Expanding my collection

[jerseycowboy]

I currently have the kit 18-55 and a 28-135, in addtion to the 50mm/1.8.

I'm thinking of replacing the 18-55 with a 18-125 and the 28-135 with a 75-300 or 100-300. And of course, keeping the 50.

I'm also hoping to grab a 12-24 if I can find one cheap.

What are you thoughts on this collection?

[FlipsidE]

I guess the first question I have is, what kind of photography are you planning to do overall?

FlipsidE

[jerseycowboy]

That's a tough one. I don't really have any specific type. I like landscapes and other stills. Not doing the sports thing really. Just looking to have some decent "coverage" with as few lenses as possible. Since I'm no where near professional (barely amatuer) I don't want to be hauling 4 or 5 lenses around. 2-3 max.

[gramps]

Not know what you inted to use the new glass for makes givig advice a bit hard but I'll give it a stab. Replace the 18 - 55 with the 24 - 70 & and the 28 - 135 with a 70 - 200............get a 1.4 TC and save up for the 10 - 22. KEEP the 50 1.8 unless you want to send it to me.

[jerseycowboy]

Not know what you inted to use the new glass for makes givig advice a bit hard but I'll give it a stab. Replace the 18 - 55 with the 24 - 70 & and the 28 - 135 with a 70 - 200............get a 1.4 TC and save up for the 10 - 22. KEEP the 50 1.8 unless you want to send it to me.

that would take away my ability to get the wideness from the 18 to 24. and lose the zoom i'd gain with the 75-300.

I'm keeping the 50. no question there.

[gramps]

the 1.4 TC will take the 70 - 200 to about 380!!!!! and if you can get the 10 - 22 you will be wider than the 18 -24.

[Olegis]

Just looking to have some decent "coverage" with as few lenses as possible.

You already have this decent coverage. Why would you want to replace your lenses ? The 28-135 is an excellent lens and personally I wouldn't want to replace it, unless I wanted something brighter (Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for example or the very expensive Canon 24-70 f/2.8L). The 18-55 kit lens is quite nice, the only thing I would upgrade it to would be the Canon 17-40 f/4L, the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 or the Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro prime. The 50mm f/1.8 isn't really "upgradeable", unless you want faster lens, which would be the 50mm f/1.4 or something longer, like the 85mm f/1.8.

[jerseycowboy]

sorry, I didn't read your post well and I don't even know what a TC is. The 18-24 is to replace the kit and i'd be saving for the 12-24. How does that compare to the 10-22 pricewise?

[jerseycowboy]

Oleg -

My goal is to have wide options and decent zoom options with only two lenses (not including the 50, which is staying in my collection). i figured i can go wide with the 18-24 and long with the 75-300 (or the 70-200 with a TC once someone explains that to me)

Like I said, there would also be a wider lense purchased - either a 10-22 or 12-24

[gramps]

sorry, I didn't read your post well and I don't even know what a TC is. The 18-24 is to replace the kit and i'd be saving for the 12-24. How does that compare to the 10-22 pricewise?

the 10 - 22 is going to give you the widest option but it cost about $675.00
The TC will "extend" the reach of the lens, in this case 1.4 x 200 = 280 Also loke Olegis said............the 24 - 70 2.8....it's a GREAT lens

[jerseycowboy]

What is TC? Can I use it on other lenses? i.e. Can I get a 75-300 or 100-300 and put the 1.4TC on there, bringing it to 420?

[Naytwan]

I was in a pretty similar boat. I had a 18-50 sigma 3.5, 28-135 IS and a 75-300 as well as the 50 1.8. I kept the 50 and sold everything else and bought a 17-85 IS EF-S (I have a 20D) and a 70-200 F4 L. I'm very happy with the 17-85. It covers almost everything the 28-135 did. I never really took the 28-135 much further then 50, so I'm not missing the extra mm. I'll get the 70-200 today and I'll get a 1.4 teleconvertor when my pocket book recovers in about a week or so.

[gramps]

here is the link to Canon's page that has the 1.4 TC on it. click on the 1.4 and a full description will pop up.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lineup/supertelephoto/index.html

[Belmondo]

What is TC? Can I use it on other lenses? i.e. Can I get a 75-300 or 100-300 and put the 1.4TC on there, bringing it to 420?

TC=teleconverter

The Canon 1.4X TC will not work on any of the lenses you're discussing. It will only work on telephoto primes 135mm or longer, and the L zooms (70-200, all versions, and the 100-400)

The reason it won't work on other lenses is there is a protruding element on the forward end of the TC that requires a recess in the back end of the lens being attached. Most lenses have a flush rear element and are not designed to accept the TC.

All this applies to the 2.0X TC, too.

[jerseycowboy]

so i could buy the 100-300 for about $280 or the 70-200 for $570 plus another few hundred for the TC1.4? all for an additional 80mm of reach? For that difference, I could buy the 15-30 as well!

[Belmondo]

so i could buy the 100-300 for about $280 or the 70-200 for $570 plus another few hundred for the TC1.4? all for an additional 80mm of reach? For that difference, I could buy the 15-30 as well!

Don't make the mistake of comparing these two lenses with each other. They are worlds apart in quality. If the only thing you're interested in doing is covering the focal length, and if quality is not an issue, by all means, get the 100-300 for $280.00.

Unfortunately, in the arena of camera optics, there really are no free lunches.

[gramps]

I agree with Belmondo..............comparing the 100 - 300 to the 70 - 200 is apples & oranges. The 70 - 200 is a GREAT lens. Read the reviews and compare the two.

[DocFrankenstein]

IMO your lenses are not limiting you right now. (You don't seem to know what it is you actually need...) ;)

I'd suggest a flash :p Look into 580/550 EX

[jerseycowboy]

at my level, I don't think i would see the quality difference in my pictures between the 100-300 and 70-200. i'll keep doing research and continue asking questions. hopefully, i'll eventually figure out what i want to do.

thank you all for your help thusfar

[gramps]

just remember.................... melt proof your credit cards!!!!!

[Belmondo]

I think there is a tendency to feel we have to get all the focal lengths covered as quickly as possible. I might suggest that people slow down and really think long and hard about what their requirements are and then buy only what they need. That will free up a lot of budget for buying better quality lenses instead of lots of lenses.

I really don't buy into the notion of purchasing a lens with the understanding that in a couple years, I'll be selling it to get something better. I figure I might as well get the best now, and wait a little longer for the next one.

[jerseycowboy]

if photography were the only hobby, this wouldn't be such an issue. but while i'm trying to buy the modifications i want for the motorcycle and looking into new skis at the end of this season, it's tough to justify all that cash on glass. not to mention the fiance is starting to watch the spending habits

[Olegis]

My goal is to have wide options and decent zoom options with only two lenses (not including the 50, which is staying in my collection). i figured i can go wide with the 18-24 and long with the 75-300 (or the 70-200 with a TC once someone explains that to me)
Like I said, there would also be a wider lense purchased - either a 10-22 or 12-24

I still think that you should keep your lenses - you already have decent pieces of optics. The choices you wrote about don't seem to upgrade you in any way : the 18-125 (that would be Sigma, right ?) will not be considerably better than your kit lens, and the 70-300 will not be better optically than the 28-135. The 28-135 even has IS, which is pretty big advantage while shooting in low-light conditions. Those longer lenses (70-300 or 70-200) are not convenient to walk around with, the 28-135 is much better in this regard, as it has much more useful zoom range (that, of course, when you don't need that additional reach).

Instead I would suggest to look into some external flash (the 420EX would be sufficient), some large-capacity CF card and a nice tripod for shooting landscapes, which will greatly and definitely improve your landscape / nature photography.

[jerseycowboy]

I still think that you should keep your lenses - you already have decent pieces of optics. The choices you wrote about don't seem to upgrade you in any way : the 18-125 (that would be Sigma, right ?) will not be considerably better than your kit lens, and the 70-300 will not be better optically than the 28-135. The 28-135 even has IS, which is pretty big advantage while shooting in low-light conditions. Those longer lenses (70-300 or 70-200) are not convenient to walk around with, the 28-135 is much better in this regard, as it has much more useful zoom range (that, of course, when you don't need that additional reach).

Instead I would suggest to look into some external flash (the 420EX would be sufficient), some large-capacity CF card and a nice tripod for shooting landscapes, which will greatly and definitely improve your landscape / nature photography.

Thanks for the input. I guess the lenses I have are decent in reality. I guess I was looking to increase my coverage while decreasing the amount of lenses I have to carry around. But if I could get one more lens that would increase my reach (or something like a TC) I'd be content for now.

I have the 420EX flash, a 1GB and 2 256 CF cards and just pickd up a Slik 330DX Tripod last weeked. Also have a Lowepro backpack (not sure which one), a Mountainsmith daypack with camera "sleeve" and a Velocity 7 bag on the way. The only other accessorie I want is some lens cases to keep the extras safe when I'm not using the Lowepro.

[Olegis]

But if I could get one more lens that would increase my reach (or something like a TC) I'd be content for now.

I see. Then the 100-300 recommended here is a very good option for you. Or, if you're rich and strong, you can go for that 100-400 L IS lens. ;)

[jerseycowboy]

Will the TC1.4 work with the Vivitar or Pheonix 100-400? I don't think so because they don't have IS. So if I want the TC and don't want to drop the 100-400L IS coin, I need to go with the 70-200, right?

[Naytwan]

Correct, from what I can tell.

[gramps]

One more thought if you are thinking about the 70 - 200. There are 3 versions of this lens: the f4, the 2.8 with IS and the 2.8 without IS. There is a pretty big price spread betwen the three. The f4 version is around $600.00 add the 1.4 TC and you are still under the price of the 2.8 non IS version. One other thought the f4 not nearly as heavy as either of the 2.8 versions and is very easy to carry.

[Andy_T]

Correct, from what I can tell.

Not quite so.

IS has nothing to do with it.

Let's start with some basic theory on photography: :D

An important characteristic of a lens is how 'fast' it is. This is determined by it's largest aperture or 'f-stop' that measures basically how much light hits the sensor at a certain time when the lens is 'wide open'.

These stops are not linear, they are as follows: 1.0 - 1.4 - 2.0 - 2.8 - 4.0 - 5.6 - 8.0 (every 'f-stop' multiplies the previous f-stop with a factor of 1.4). It also means that only the half amount of light hits the sensor in a certain time.

So if you have a 200/4.0 lens and can get a shot at 1/125 second (determined by the camera by the available light), with a 200/2.8 lens you get twice as much light and could take the same shot at a shutter speed of 1/250 second ... better to eliminate camera shake.

Now how do teleconverters come in here?

The limitations on whether you can use the teleconverter are based on 2 things: construction and speed of the lens.

First, the teleconverter just does not fit on some lenses because the glass element would get in the way of the rear element of the lens and the lens or the teleconverter would get damaged. (Look at the link at the end of my post for a compatibility list).

Second, the autofocus of the 20D will only work if the lens does not exceed f/5.6 as slowest speed of the lens.

If you add the 1.4 teleconverter, you basically add 1 stop to the f/value of your lens.
The 2.0 teleconverter adds 2 stops.

At 'normal' zoom lenses, the aperture changes when you zoom. The 75-300/4.0-5.6 has an aperture of 4.0 at the 75 mm end, but only F/5.6 on the 300 mm end.

If you would try to use this lens with a teleconverter (note: I don't think it will fit!), it would become a 105-420/5.6-8.0 lens. The camera needs at least f/5.6 to autofocus. 8.0 is too slow, the camera would not autofocus.

Zoom lenses that have a constant aperture (e.g. Canon 70-200/4.0 or Sigma 100-300/4.0) have a more demanding design (larger lenses) that allows a constant aperture over the whole zoom length. They are bigger, heavier, more expensive and generally give better image quality ... and they allow the use of teleconverters.

You can read all of this and a lot more in CDS' excellent introduction to the issue of Teleconverters: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922&highlight=compatibility

Best regards,
Andy