It's Christmas Time .. I need a lens

[flyfishnj]

What should my wife buy me? I take pics of my kids inside and outside. Lots of beach pictures. Money is always a consideration. Is there really a noticeable difference, to an amateur, between the 28-200 f3.5 USM and the 70-200 f4.0 L? I think I’m getting acceptable results from my Tamron 19-35mm and the Tokina 80-400mm. However, the Tamron 28-200 ain’t cutting it and that really is my go to lens in terms of range. BTW - I will pickup the 50 f1.8 the next time I go by a camera store. Any other suggestions are welcomed.

[vvizard]

I would think there's quite a difference between a 28-200 consumer, and a 70-200 L. The former is a zoom stretching from way below "normal" (50mm) up to _way_ above normal. That's 7x+ zoom. I got exactly those specs on the lens of my previous cam. It was an SLR-like cam which couldn't change lenses, and generally was _NOTHING_ compared to my 10D. Of course I'm not blaming the lens for "all" of it, but it have to take it's part of the blame. Now I got the Sigma 70-200mm EX, and although my 10D shouldn't be compared to my old cam at all, I really think this lens would beat the crap out of that 28-200mm Minolta lens. At least the percentage of "soft" shots av decreased dramatically. Maybe you can find a local store and ask to test them. As I wrote in another thread earlier today, just be sure to mention the magic word "10D" when you enter the store, so that you're taken to their secret floor where the talented salespeople, and nice equipment is =)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Definately... go for a 70-200mm in any flavor,.. it will indeed "beat the crap" out of any 28-200mm :D :D

[Belmondo]

I have the the 70-200 f/4.0L, and it's a very good lens. You probably won't find anything near the price that's optically superior. I can't speak for the other lens you mention, but suffice it to say that whenever you compare any other lens to the comparable 'L' lens, the one with the red ring is going to win every time.

This is one of those cases where the affordability quotient is really quite good. The f/2.8L IS version of that same lens costs about $1,000 more.

Tom

[scottbergerphoto]

belmondo wrote:
The f/2.8L IS version of that same lens costs about $1,000 more.

Tom

Get the 70-200 f/2.8L non IS and split the difference. You won't be sorry. It is Christmas after all! (I asked my wife for the Sigma 500mm f/4 EX APO).
Scott