Advice on 2 all purpose lens??? *Newbie Warning*

[ClickClick]

Hello all, if you look at my sig you will see that my lens are very old. (12+ years). I just got the new XT for Christmas. So I really want to put some better quality lens on it.

I am looking for a 18-800mm 1.4 IS that weighs under 2 lbs and costs under $300.00

Ok, for those of you still in your chair and haven't fainted yet...

I do just general photography... nothing really specialized as I am still new to this and am trying my hand at all. Though I do not expect to be doing much (if any) sports photography. I do beach scenes, sunsets, still life, macro (seperate thread about my lens there), animals, cityscapes, etc... generally nothing that speed based (like sports).

I have read up on the Bigma and there are mixed reviews on it. Some hate that it is heavy and a lot of people says it is slow in focusing. From what I read, the IS technology is much faster in focusing, but there is a huge difference in the $$ range. Do I really even need the IS brand for what I am doing?

The Tamron 28-200 served me well for a general purpose lens and spent the majority of time on my camera. Actually I think in the last 6 years, I have only used the other lens with the 300mm only two or three times.

Suggestions? Keep in mind I am nowhere close to being rich.

[jimlp]

Hello all, if you look at my sig you will see that my lens are very old. (12+ years). I just got the new XT for Christmas. So I really want to put some better quality lens on it.

I am looking for a 18-800mm 1.4 IS that weighs under 2 lbs and costs under $300.00

Ok, for those of you still in your chair and haven't fainted yet...

I do just general photography... nothing really specialized as I am still new to this and am trying my hand at all. Though I do not expect to be doing much (if any) sports photography. I do beach scenes, sunsets, still life, macro (seperate thread about my lens there), animals, cityscapes, etc... generally nothing that speed based (like sports).

I have read up on the Bigma and there are mixed reviews on it. Some hate that it is heavy and a lot of people says it is slow in focusing. From what I read, the IS technology is much faster in focusing, but there is a huge difference in the $$ range. Do I really even need the IS brand for what I am doing?

The Tamron 28-200 served me well for a general purpose lens and spent the majority of time on my camera. Actually I think in the last 6 years, I have only used the other lens with the 300mm only two or three times.

Suggestions? Keep in mind I am nowhere close to being rich.

What is the budget? It sounds like you need a wide angle to at least a moderate telephoto.

[EOS_JD]

24-105L IS with a 1.4x converter should do well. Expensive though

Failing that there's lots of good lenses around depending on what you favour. Tamron's 28-75 f2.8 XR Di is an excellent cheap fast and sharp lens. Not very wide though and not very long either.

It's gonna be compromise.

[ClickClick]

I am trying to be as $ conscious as possible. But I can't see myself spending over $500 for one lens or $800 for two seperate ones. Yes, I am Ebaying it as well unless there is an alternative that I don't know about.

[KevC]

Sigma 24-70/2.8EX will do you great. You have the kit lens to take care of the wide end, you have the 70-300APO to take care of the long end.

Just pick up a fast prime and you'll be set. EF50mm f/1.8 wont cost you more than $100. You'll love the narrow depth of field and what shutters speeds its capable of in lower light!

I (will) have this set and I think it's great :)

[kaitanium]

I have read up on the Bigma and there are mixed reviews on it. Some hate that it is heavy and a lot of people says it is slow in focusing. From what I read, the IS technology is much faster in focusing, but there is a huge difference in the $$ range. Do I really even need the IS brand for what I am doing?



if youre talking about IS in canon lenses, it doesnt have anything to do with focusing speed, instead it allows you to shoot a non blurred shot handheld 2-3stops slower than you could normally in low light situations. sigmas comparable tech is their OS

[ClickClick]

Just pick up a fast prime and you'll be set. EF50mm f/1.8 wont cost you more than $100.

I was thinking of a 100mm 2.8 for my macro work. Unless of course I can get the 50mm and put a 2x teleconverter or close up lens on it to do the same.

(you can tell I live in La-La Land most of the time right?)

[KevC]

I was thinking of a 100mm 2.8 for my macro work. Unless of course I can get the 50mm and put a 2x teleconverter or close up lens on it to do the same.

(you can tell I live in La-La Land most of the time right?)

You can definitely get the 100/2.8, it's a sweet lens and ubersharp. Good for portrait work too.

You can also get the 50mm and put an extension tube on it, to get closer.*not* a teleconverter. A teleconverter is a magnifier, extension tubes bring the focus distance closer.

My opinion, the 50mm is a sweet lens. Everyone should have a 50mm prime, it's my favourite lens. The wide aperture is a lifesaver in low light, and playing with narrow DOF is fun.

The 100/2.8 is also a good lens, but I'd consider it only if macro work is what you'll be doing a lot.

Extension tubes are also a good idea, they're not that expensive and don't degrade the quality of the lens you put it on (unlike close up filters). It's just air inside!

I've never used extension tubes with the 50mm so I don't know if it's enough working distance (if you get too close you'll scare away bugs) but I firmly believe everyone should have a 50 prime none the less :)

//edit: I see you already have the 70-300APO. Though it's not a true macro, it gets close enough for my liking. You can always slap an extension tube to *THAT* and get even closer!

[ClickClick]

Thanks Kev,

I am looking for a 50mm now on Ebay. Though the used ones there are going for approx $67+ (not including shipping). I am going to look at the price of new ones in stores later tonight. I bet I can find a new, not used one, for close to that price. Good to have a warranty with it I suppose.

Any ideas for the best store to shop?

[Headcase650]

2 high quality lenses that will give you a lot of coverage for a reasonable amount of money are the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC ($395 at sigma4less)and the sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM ($725 sigma4less). This would be a great 2 lens only combo. You wouldnt be restricted by poor lighting, both get very high reviews and are sharp and contrasty. Need more reach get a 1.4 teleconverter. Want macro get some extension tubes or a 500D close up filter.

[KevC]

Thanks Kev,

I am looking for a 50mm now on Ebay. Though the used ones there are going for approx $67+ (not including shipping). I am going to look at the price of new ones in stores later tonight. I bet I can find a new, not used one, for close to that price. Good to have a warranty with it I suppose.

Any ideas for the best store to shop?

I use www.bhphoto.com and have gotten great results! I know many who are very satisfied with prices and service there.

[ClickClick]

Is there any special reason why these two 50mm lens by Canon differ so greatly in prices?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12145&is=GREY&addedTroughType=search
$230

and

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
$70

[sasa007]

One is F2.5 and another one is F1.8 I had 1.8 and sold it and now I have F1.4...

1.8 will last maybe a year or two with lots of use and abuse, it does break mehanicaly,it is CHEAP plastic lens...BUT great OPTICALY...
Just depens what you will use it for.

One is COMPACT MACRO F2.5 and it is intended for a macro work.

[sasa007]

also I did hear about that add on lens for macro work that you place like filter on top of your lens...

maybe you should look into that.

[Croasdail]

I would pick up either the Tamron or Sigma 2x-7x f2.8 lenses and the new Canon 70-300 IS lens...... that should cover the range and give you some decent optics. The new version of the Canon is much better then the previous generation - which I had - and was happy with.

[ClickClick]

Ok, I do want to do close up (macro) photography. Now, I don't mean I want to photograph tribal tattoos around the legs of dust mites. But I would like to have some really good magnification.

I have some no-name extension tubes, that really are no-name. They only have numbers on the barrels. I bought them off Ebay and they arrived in an envelope - loose. So I don't know who makes them. But they were 99 cents.

I tried them out for the first time few days ago. Using my Tamron 28-200 lens (but unsure exactly which setting it was focused on). You can see the results here :

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135478

But don't laugh because I didn't really pay attention to the message on there until after I had taken the picture and then cleaned up the area. (Lover Boy... sheesh)

I just did another picture today that I am going to use for the basis of some postcards to put out for sale and such at a local store. (just to see if anyone likes them enough to buy them). Again this was with my Tamron lens. Have not tried the extension tubes on the Sigma 70-300 yet. But that is a LONGGGGG ass lens.

Basically, I just want a nice lens that allows for great optics with a general walk around type use.

I would really be intersted in purchasing the Canon 50mm and then using extension tubes on it if you guys (and gals) think the quality will be decent.

[ClickClick]

Forgot the pic for the above post..

[ScottE]

If you were happy with your Tamron 28-200 on your film camera, Sigma has an 18-125 lens that will give almost the same zoom range on your XT.

If you occasionally needed a 300 mm lens for film, both Tamron and Sigma offer 18-200 mm lenses that will give almost the same zoom range on your XT that a 28-300 lens would on a film camera.

[ClickClick]

If you were happy with your Tamron 28-200 on your film camera, Sigma has an 18-125 lens that will give almost the same zoom range on your XT.

If you occasionally needed a 300 mm lens for film, both Tamron and Sigma offer 18-200 mm lenses that will give almost the same zoom range on your XT that a 28-300 lens would on a film camera.

How does the quality of these lens compare to the current Tamron 28-200 that I have? (and thanks for posting this, I am learning new things by the minute here.)

[blackshadow]

I have a Tamron 18-200 which I have taken some really nice shots with, it's light and compact. I'd recommend it as a good general purpose lens. I am sellign it now though as I have recently acquired a Canon 24-70 L and a Canon 70-200 f2.8L series and could use the cash. I do a lot of low light photography so these will be a better fit for me (but more of a pain in the posterior to carry about).

[ClickClick]

Thanks everyone for taking time to respond to my post here.

I am slowly narrowing things down to a selection.

Right now I am going to buy just ONE lens pretty soon. I know my thread said "2 lens" but I really do not have to have the second one immediately. The second lens can wait a couple months, as it is going to be a telephoto lens anyway.

I have found that while I used my Tamron 28-200 lens the most, it was only rarely that I actually used the full 200mm setting. Yeah, I don't mind shuffling my feet a bit to get closer.

So I am sort of concetrating on the 18-125 range. I see a lot of people mention Sigma 28-105mm.

If someone doesn't mind can you give me the pro's and cons of :

Sigma 18-125 3.5
Sigma 28-105 2.8
Canon 28-105 3.5

anything I be aware or beware of?

Again, thanks so much taking for taking time and having patience with a newbie.