 softfocus (Jamison too?) and Jamison55 had a list of suggestion for lenses as well.

    For who will just be shooting everything in general and are on a tight budget the sigma 18-125 covers an excellent range at a great price and the sample images I’ve seen are pretty good.

    For those on a bigger budget i would personally go with the tamron 28-70 f2.8 XR Di at around $350-$400 plus $30 rebate. You get super sharp images that you’d actually want to use below f5.6, ability to shoot in low light without flash, pretty darn good wanna-be-macro capabilities for a non-macro lens, small and lightweight, low price. Compare the price, sharpness, and range of this lens to primes like the canon 50mm - $80, 28mm - $160, 35mm - $230, 85mm - $335-$370.
    This is also a lens that isn’t likely to get replaced because you just don’t get images from a zoom lens with this focal length range that are much sharper. If you can get a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 macro that is as sharp as the tamron, then you get a slightly better range and better build quality for a bit more $$$. Downsides with the sigma are larger size/weight and much louder AF.

    Rex, your effort in helping people shop for lenses (which is tough!) is appreciated. keep up the good work!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex914
    I was considering that one, but for $400, you can almost get the 70-200 L, not too shabby. But then again, that one only goes to 200, so it all works out in the end. I'll take all recommendations between now and next Wednesday and choose the final ones from that bunch.
    I have the 70-200 F4.0L and am VERY pleased with it. Might be the best lens in my otherwise unimpressive collection.
    Jeff Keller
    Founder/Editor, Digital Camera Resource Page

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    There used to be some excellent lens reviews in Amateur Photographer magazine in Britain. I know it's a weekly magazine and I think the lens roundups were monthly although every week had a camera roundup. I don't know whether they have yet fully embraced digital photography. I know they paid me GBP 50 for an article I wrote, decrying digital photgraphy (which was welcome extra income).

    If it's possible for you to get this magazine or maybe they have a website then that's an excellent source for lens information (assuming they still do the reviews). I last bought the magazine regularly about 10 years ago, ceasing when it started to cost over GBP 1.50 as I figured reading it free in the public library saved me GBP 75 ($150) per annum and meant I didn't have stacks of magazines to dispose of.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    That really sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it or find any online archives of that. Sounds like a very reliable and helpful resource. Thanks!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    I have added a relatively detailed section on extenders. It's located in Part 2.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528

    Good stuff so far Rex

    The Guide is coming together quite nicely. Thanks again for the great work. I am seriously considering putting my telephoto lens purchase on hold and opting for the sigma 18-125... That extra 150 bucks for the other 75mm isn't looking to appealing, however, this doesn't mean that I am not struggling with the decision, I keep coming back to this thought process - if I just get the darn 18-200mm then I won't be wondering if 200mm with suffice or not and if it would, then I don't need to make another lens purchase for a while.. if it doesn't then I still have a great everyday walkabout lens which will stay on my camera for a majority of the time... not a bad deal... but if I end up needing to purchase something with a little more reach then the 18-125 would have been the best choice as the $150 savings could have been applied toward the longer lens...

    As of now I think I have my mind made up.
    The Sigma 18-125 will give me the versatility I need right now for more of the everyday shots. I have the 50mm 1.8 and am very pleased with its portrait capabilities. So the 18 - 125 will fill in very nicely where the 50mm combined with the foot zoom can't cut it. This route will get me up and running fairly well for the time being [I have many portrait -family/senior obligations coming up] and will give me enough range to allow for the longer savings period of a solid telephoto lense purchase.
    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

Posting Permissions

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