LENSE(S) for the 300D/10D?

[FotoPhreak]

I already have a post up asking the question which camera to buy between the 300D & the 10D.

This question is simply related to lenses.

Does anyone have any recommendations/'stay away froms' regarding lenses?

If I get the 300D, it will come with the new 28-55 ... any comments?

The only other one I have been looking at is the Canon 28-135 stabilised - again, any comments?

Recommendations between Canon vs. Tamron vs. Sigma? (please rank).

In terms of the following requirements, please advise as to best value for money lense:

Portrait
Long distance (outdoor photography of landscapes)
Short distance (indoor group photos, possibly in badish lighting)

[mwinog2777]

I have two lenses. Canon f1.8 50mm, and a Tamron, 28-200 3.8-5.6. I am metaphysically and existentially happy, and need nothing further in life. You will need nothing else for the needs you outlined. Don't listen to the L lens gurus. Please. The money you save will be well worth it.

[FotoPhreak]

mwinog2777 wrote:
I have two lenses. Canon f1.8 50mm, and a Tamron, 28-200 3.8-5.6. I am metaphysically and existentially happy, and need nothing further in life. You will need nothing else for the needs you outlined. don't listen to the L lens gurus. Please. The money you save will be well worth it.

Any L lense users care to comment on the above?

The more the info the better informed I will be when I actually purchase, which is looking more and more likely to be tomrorrow thanks to all your help!

[maderito]

I found the 28-135 IS to be a good lens which covered most of the situations you describe -- until I discoverd L lenses.

The 50 mm/1.8 II is a great buy and may meet your low light shooting requriement. It certainly is light and thus makes a day trip more pleasant if you take it as your only lens.

Once you shoot with 50 mm prime lens, you'll realize that your zoom is not so sharp after all. Then you'll have a whole batch of new questions for the Forum (about L glass).

Enjoy your trip:).

[FotoPhreak]

Maderito,

Sounds like you have more than 1 L lense ...

How many?
What are they?
Any idea on retail?

What would you buy as a first purchase?

[maderito]

Only 2 (so far):

17-40 f4 - about $700 US
70-200 f4 - about $600 US

+ filters, polarizers, etc. -- it adds up :).

I found the f2.8 version of the above lenses way too expensive and too heavy. For the 17-40 f4, the 2.8 nearest equivalent is 16-35.

I actually have the 50/1.4 which everyone says is optically equivalent to the 50/1.8.

Did I mention that I've lusted for the 24-70 f2.8? But -- its size, weight and cost are impractical for my needs.

I bought the 17-40 f4 as my first L lens. It was a good decision. It opened up an entire range of indoor and outdoor shooting not possible with the 28-135 IS. The image quality is excellent.

I agree with the previous posts on this thread -- resist the L glass impulse until you really know what you want to do with your digital rebel or 10D system.

[RichardtheSane]

I have the 17-40 F4 and I would HIGHLY recommend it. Save the money you would have spend on a 10D byt getting a 300D and get this lens, it really is that good. Sharp, really sharp! contrast is great. Flare is well controlled - I shot almost directly into the sun at the weekend and flare was minimal!

L glass IS worth it, and you will see a difference in the prints. If you are serious about your hobby, I would seriously consider making sure your most used lens is an L
:D

[glennstewart]

mwinog2777 wrote:
I have two lenses. Canon f1.8 50mm, and a Tamron, 28-200 3.8-5.6. I am metaphysically and existentially happy, and need nothing further in life. You will need nothing else for the needs you outlined. Don't listen to the L lens gurus. Please. The money you save will be well worth it.

My interest is in aviation photography, and as such my main lenses are zoom lenses. I also need rapid focus.

Currently I own and use the slow-to-focus 75-300 f4-5.6 USM IS. It's adequate, but can focus hunt and therefore cause me to lose a shot or two.
I generally also find that f5.6 is SOFT - so always use f7.1 or f8.0 to gain max sharpness.

Having used the extra expensive L lenses:
Namely the 100-400 and 70-200 IS models.
I will state without hesitation that the L models are worth every single cent of their cost.

I was VERY HESITANT prior to using the L lenses. But the benefits are:
1. Almost instananeous focus
2. Almost complete aperture usage (on the f2.8 70-200, this is a HUGE advantage for late afternoon).
3. Improved IS - essential for 300-400 mm shots where detail needs to be maintained
4. Never miss a shot (unlike the lethargic 75-300)
5. Attention grabbing

Cons:
1. HEAVY - back and neck breaking stuff
2. Cost
3. Attention grabbing

[glennstewart]

Take a look at the following site (and its 3 pages)

http://www.leecarney.com/comparison-revised.htm

[FotoPhreak]

maderito wrote:

I bought the 17-40 f4 as my first L lens. It was a good decision. It opened up an entire range of indoor and outdoor shooting not possible with the 28-135 IS. The image quality is excellent.

I agree with the previous posts on this thread -- resist the L glass impulse until you really know what you want to do with your digital rebel or 10D system.

Why do you say the 17-40 allowed you to take shots not possible with the 28-135?

What do you mean until I "really know what [I] want to do with [my] digital rebel or 10D system"?

Do you mean how I want to use it?

Or are you talking about what I want to do in terms of keeping/upgrading, as discussed in my other post?

Thanks for your input.

[FotoPhreak]

Does anyone know of any online resources to read/learn more about filters &/or polarisers?

Are there any other accessories you recommend?

[Canuck]

FotoPhreak wrote:
I already have a post up asking the question which camera to buy between the 300D & the 10D.

This question is simply related to lenses.

Does anyone have any recommendations/'stay away froms' regarding lenses?

If I get the 300D, it will come with the new 28-55 ... any comments?

The only other one I have been looking at is the Canon 28-135 stabilised - again, any comments?

Recommendations between Canon vs. Tamron vs. Sigma? (please rank).

In terms of the following requirements, please advise as to best value for money lense:

Portrait
Long distance (outdoor photography of landscapes)
Short distance (indoor group photos, possibly in badish lighting)

I can tell you that if you get cheap glass it will show in your pics! That is you will be holding back your camera. The opposite is also true, spend the cash and it will show too in that you will be able to harness its greatest points and it is nothing short of amazing what it is capable of! I speak from both sides of the fence. I had a Sigma 70-300 deluxe macro lens (about $120) and that was awful for pics. I hated that lens, and sold it. I upgraded to the 120-300 F2.8 EX Sigma lens and holy crap I was almost reborn a pro photgrapher. I can't begin to tell you the difference between cheap and expensive glass! The 28-80 Sigma lens (about $80) I still have but hopefully not for long. I am going to replace it with the Canon 24-70 F2.8L lens. I have a Canon 16-35L lens already and man I can't get over the difference in quality of pics. I miss taking absolutely crap pics...NOT!!!!

Suggestions for lenses, price not being an issue, go for the Canon 16-35 F2.8 L and Canon 24-70 F2.8 L lenses.
I was shooting pics after sunset one day, opened it up to F2.8 and they looked like daylight. That rocks! Or if you're looking a little less expensive, the Canon 17-40 F4 L is another good option. I recon you can't go wrong with L glass. For the other side, Sigma EX is good stuff. I can only comment on the 120-300 aforementioned. That said, I need to find some cash...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

FotoPhreak wrote:


What do you mean until I "really know what [I] want to do with [my] digital rebel or 10D system"?

Do you mean how I want to use it?


Thanks for your input.

That would be my first question when asked to recomend a lens.

I shoot wildlife mostly which requires a long telephoto.. 200mm-600mm


For portraits you want a good lens between say 50mm and 135mm

Landscape for most people means wider.. 15mm-35mm

So it is hard to recomend a "pricey" first lens.

So we recomend "Safe Bets"

The 28mm-135mm IS is wide enough to give a great landscape.. it falls right in the sweet spot for portraits,. nad the 135mm is long enough that in the right conditions you can get a nice telephoto of a nearby Cedar Waxwing

It's optical qualities do not qualify it to be "the best" for any of these jobs,. BUT it is a fantastic general purpose lens.

The 50 f/1.8 is another "Safe Bet" as it is optically AMAZING and costs less than a filter for many lenses does ($70.00) It will give you an insite into the difference between a cheep or even good zoom and a fantastic prime.

IF you get both,. you will have a starting ppoint from which you can learn what it is that you are looking for in the long haul.

If you know you wnat a wide angle,. then just get a 17-40mm f/4 now.

If you know you want a fast close in sports zoom,. then get a 70-200mm f/2.8 now

Another great "serious"" starter lens is the Sigma 50-500mm EX HSM... this monster zoom offers all but the wide range in zoom (although it's best at 140mm and higher) But this is a serious and big and heavy lens! But if wildlife is your thing,. then it is in fact liqyter than any oif the big fast primes.

...etc

[CyberDyneSystems]

FotoPhreak wrote:


Any L lense users care to comment on the above?



Yes,
This is true untill you use a high quality lens like a good "L" or any high end lens.

All the manufacturers seem to make good lenses and not so good ones.. (even really bad ones) canon has a few crappy lenses too.

But you will get the best results out of the pricier lenses. There really is a reason for the "high end"

The first time I used a $3,500.00 prime on my 10D,. I thought I had touched the face of God.

I am not kidding around. All my previous (nearly 10,000 photos) I had taken with the 10D using "good" lenses (ie, approx $700.00 - $900.00 lenses) were suddenly relegated to "crap" by comparison.

If your interested,. check this thread;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18360

[maderito]

FotoPhreak wrote:
Why do you say the 17-40 allowed you to take shots not possible with the 28-135?

The 17mm (equal 27 mm with crop factor) on the 17-40 f/4 gives me a 50% wider angle of view compared to the 28mm (equal 44 mm with crop) of the 28-135 lens. It's a difference that can't be appreciated from the numbers. You have to see it through the camera viewfinder (and perhaps you already have).

FotoPhreak wrote:
What do you mean until I "really know what [I] want to do with [my] digital rebel or 10D system"?

Do you mean how I want to use it?

Or are you talking about what I want to do in terms of keeping/upgrading, as discussed in my other post?

The substantial $$ commitment to L lenses (which beget more L lenses) requires consideration of how serious and how expensive you want to go with your photography avocation. So I meant - how much expansion do you anticipate beyond your basic camera and lens? Your original post indicated a concern for the economic consequences of your choices.

You have asked and probed a lot. Made any big decisions yet? :)