Pulling my hair out....

[petewa]

I have been taking pictures for many years now... and for the last 5 or so i have had either a nikon or a minolta SLR... just the other night i jumped to the eos 20D (i had a litte 5 MP olympus) there are so many choices on lenses... it si killing me... i just wan tto go with something that has good range... but i wan tit to be good glass... i am not looking at breakign the bank... saving that for the L series.... i am at a loss... one post says the tmaron 28-200 is better than the cannon 28-135IS and then the next post says the oppisite... also looked at the cannon 28-200 USM lense...

i would like to get into portrait shots also...

i have njoyed reading all the posts that i have read in there...
please help!!!

thanks
{Pete

[rdenney]

i am at a loss... one post says the tmaron 28-200 is better than the cannon 28-135IS and then the next post says the oppisite... also looked at the cannon 28-200 USM lense...

Take your camera to a camera store, and mount all these lenses that you an afford and that cover the focal range you want (remember that 28 is the normal lens on the 20D, so mesaure everything with respect to normal and you'll be thinking the correct focal lengths). Take several pictures with each out the front of the camera store. See how easily they hold, how fast they focus, and how much noise they make. Then, go home and view the images at full resolution on your computer monitor. That will show you more than you can get spending weeks and months reading a forum.

There are some trends, of course. Wide-range zooms tend not to perform as well as narrow-range zooms, and narrow-range zooms tend not to perform as well as fixed-focal prime lenses. This trend cuts across the price range, too. But the pricier lenses are easier to hold and operate, focus faster and more silently, have wider maximum apertures, and better image quality when compared with cheaper lenses of the same focal range and speed. But you knew this already, because it's always been true.

Rick "who thinks opinions all sound the same but vary in value with situation and experience, not to mention sample variation and the occasional defective lens" Denney

[ghocking]

I know you say that you don't want to break the bank and move to L glass yet, but it is the best way to go. I wasted money moving up from EF 28-105 and 75-300 to the 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS, which to me at that time I classed as high priced, thinking that the IS would give me the sharpness. I then invested in the 100-400 L IS and the difference is fantastic, since then I have got the 24-70 L 2.8 and thinking of the 70-200 L 2.8 IS. Broke but happy.

[Longwatcher]

The 28-135 IS lens is an excellent lens for the price and is probably recommended over the Tamron because it is a Canon lens and more likely to work correctly more often. On the flip side the Tamron will give you more range at probably lower cost and close enough similiar quality (not having one, possibly better).

It comes down almost to personal choice.
As in although the 24-70L is technically better then my 28-70L, I have not upgraded my 28-70 to 24-70 because I personally like the 28-70 better based on what I shoot. I like the sharpness of my 75-300 IS, but I like the overall pictures taken by my 70-200/2.8L IS a whole lot more, even if not quite as sharp. It has to do with taste more then anything else as long as you avoid the cheap lenses.

L glass is there to get you from 90% to 98% of what you are likely to ever need.

Just my opinion,

[Andy_T]

Pete,

You are always talking compromises ... long range vs. image quality, image quality vs. price, ... :confused:

A good 28-200 lens is a lot harder to build than a good 28-70 lens. Of course, it's inconvenient if you have to switch lenses, but if you want to have the image quality, you have to make sacrifices. One option to go would be the new Canon 28-300 L ... but here the sacrifice would be to part with $ 2500 and a very heavy lens ... something very few people actually do.

My suggestion would be ... get a good camera bag and carry more than one lens :D

I mainly use a Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI in my 20D (awesome lens for about 350$), the 18-55 kit lens for the occasional wide angle (good pictures at f/8 ) and the Canon EF 50/1.8 for portraits. They all nicely fit into my Tamrac Velocity 7 shoulder bag, though the 28-75 is on the camera most often when it comes out of the bag and moves to my neck.

Best regards,
Andy

[Dante King]

Some good Advice! Welcome to the Forums!

[Skip Souza]

Ah, grasshopper, you looked confused. Each of these sage learned ones has given you excellent advice. Each has provided a list of lenses that is near perfect for them. Each of them is different and has different needs.
You must choose your own path to walk. Be not afraid to walk your path and learn from you mistakes for you will surely make them as we all have.
Welcome to the forum. Read, ask, learn, DO.

[Andy_T]

Hehe Skip ... feeling philosophic today, are we :lol:

But good advice!

Best regards,
Andy

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, I would just hop right on the L series lenses..... don't bother with anything else. I started with a 100mm macro and returned it after a few days. Right away I purchased my 70-200 f/4L and I LOVE it! WAY sharper than the macro! And the macro was a 100mm prime! So, L really rocks! I have no clue how much $ you have to spend, but maybe a 24-70L and a 70-200 f/4L would suit you nicely. About $1700.00 for those two. If I had the cash for the 24-70L that's what I'd be doing. Or, maybe a Tamron 28-75 and a 70-200 f/4L. Or maybe just a 70-200 f/2.8L IS or non. Great for indoors, outdoors, sports, portrait, large wild life, birds if you can get close enough, all sorts of things.

Just go to the store and get your hands on every lens you can find. That should help you choose.

[ghocking]

In the UK (Warehouse Express) the 28-135 IS is £339. the 70-200 f4 L is £489. With a new 20D I think you should have a coupon for £70 for to 70-200, this would end being £419, still £80 pounds more But IMHO a much better lens. You could then look at the 17-40 f4 L, and a 50 1.8 and you hve a nice range of lenses.

[Andy_T]

I started with a 100mm macro and returned it after a few days. Right away I purchased my 70-200 f/4L and I LOVE it! WAY sharper than the macro!

Pardon me for pointing it out, but it looks like you got a bad copy of the 100mm macro.

I don't have it, but it reputedly is one of the sharpest lenses Canon is currently building. By all accounts it should be sharper than the 70-200/4.0

Best regards,
Andy

[petewa]

where are some good places to pick up L glass? thanks...

[mikesd]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ is one of the best if buying new. I you are looking at used, check out the marketplace forum here or http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/.

Mike

[petewa]

thank you all for your help... here is the start of my plan... well i ordered a Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II from 17thstreetphoto.com... this will let me start on the portrait side... and i have my eyes on the Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM

good start?

[Skip Souza]

Good start