2 Ways to 28-200

[minatophase3]

I am getting very close to making the leap into the digital SLR market and am really having a hard time figuring out what lenses to buy. I will be taking mostly pictures of people (my daughters 2 & 4 years old) as well as some landscape and wildlife shots if I am lucky :D . I just attended my daughters pre-school graduation which was in a church and the lighting was not very good, so I think I will need a relatively fast lens as I anticipate I will be at many a school play or inside event.

I will have a budget of about $2,000 to spend on lenses and have narrowed it down (for today at least) to these two combinations.

Option 1
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS

Option 2
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 70-200 4.0

I am leaning towards Option 1 but would be interested to hear what others have to say. Also, feel free to add other options but keep in mind the budget is about $2,000 as I will still need to buy a camera :D .

Thanks,
Tim

[CyberDyneSystems]

Option 1!

You will likely get more use of the fast lens on the long end.. and it will help whith T-cons in a pinch :)

[ron chappel]

"For today at least" lol :lol: :lol:
Yep that's how it goes ,hey!

Given those options i'd choose 1 any day! The tamron is an excellent lens and your saving the money for where it's really usefull-on large aperture/IS which is vital for low light work with tele's

[Jon]

Depends a little on which camera you're getting. The 1.6x multiplier on a 10D/Digital Rebel is going to wipe out any pretense of wide angle from the 28-75, and even the 24-70's only going to give you a 38 mm. equivalent. It gets better if you're looking at the 1D MkII or 1Ds. If you want wide, and you're looking at the DReb or 10D, think about starting with the Canon 17-40 and Canon 28-135 IS. The IS will help in the low-light situations. That'll give you a 35 mm. equiv. of 27-215, and for a little over half your lens budget, leaving room for, say, a 35 f/2 and a longer zoom as well.

[minatophase3]

Depends a little on which camera you're getting. The 1.6x multiplier on a 10D/Digital Rebel is going to wipe out any pretense of wide angle from the 28-75, and even the 24-70's only going to give you a 38 mm. equivalent. It gets better if you're looking at the 1D MkII or 1Ds. If you want wide, and you're looking at the DReb or 10D, think about starting with the Canon 17-40 and Canon 28-135 IS. The IS will help in the low-light situations. That'll give you a 35 mm. equiv. of 27-215, and for a little over half your lens budget, leaving room for, say, a 35 f/2 and a longer zoom as well.

Good point. I will most likely be getting the 10D (unless I can find a nice used 1D for around $2000) :shock: . I generally do not take wide angle shots so the crop factor will be a bonus for me!

Thanks for your input.

[Scotty G]

Setup # 1 is what I have. You can stay under your budget and be VERY happy with the tamron.
One thing the Tamron has going for it over the canon L 24-70 is the weight. It is very compact, light and takes excellent pictures.
The 70-200 is built like a tank and a bit on the heavy side but that helps in the long shots. And the images it makes are awesome. Besides you have to have at least one L in the bag. ;-)
Good Luck
Scotty

[who10]

I generally do not take wide angle shots so the crop factor will be a bonus for me!

Thanks for your input.

The 16-35f2.8 and 70-200f2.8IS have become my two favorite lenses. I take a lot of indoor low light candids of our kids - the 70-200 makes great portraits and the 1.6x crop of the 10D has made the 16-35 my preferred on camera lens for most everything else (and much lighter than the 24-70f2.8 ).

David