Budget Lenses

[su719]

Hi All,

I am trying to come up with a plan for some glass I want to buy for a D30. So far I have come up with the following

Canon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro II
Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD

I am new to the DSLR world, but feel that as a newbie I could get good use out of this setup for my vacation and family shots. The setup would also allow me to do some more interesting work as I learn more in the DSLR world. I have seen the great reviews of the 70-200 F4L, but for the price I can have both the Tamron and the Sigma and have much more shooting options. I wanted to see what everyon thought on this setup.

[RichardtheSane]

If you buy the 50mm F1.8 and the Tamron 28-75 then the sigma will really let you down quality wise. You have picked two of the sharpest lenses that can be had on a budget.

May be worth considering the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD, it is suppposed to be sharper than the sigma and about the same price...

[Andy_T]

... or the Canon EF 70-200/4 L.

Granted, it's more expensive than the other two, but it will not just keep the value better, but also hook you completely on the sharpness of L.

Best regards,
Andy

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Looks like some people don't like the word "budget" here :wink:

[gcogger]

The Sigma is a fine lens assuming you keep it at f/8 or above - absolutely fantastic value. Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is a better lens, but you have to look VERY carefully to see the difference at narrower apertures.
Of couse, maybe I've simply got a very good copy of the Sigma :-)

[mson]

Is the Tamron 70-300 sharper than the Canon 75-300? I got the Canon pretty cheap, but I hardly ever use it because I am dissapointed with the quality.

[Cordell]

SU719,

I think you made some good choices here. Master your techniques and all of those including the Sigma will serve you very well.

Cordell

[MediaMagic]

SU719,

I think you made some good choices here. Master your techniques and all of those including the Sigma will serve you very well.

Cordell

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The main thing to remember is as you master your technique, you will also realize/learn the limitations of a given lens. You really want to shoot to the lens' strengths rather than be pissed over bad shots taken outside those strengths. I have a ton of L glass and I love it. But even with a lens like the 100-400L - it may be L glass, yaddy yaddy yah, but, it has inherent weaknesses that will create consistently crappy shots if I try to force it to make shots it simply cannot accomplish.

Know your equipment, inside and out, and you can achieve spectacular results with *almost* any lens as long as you are shooting to its strength.

[Ogrt48]

Is the Tamron 70-300 sharper than the Canon 75-300? I got the Canon pretty cheap, but I hardly ever use it because I am dissapointed with the quality.
Nope, I've had the Tamron and now own the Canon. If you don't like the Canon you're going to despise the Tamron. It really sucks.

[mson]

Nope, I've had the Tamron and now own the Canon. If you don't like the Canon you're going to despise the Tamron. It really sucks.

Thanks! That helps me stay focused on saving for a 70-200L f/4.

[Persian-Rice]

Drop the Tamron and Sigma and get the 70-200 F4, which should cost about the same. You are better off getting one good lens and working your way up instead of buying mediocre stuff, using it, depreciating it's value and end up buying the better lenses later.

I know and agree that the photographer is what really counts, but you are limited by the quality of your lens. No matter how good you are, contrast, sharpness & colours are things that are somewhat out of your hands.

Then save and buy the 17-40 down the road......................

Cheers.

[DocFrankenstein]

Drop the Tamron and Sigma and get the 70-200 F4, which should cost about the same. You are better off getting one good lens and working your way up instead of buying mediocre stuff, using it, depreciating it's value and end up buying the better lenses later.

I know and agree that the photographer is what really counts, but you are limited by the quality of your lens. No matter how good you are, contrast, sharpness & colours are things that are somewhat out of your hands.

Then save and buy the 17-40 down the road......................
I agree.

[ron chappel]

Hi Su719

Those are very good lens choices.
Sure the tamron 28-75 is expensive but if you want a fast normal zoom then it is *the* right choice.

As for the sigma telezoom,it is a sensible option.Most cheap telezooms are honestly quite lousy but if you go above a certain image quality level you will get some good sharp pictures.
That particular lens get's a fair bit of praise from owners.It seems to be the best choice (for quality) unless you spend quite alot more on the pro lenses.
As for the good comment about the tamron 70-300 LD above....It is odd to hear this.I haven't heard of anyone comparing them but the sigma apo super II does seem to have far more and better comments than the tamron LD.
I must say i haven't used either of those two myself-i'm just going by all the owners comments i've heard/seen.The sigma is usually quoted as maybe slightly better than the best canon consumer telezoom,the 100-300

Personally i can recommend the canon 80-200 II (very good but of course it's only 200mm),the canon 75-300 (as the bare minimum! in the x-300mm zooms) or the canon 100-300 .The 100-300 (the best of canon's consumer tele's)

From there you have a big jump in quality and price up to the 70-200/4 or sigma 100-300/4.
Unfortunately there are no inbetween options from any of the manufacturers :(

[ron chappel]

Hi Su719

Those are very good lens choices.
Sure the tamron 28-75 is expensive but if you want a fast normal zoom then it is *the* right choice.

As for the sigma telezoom,it is a sensible option.Most cheap telezooms are honestly quite lousy but if you go above a certain image quality level you will get some good sharp pictures.
That particular lens get's a fair bit of praise from owners.It seems to be the best choice (for quality) unless you spend quite alot more on the pro lenses.
As for the good comment about the tamron 70-300 LD above....It is odd to hear this.I haven't heard of anyone comparing them but the sigma apo super II does seem to have far more and better comments than the tamron LD.
I must say i haven't used either of those two myself-i'm just going by all the owners comments i've heard/seen.The sigma is usually quoted as maybe slightly better than the best canon consumer telezoom,the 100-300

Personally i can recommend the canon 80-200 II (very good but of course it's only 200mm),the canon 75-300 (as the bare minimum! in the x-300mm zooms) or the canon 100-300 .The 100-300 (the best of canon's consumer tele's)

From there you have a big jump in quality and price up to the 70-200/4 or sigma 100-300/4.
Unfortunately there are no inbetween options from any of the manufacturers :(

[su719]

Thank for you insight Ron,

It seems that a lot of people on here are pros and really like the pro gear, but for an amateur like mysesf who wants to capture life's moments I cannot really justify the high prices of the L glass. I do not mean this as a flame at all.

I googled the Tamron and it looks quite good. It is significantly cheaper than the Sigma and seems to have higher praise at photography review. Here are a few links to check out.

http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tamron/PRD_85117_3128crx.aspx#reviews

http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83600_3128crx.aspx

[HJMinard]

Drop the Tamron and Sigma and get the 70-200 F4, which should cost about the same. You are better off getting one good lens and working your way up instead of buying mediocre stuff, using it, depreciating it's value and end up buying the better lenses later.


Have you used either of the lenses you call mediocre? I can't speak for the Sigma, but my Tamron 28-75 consistently provides sharper images than my 70-200/4L (and I'm not unhappy with that lens). Sure, the build quality is not in the L class, but I can buy multiple Tamrons for what a similar (image quality and speed-wise) Canon would cost.

On the other hand, if su719 expects to use the telephoto end of the lens collection almost exclusively, I would agree that the 70-200 might be the best option. However, having only the 50 below the 70-200 would leave a rather large hole with regard to wide angle options.

[su719]

Jay,

Right now I am exploring my options. I do not think I will be exclusively using the full zoom of the lens otherwise I would be inverstigating the prime. I will probably use this lens to shoot some autoX and track events of my friends.