Walk around lens under $400

[COKE CAN]

I shoot cars and landscape, what is great for this but under $400?

Thanks,
Steve

[GTogs]

I don't know about cars, but the Sigma 18 - 125 works well. I have gotten some great shots with mine.

[kawter2]

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR DI (not as wide angle as you would like)



but Yea, ... pretty much that's a great lens

[COKE CAN]

I was going to only spend $200 on my next lens, but, I'll spend $400 and stick with 3 for awhile.

[rdenney]

I shoot cars and landscape, what is great for this but under $400?

My favorite walking-around lens is the first one I bought specifically for the 10D's smaller format. It is the 20-35 USM. It will perform much better than the kit lens, and with the nifty fifty you don't really need to zoom into the 50's in any case. It's a good second-best to the 17-40L if you can't afford it.

This lens goes from moderate wide angle to short telephoto, making it good for interior people pictures, landscapes, and, yes, cars.

Here is at 20:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/seattle-waterfront-fountain.jpg

And here it is at 35:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/boats-diamond-lake-lores.jpg

Rick "who thinks this lens is better than the usual 19-35 Cosina and 18-35 Sigma derivatives" Denney

[cactusclay]

Canon or non Canon?

[tim]

I find the Tamron 28-75 good for my needs. I don't do much landscape work and it might be a bit long for that, but it's good for most things I want to do.

[cactusclay]

For canon, maybe the 24-85, or 28-105 2.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I'd have to agree with Rdenny. The 20-35mm canon is a great lens for the price.

[COKE CAN]

I'm not too worried about the Canon name. I'm a beginner, and on a budget. If the quality is good for the price and won't fall apart then hey, I'm all for it if it suits my needs. More suggestions welcome if there are any.


Thanks guys!

[MrChad]

I don't know about cars, but the Sigma 18 - 125 works well. I have gotten some great shots with mine.

Ditto! I love my Sigma 18-125mm, and you can pocket the extra $140 you will save for something else, like a flash.

[2goldens]

I have said it before and I will say it again I love my Sigma lens.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to have cannon lenses but at times you have to go with what you can afford.
Or you may want to hold off for just a bit longer and save a bit more for the Canon?

[COKE CAN]

I have said it before and I will say it again I love my Sigma lens.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to have cannon lenses but at times you have to go with what you can afford.
Or you may want to hold off for just a bit longer and save a bit more for the Canon?

If you are refering to the 70-300, that is a little bit more than I need.

[pcasciola]

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di. Great all around lens for under $400, and my only complaint would be that it is not wide enough for me at times, especially with the 1.6x crop. You can use your kit lens for when you need wide angle, which served me well until I got the 10-22 EF-S.

[ayotnoms]

One more for the Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di.
Great value. Excellent photos. 6yr warranty.
They would also appear to have a good resale track record judging by how infrequently they appear on Buy/Sell forums and how quickly they sell when they do.

[COKE CAN]

The Tamron 28-75 is only coming up as XR on pricegrabber. What do the extensions stand for with the Tamron?

I think it is up between this and the Canon 20-35

[pcasciola]

XR is the one you want. Actually, it's the 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di LD

Xr = Extra Refractive
Di = Digitally Integrated
LD = Low Dispersion

[COKE CAN]

XR is the one you want. Actually, it's the 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di LD

Xr = Extra Refractive
Di = Digitally Integrated
LD = Low Dispersion

Would you recomend the Tamron over the Canon 28-135 is usm?

[pcasciola]

Would you recomend the Tamron over the Canon 28-135 is usm?That's a tough call. I'm a big fan of IS, and the extra 60mm is nice, but the constant f/2.8 aperture is what I personally like about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 over the Canon 28-135 IS which is a much slower lens. If I was considering the 28-135, I think I'd go for the 17-85mm IS EF-S instead, since it's made to have the same zoom range on the 1.6x cameras as the 28-135 has on film cameras.

[COKE CAN]

That's a tough call. I'm a big fan of IS, and the extra 60mm is nice, but the constant f/2.8 aperture is what I personally like about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 over the Canon 28-135 IS which is a much slower lens. If I was considering the 28-135, I think I'd go for the 17-85mm IS EF-S instead, since it's made to have the same zoom range on the 1.6x cameras as the 28-135 has on film cameras.

That's a $200 difference! haha

[pcasciola]

Oh yeah, I forgot how expensive the 17-85mm EF-S is. Well this is par for the course. Throw out a $400 budget, and we'll have you spending $1100 in no time. :D

[COKE CAN]

Oh yeah, I forgot how expensive the 17-85mm EF-S is. Well this is par for the course. Throw out a $400 budget, and we'll have you spending $1100 in no time. :D

Let me pay off my car first! haha

All in due time I'm sure. :cool:

[cc10d]

The 28-135 IS is among the best non L zooms there is. If you do not require the f2.8 of the tamron, The 28-135 give you a lot more range. the difference from 75 mm max to the 135 mm max is significant, especially if you do not have a longer lens. I have both the tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR etc. and the canon 28-135. I like them both. The obvious is the low light capability and bokeh of the tamron and the longer reach and Is of the canon are the big differences. The higher f4.5-5.6 of the canon is not so much a limiter as it once was now that we can use higher ISO settings without undue noise. IS is great especially at the long end. The selective depth of field at 2.8 cannot be had at f5.6 so one decides which is most important more of the time and does that for now and gets the other one later. :)

[COKE CAN]

I just looked at the Tokina 12-24 f4 any opinions? But wait, it's only $150 less than the 17-40L.

[Andy_T]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 does have significantly better image quality than the Canon consumer lenses (24-85, 28-105, 28-135 IS, 17-85 IS). That could mean the difference between using f/4.0 or f/8.0 if you want to get a tack sharp image.

Best regards,
Andy

[COKE CAN]

Well, I think you guys swung my decision. In the next month or so I'll be looking into the Tamron.

[gcogger]

I love my Tamron 28-75, but I'm positive that you'd find the wide end limiting for landscapes. If the shots of cars are from any distance, you'll also find the tele end too short. You'll end up carrying at least 2 lenses, probably 3. f/2.8 is not essential for either use.
If you want a single lens option, for the time being at least, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-125. It's cheap, and it will help you work out what focal lengths you use the most.
When I'm out walking in the hills I carry the Sigma, not the Tamron. All the shots in my Snowdonia and Lake District galleries (Graeme's galleries (http://www.gcogger.dsl.pipex.com/)) were taken with the Sigma.