Your opinions are needed...

[ExPOSED]

I currently have a 20D w/ kit lens and 50mm f1.8. I'm getting ready to order two more lenses to cover most of the focal range that I'm looking for. Just wanted your opinions on my choices. Please tell me which lineup you think is better and will help cover the range I'm looking for, which is 300mm. Thanks.

Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon kit lens
Canon 28-135mm IS
Canon 200mm f2.8
Canon1.4tx

OR

Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon Kit lens
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Canon 200mm f2.8
Canon 1.4tx

Ok...just realized while typing this...basically I'm asking if I should get the 28-135mm or the Tamron 28-75mm :rolleyes: Well any opinions would still be great. Sorry about that everyone.

[Mike Panic]

it really depends on your needs

ive heard mixed reviews on the tamron glass and ill b the first to tell you im not a big fan of 3rd party glass manufactors

the canon 28-135is on the other hand pretty much speaks for itself. some will complain its a bit too soft here or a bit slow there... but its a proven lens that works, and offers is... so if thats important to you, consider it

[Olegis]

Why would you want the Canon 200mm f/2.8 prime ? For a little more money you can get the 70-200 f/2.8L zoom, which will be much more flexible than a prime, without sacrificing too much quality.

Then is the Tamron 28-75 or Canon 28-135 dilemma - and it's a tough one. The Canon has much more usable zoom range and has IS for low-light shooting, but the Tamron is brighter (constant f/2.8 across the zoom range), is smaller and lighter and has generally better optical quality. I'm very happy with my Tamron, but sometimes I wish it had longer reach.

[tim]

Similar to Olegis, I have the Tamron and sometimes wish for the 28-135 range of the Canon. The constant F2.8 is great though. I'd probably get the Tamron and a 70-200 F4, or even better the 75(70?)-300 DO IS.

[dhbailey]

I would agree with tim and oleg -- go with the Tamron 28-75, and then get a Canon zoom to take the range from 75 out to where you want it (I would suggest 300 rather than 200, because it's heartbreaking to *almost* get the framing you want!).

I would forego the 1.4x because you'll constantly be taking it off and putting it back on and never quite be satisfied with it and the prime because it'll either be too much at 280 or too little at 200 and never in between.

Of course, if you know the situations you'll be shooting in, and you know that you won't miss the zoom, then the equipment you list would be fine. The list that includes the Tamron that is (I prefer the faster lens over the longer zoom of the Canon 28-135 -- if only Tamron brought out the same lens in a 28-135 range!)

[khiromu]

IF you don't need f2.8 at 200mm, you can also go with only 70-200/4 and skip the normal zoom. I don't think you will miss the gap between the kit lens and the wide end of 70-500... Just another choice you might want to consider...

[Citizensmith]

I would suggest 300 rather than 200, because it's heartbreaking to *almost* get the framing you want!

Yeah but Canon's x-300 lenses are much weaker than the 70-200 lenses, particularly at the long end where they can get pretty freakin' soft. You may be better accepting 200 and cropping. Be kind of interesting to see some comparative tests if anyone has both.

I just wanted to put another vote in for the Tamron. It gets some really good reviews. The folks over at photo.net love it for one.

[KevC]

Olegis: The 200mm f/2.8 is ~$650 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 which is ~1500. That's not 'a little more money'. The non-IS glass is still ~1100, which is *still* a ~$450. Quite a hunk of change IMHO.

I think the bigger question is, would you need the wide aperature? My next glass will be a telephoto. I still haven't decided between the 70-200mm f/4 and the 200mm f/2.8 considering they're very close in price (<$200). If you need the zoom versitility, get the 70-200 f/4. If you're gonna be shooting indoors, maybe the 200mm is a better choice.

[Olegis]

I was talking about the non-IS version. For some reason, the places I checked for the price of the 200mm f/2.8 lens were showing much higher prices. Next time I'll be checking B&H prices only :oops:
But again, I think that the 200mm prime would be too limiting for almost any use - it's too short for telephoto (I know it because many times I wish my 70-200 had longer reach), and too long for occasions that do not need telephoto.

[cc10d]

I like zooms for their versatility, but by the time you get to a f2.8 zoom its getting big and spendy. I have the 200 f2.8 L and enjoy it without the 1.4. I don't recomend multipiers if you can get along without them. I know its more bucks but if you are going for 300mm or more, the 100-400L IS is among the best zooms that covers 300mm. I know its more bucks too, but at 300 it is hard to beat in a zoom. and does not cost much more than the combination 1.4x and prime or one of the 2.8 zooms. and does not need a multiplier to do 300. At 300 it is very sharp, and gives you a bit more reach to 400 if you want it. An argument for the 200 f2.8 is that the 20D will give more precise focus on the center focus position with f2.8 or faster lenses. That goes away if you use the 1.4x though. If you don't need 300mm. I would chose the faster lenses. ie the Tameron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 200 f2.8 choice you listed. The Tameron optic quality compares very well to anything in its range. Build is not quite L level, but I like its performance /buck a lot. The Canon 70-300 DO IS, is in similar price range as the 100-400L IS. It is a very nice performing COMPACT lens, good IS, but at 300 is not up to the 100-400 or the 300 primes. it is small, easy to use and less noticable (for candids) than the others.

[ExPOSED]

Wow, thanks for all the great and quick responses. Thats the one thing I love about this site. Very informative, and great individuals. Looks like there are a lot more options that I could go with. I guess I need to look into it more. Anymore opinions and advice would be great. Unfortunately, in my area there are no shops for me to go in and test them out. In regards to the 200mm f2.8 prime...I know that if I add a 1.4x TC that the reach is almost at 300mm. Is the degradation in the IQ noticable? Thanks.

[ExPOSED]

Ok, I'm still thinking about getting the 200mm prime, main reason is its lighter and smaller than the canon 70-200 or sigma 70-200 and still a f2.8

My question is in regards to crop factor? My understanding is that my focal length on my 20D is 1.6x whatever the lens is. So if I went with the 50mm, the 15-55 kitlens, tamron 28-75, and canon 200mm my focal lengths would be...80mm, 24-88mm, 45-120mm, 320mm. Is that the focal length or am I wrong here? Still a little confused about that? Also if the 200mm equals 320mm, if I add the 1.4x TC does that make it 448mm? Any help clarifying this for me would be great. I plan on making my purchase tomorrow. Thanks.

[Olegis]

You are right in general. The crop-factor doesn't change the magnification of the lens, but since the DSLR sensor is smaller than the original 35mm frame, the picture will be just cropped version of what the full frame camera would have captured. So, in a way you can say that all lenses become a x1.6 longer on 1.6 crop body. For further info you may want to take a look at this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45388) .

BTW, by that 15-55 you probably meant 18-55 (29-88mm equiv.), right ? :cool:

[ExPOSED]

Thanks Olegis, now I have a better understanding. So much to learn! Ok, I think I might just purchase the Tamron 28-75mm for now to use as a walk around lens(I have the kit lens, but it doesn't produce good bokeh. Then hold off on either the zoom or prime until I get a better understanding. I just like the prime 200mm for the f2.8 and its not as big and heavy as the 70-200mm. Shouldn't I be able to use the 200mm handheld a lot better than the 70-200sigma?

[Olegis]

Look, the route I took was - get the 10D with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Do the same and then, after shooting for a while, see what's limiting you - the wide-angle or the longer reach. I mean - having a bunch of lenses covering every mm from 7 to 1200 is very nice, but the question is - do you need it all ? Very soon you may find that the Tamron is everything you need, or on the other hand you may discover that you can't live without that telephoto, and never need the wide-angle. Don't rush, let the thing come in their own way.

Regarding the 200mm prime - I already wrote that I think it's too limiting, in my opinion. Instead of getting the prime, I would get the 70-200 f/4 and then see how I can overcome the difficulties in shooting in low-light conditions (set a flash, bump-up the ISO). In fact, you may find that you never need to shoot in low-light conditions, or you do so very rarely. Or, get the used 70-200 f/2.8L (I got mine for a little less than $800 in great condition).