I'mPatient(?)

[myth337]

Ok.. so I'm saving for a big white lens... (or two)

I like long shots, like flying aircraft, and it is difficult to get close enough for a 200 lens to do the job. (the security guards keep chasing me off the runway...)

The 100-400 is a definite. I have seen too many good... no, Great shots in this forum, and have read too much praise about it.

The 70-200/2.8L IS was at the top of the list.. but getting both of these will be hard on my bank account, not to mention my marriage. ;)

- and - most of the 70-200 is covered by the 100-400, so the major advantage for this would be the 2.8, right?

The biggest problem right now is that I have only two lenses, the kit lens (18-55), and my big 500 Tamron Mirror. The huge gap in the middle really bothers me.

I NEED another lens!!

I know the 24-70/2.8 is also a nice lens, but too expensive, and I do more long / tight than wide shots.

Today I played with a Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, and wondered if it would be enough for my 'walk around' lens, and of course to fill the current gap a bit.

The Image Stabilizer was kind of interesting, but it had a bit of difficulty locking focus on some things. (plugged onto a 1Ds, inside the store.. enough light was shining thru the windows)

The price is not that bad...(could pick it up this week)... but, if I put a few more Euro on top, I could do a 70-200 F4L, which would also be nice. The problem here is that if I am going to do a 70-200, it would be nice to have the 2.8 for those indoor / late nite shots that always seem to come up.

And again, the problem, most of the 70-200 is covered by the 100-400 that is going to be purchased... in a month or two... (and of course, every euro I spend on anything else will just delay this.)

The questions: (not necessarily in order of priority...)

1: Is there any reason NOT to buy the 28-135 IS??? (be impatient)

2: Should I save up for the 100-400 first? (be patient!)

3: Counting the 100-400 as one of my main lenses, would the 28-135 (or another suggestion) be a reasonable complimentary lens?

I have read many threads and comments, and today the sales dude initially suggested not getting the 28-135, but switched halfway through when I said that I also wanted the 100-400. He was either being a typical sales dude, or actually agreed with my logic about the two lenses.

Any comments or suggestions are welcome, even those telling me to save up for more expensive glass.

tia...
.. Lee

[MrChad]

Given what you have in your kit now, you really can't go wrong with either the 28-135IS or the 70-200f4.

The question is which is longer or wider and more useful to you?

I wouldn't stress over the L mantra this site gets into from time to time, get some gear you can afford to own and sleep at night with having paid for no. 1 and no. 2 get some gear and get out shooting. Sitting around dreaming about L glass and not having lenses and not using the SLR, that's not what the hobby is about..is it?

Givin that you have the 18-50, the 70-200mm f4l may be the better lens. But given your huge gap in glass any tele even a 75-300 or 100-300mm EF would be of huge use to you.

I'd build a good economical kit now and save for the ubber reach L's. Either lens you have mentioned will be great. I know I love IS.

[myth337]

Hello MrChad...

Thanks for the reply. (I had just been reading some other threads that you replied to last nite...)

As I mentioned, I like Longer / Tighter framed shots more than wide. (although I have made some cool landscape shots...)

here is a post with a 500mm shot... (autofocus would have been nice here)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81786

.. and a post with the kit lens... (there were a lot of shots this nite that didn't work, where a 2.8 or IS would have helped a lot)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81909

.. this post shows some 200mm shots. the one in the air is a 100% crop, which showed me that I needed a longer lens for aircraft work. (zoom would have been nice to have here as well.)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81784

I have actually not gone to certain events because I didn't have a lens to work with, but the ones I did go to produced some good results.

After sleeping on it, and given that I have the 18-55, which produces relatively good results under normal circumstances, I will focus (excuse the pun) on getting a lens that can give me shots that I can't take now.

The 100-400 wins.

I was trying to figure out if I needed the smaller lens now, but if I spent 500 euro, it would take me that much longer to save up the 1500 euro for the 100-400.
(yes.. expensive here in Germany)

In my version of economics, spending money on a 'temporary' version until you can get the 'permanent' version never works, because the most long lived things start out as temporary solutions.

I think I can wait the next couple of weeks till I have enough for the 100-400, then I have a nice big IS Zoom lens, that happens to be an L. ;)

"If you are going to do something, do it right, or don't do it at all."

"If you don't have time (or money) to do it right the first time, where will you get the time (or money) to do it right the second time?"

Having said that... the 20D (or the 1Ds or the MkII) would also have been nice, but I decided that the 300D would let me get out and start shooting today... and I could invest the rest in some good glass.

Like you said.. "Sitting around dreaming" doesn't produce any good pictures...

.. Lee

[condyk]

The 300D is an outstanding camera and if you are skilled with decent lenses you will get great results. Not even worth an upgrade or worrying if you have the latest and best. Talent/Lenses/Body ... sorted!

Be patient and get the 100-400mm IS L as it too is outstanding and the balance on the 300D will be good, esp. if you get a Grip too. Improves handling a lot and so does a hand strap.

As to the standard range, if you feel you WILL definately make use of it then I think the best options are Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG Macro and the Tamron 28-75 that you'll have read a million times about. Either will do you. I'd go the Sigma route myself even though I have a nice Tamron. I think the extra on the wide end is more useful if you have some zoom above 100mm anyway. The range from 70-100 won't kill you and if it does then down the road sometime get a Canon 85mm prime as your next buy.

I think the 70-200mmf4 will disappoint as it won't meet YOUR needs. I love it, but didn't meet mine either :lol:

[MrChad]

Myth337 I think the 100-400L will be a great choice.

I was only meaning to say if you are going to wait months or years for glass, some is better then none, now.

I think some folks get the impression that unless it's L you can't take a picture. :p
A few years ago even L's were variable aperture lenses.

28-80L f2.8-4.0L I think they even had a 50-200mm f2.8-4.0L and an 80-200L too.

Using the buy best, buy once matra I likely wouldn't have ever had a first car in my life :)

$300+ EF lens is not junk either.

But reguardless you will love the 100-400L for your hobby, don't let the lack of L stop you from going to events.....

[myth337]

But reguardless you will love the 100-400L for your hobby, don't let the lack of L stop you from going to events.....

It wasn't the L, or lack thereof, that was stopping me.. but the range of my lens. (went to a MeatLoaf concert anyway.. even tho I didn't take my camera. actually, it was better that way.. cuz I had time to enjoy the show.. and didn't worry about getting the shot!!)
(excellent concert!! Bat Out Of Hell still sounds Great 27 years later.)

Waiting for the 100-400 won't be that hard now, and hopefully it won't be that long of a wait.

I didn't really know much about recent Canon lenses, but my first SLR camera was an AE-1 Program.. that served me well many years ago.

Thanks...
.. Lee

[BrandonSi]

Have you considered the bigma?! 50-500mm with excellent optics, all in one lens, and all under $1,000. Not really a walk around lens, but it should cover that gap nicely ;)

[gasrocks]

Well, all good ideas. Are you just going to decide on the next lens from your list OR plan ahead? You don't really have anything wide. Kit lens is iffy. Are you really happy with the results from the mirror lens? Given time and $, I might work up a "wish list" that involves more than the 1 next lens.

[myth337]

Brandon... I looked at the Bigma.. and it is a beast of a lens... but I do too much work without a tripod, and the IS from the Canon 100-400 sounds too good to pass up. (have read lots of good things about the Sigma, er, Bigma...)

gasrocks... My 500 Mirror has made some really awesome shots, but it is difficult to focus on fast moving targets, such as aircraft, low flying ducks, etc. The Kit lens has also produced some good shots, but it does have it's limitations. (I have not printed many shots yet, with either lens, so I can't judge the print quality.)

The WishList on my Signature shows some of the lenses that have consumed many brain cycles of late, and the question was one of priorities... getting a lens, any lens, now.. to do some pics other than what the 18-55 or 500 can do?? or wait till I could get one of the wished for lenses.

In this case, the 100-400 is my first choice, because it will give me the reach I want, with IS, and the image quality.

As you said, given the appropriate amount of time and Euros, I will acquire other lenses to perform other duties. Low light shot requirements may drive me to get a mid-range 2.8 zoom, as in the canon 24-70 or 70-200 L IS, depending on the events that I visit.

Either way, the 100-400 will keep me busy for a while.. till the bank account recovers... ;)

.. Lee

[MrChad]

I wish we could get a Mirror reflex 500mm AF lens like Minolta has for the Maxxum.

They are small and pack a huge punch, it would be a wonderful lens to play around with.

[lordjim]

Lee -

I would go with the 70-200 F4 L if I were you. Don't bother about F2.8 as you can increase ISO with little noise on the 300D (up to 400 Iso). The increase in ISO should take care of low light situations. Unless you plan to shoot in very dark conditions.

With the difference in price between the F4 and the F2.8, I would invest in a third party extender such as the Tamron SP AF 1.4X. This should bring you up to 280mm (i.e., 448mm with the crop factor). The Tamron SP AF 1.4X works great with the 70-200 F4L. (or you can buy a third party long telephoto zoom such as the new Tamron 200-500 that you will later resale to upgrade to the 100-400 once you have saved for it.)

Be aware that any long telephoto zoom without IS such as the Tamron 200-500 will likely require the use of a good tripod which is expensive too.

I hope that helps.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You can cover a lot of focal range with the two IS zooms you mention (28-135mm and 100-400mm)

tha's 28-400mm in just two lenses... two GOOD lenses.

I say go for it.

[condyk]

I was disappointed in the differences between the smaller Canon IS and my ex 70-200mm f2.8 and 50-500mm Sigma's. Images taken with the former seemed flat and lifeless. With the latter there was much more vibrancy and colour. I'd rather get a more uniform quality across my range personally. I image the difference between the 28-135 and the 100-400mm IS L would be as marked.

If you don't mind that possibility then it's a good, practical combo. I'd certainly test it against the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG Macro. You may find the 2.8 is more suited to evening/indoor shooting. There are plenty of SH Canon 28-135 IS's around so you could always buy one, try it and then resell for what you paid if you didn't like it. Low risk and would cover you for the next while until the 100-400mm IS arrives.

[lordjim]

Never tried the 28-135. However, if you look on the internet, it has mixed reviews to say the least. I had such a bad experience with a 75-300 USM II that I was hesitant to buy a 28-135 that some find soft and/or of poor built quality. I am not saying it is, I am just saying that the 28-135 is not a unanimous choice.

The Tamron 28-75 has more consistent good reviews and I was pleased with that choice. It is a good walkaround lens. Remember that is in fact a 45-120mm with the crop factor.

You can't go wrong with the 100-400 although I use the 70-200 a lot more as it is more handy.

With a Tamron 28-75, a Canon 70-200 F4 L and an extender, you would go from 28 to 280 with prime quality glasses. As the 18-55 is useable, you would in fact cover 18 to 280mm nicely.

[CyberDyneSystems]

hmmm.. yes. a tiny gap between 70 and 100mm won't matter at all..
I do like the Tamron XR DI more than the similarly priced Canon 28-135mm

Good point.

[myth337]

The differences of opinion about the 28-135 have also confused me a bit, and the unanimous support of the 70-200/F4 is overwhelming, to say the least. Plugging an extender on here would move the F4 in the wrong direction, would have the versatility of a good light lens for walk-around :) , but no IS for the long shots. :(

I did a lot of mountain climbing here in Europe, well.. they're called the Alps... and extra weight, lenses or tripods, takes your breath away as much as the view!
(hmm... still need the tripod for the panorama swings... )

A friend of mine with a "N" brand camera had a Tamron XR DI, and when I was contemplating the purchase of said "N" item, it was one of the top choices as a walkaround.

I've been browsing thru a few thousand pics that I had taken over the years, and noticed that most of them were tight zoomed shots with my 70-210. I had a 24-50 as well, which only accounts for less than 5% or so of my pictures, and my Tamron 500 Mirror was actually used more! I sometimes used other cameras for studio shots, but that was also only a small percentage.

If I look at the majority of photos, the fall into these categories:
- Airplanes - mostly flying, with a few static ground shots.
- Cars - mostly driving, race tracks, with several car show shots.
- Sailing Ships - almost always in the water, taken from other boats or helicopters. (IS would be handy here!!)
- Models - some studio work, mostly outdoors though, with 100+ focal length.
- Concerts - well... low light, bad light, long range, no tripod, difficult to say the least... but I managed to get some relatively cool shots. (used a lot of 800 film)
- Landscapes - everything from sunrises to sunsets.. but more longer focal length shots than wide angle shots. (ok.. a bunch of panoramas were there too.. but I've changed my wide angle landscape - horizontal - series to portrait - vertical - series, so a 100 would actually do here as well.)
- WildLife - aka Nature... and this is also long range.

... and in almost every category, the evening, low-light stuff always seems to turn up to throw a loop into your day.

There were more complaints that I couldn't get close enough to the subject, than the other way around. It comes down to a majority of telephoto over wide, and I would be kept busy with the 100-400.

So, if I can maintain my self control, I should be able to order it within a few weeks.
(and that'll be my budget for the year...)

Once that is done, I can start looking for 2.8 or faster lenses, and anything else I need to capture whatever inspires me next. (bug hunting?? moon shots?? tilt-shift stuff??)

Thanks for the input and discussions. It helped make some plans and decisions.
.. Lee

[AjP]

I'm also saving for L's and for now I have 28-135, good walk around lense, a little bit slow focusing with low light condition, but overall, good lense

[myth337]

I'm also saving for L's and for now I have 28-135, good walk around lense, a little bit slow focusing with low light condition, but overall, good lense

When I was testing it in the store, it did hunt quite a bit, and sometimes refused to lock. A window had blinds down, and it wouldn't lock onto the street outside, even though it was bright, but when I looked out the open window onto the sunny city, it worked fine.

... hence... the reason for this thread. :confused: