Comming out of total newbie stage, time to think of new glass

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

So I've been practicing my photography for a little over five months now, and I feel I've gotten a pretty good idea of what I like to shoot, and what tools would best suit my style of shooting. The main thing is I always find myself begging for a more shallow DOF, a faster shutter speed, more width, more length, ect ect. So, first off I think my lenses need to all be as fast as possible. Second, I've noticed that my 70-200 f/4L hasn't left the bag in weeks. I rarely shoot long focal lengths, most of the time my 17-40L is on my camera.

I'm very much interested in getting into candid and portrait photography, as well as a few other things. Some land scapes, and what not I guess. I've come up with a list of lenses that I think would cover all my needs, and I'd like to know what you guys think. Things like, do all the lenses in my list perform well? Do you have any experiences with any of them? Any problems? Suggestions for alternatives that are either sharper, faster, extensively cheaper without sacrofice of quality, ect?

Hehe, this list has been edited many times recently, but here's what I'm hoping is the final;

10-22mm EF-S
35mm f/1.4L
24-70mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.8
135mm f/2L

My plan is to sell my 50mm, 17-40L, and 70-200L to help pay for the new set. I'll keep my sigma 150mm macro, and probably grab a 1.4x t-con for the 135 f/2L just incase I need the 200mm. And... that'll be it! The goal is to be left not feeling the need for more. I'd like to go out into the field and not have to think "Damn it! Why couldn't this darn thing be an f/1.8?" Or, "Gah, not wide enough!" ya know? I wanna take pics without getting frustrated.:lol:

[grego]

I might offer a suggestion on replacing your 17-40 for the 16-35 2.8 wide angle, if you are willing to go for that. That might help you ease your frustrations with the low light stuff.

You have a solid list there which should cover everything you need.

[pcasciola]

I like that list a lot!!

I know we've all heard it before, but for casual shooting, I see no benefit in spending the extra $700-800 for the 24-70L over the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Not when the difference in price is enough for just about any lens on that list except the 35/1.4L. Unlmited money, sure, but I'd take a 10-22 + Tamron 28-75 over a Canon 24-70L anyday. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I did. :D

There are a fair share of bad copies of the Tamron out there, but most people I know who bought one were extremely happy with the first one, and maybe one out of 10 have to exchange it for a "good copy".

[ssim]

I have owned the 24-70 since having a 10D. It has served me very well but due to my own clumsiness it took a couple of hard knocks on the sidewalk and now has a hard time attaining focus at times. I picked up the Tamron 28-75 and I must say that this is a really good lens. As Phil stated you may find some copies of it that are not stellar but overall the reviews on this lens are very solid.

I don't have experience with the 85 f1.8 but I do have the 85 f1.2 and it is great. The other one on your list that I have is the 135 f2.0 and it too performs really well. I had gotten the 85 and 135 to shoot a year end dance recital in low light. I can say that I am happy with both of these.

[condyk]

Nice list ... I'd chose the wide and standard zoom I have over the Canon options on price to performance ratio being better, in my view; or I'd take the Tamron, which I also liked a lot, instead of the Sigma if I fancied light weight. Optical quality pretty much the same.

[pcasciola]

I have owned the 24-70 since having a 10D. It has served me very well but due to my own clumsiness it took a couple of hard knocks on the sidewalk and now has a hard time attaining focus at times.That's one aspect where the Canon 24-70L is in a completely different league. I'm fairly sure if I dropped my Tamron on a concrete sidewalk even once it would break. The 24-70L is built like a tank, and it feels like it could survive a fall off a two story building, while my Tamron 28-75 feels nowhere near as solid. I'm not saying the Tamron feels cheap, just that the Canon 24-70L is that much more well made.

[lomond]

I remember giving the Tamron 28-75 some serious consideration a few months ago. If you get a good copy then it's a seriously good lens for the money. The problem is getting a good copy. I've read some people are having problems getting good focus, especially wide open, with this lens.

I guess this is one lens to try before you buy.

[condyk]

The problem is getting a good copy. I've read some people are having problems getting good focus, especially wide open, with this lens.

I guess this is one lens to try before you buy.

I read a good poll that was done here before I bought one and the feedback from OWNERS was overwhelmingly positive. Of course, everyone has an opinion based on gossip ... and it all just feeds off itself. Just like the Sigma 70-300 APO that I ran a poll on a few weeks back. 100% OWNER positive feedback from 30+ OWNERS. Interesting how many negative comments we'd had a few weeks before from NON-OWNERS.

I've read 'some people' having problem with pretty much every lens worth having: 100-400 IS L, 70-200 IS L, 24-70 L ... the Tamron is a cracking good lens, as you say, and I doubt that anyone is more or less likely to get a duff copy than if they bought any other lens.

[lomond]

Condyk, you're right all lenses can have bad copies.

To qualify my statement, this is one of the threads that made me think again.
And these are owners from a reputable website.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187

[pcasciola]

I think the problem is, almost everyone who has a problem posts, but very few people say they bought their lens and everything is just fine. This made it appear as if everyone was getting a bad copy of the Tamron 28-75, when the polls showed it was actually more like 5% from what I remember.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I think the problem is, almost everyone who has a problem posts, but very few people say they bought their lens and everything is just fine. This made it appear as if everyone was getting a bad copy of the Tamron 28-75, when the polls showed it was actually more like 5% from what I remember.

I think your right about that. I seriously considered adding the tamron to the list instead of the canon, but when I thought about it, I really want that 4 mm on the wide end. Another thing is that it'd probably be my primary lens. I'd use it like, everyday, and so I figure it would be a worthy investment to spend the extra cash on that lens. And you gotta figure when there's a 700 dollar difference between two lenses that appear the same, it's got to be for a reason... I had initially intended on adding the 16-35mm f/2.8 instead of the 10-22, but because I am going for the canon 24-70 instead of the tamron 28-75 I figured I should probably try to cut off a few $$$'s somewhere. The 660 dollar difference between the 10-22 and the 16-35 I feel will balance out the possible difference between the tamron and canon.

I don't have unlimited funds of course, but I can definately afford the list I set up. Ehhh, I donno, I guess if I did drop the 24-70 and go for the tamron I'd have an extra 700ish to maybe save up for a 100-400L to round off my collection.... or of course just hold on too. With current gas prices that 700 would be gone in a few weeks anyway. :-) But that 4mm is really bothering me though.

Do any of you 10-22 and tamron 28-75 owners feel that there's too much of a gap between the lenses?

[Andy_T]

If the 4 mm are bothering you, then look at the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro instead.

Best regards,
Andy

[grego]

The Tamron has some problems? Ha, just like the 24-70L. Although it seems the L gets more of a bum rep from the few that have gone bad compared to the Tamron, go figure.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

If the 4 mm are bothering you, then look at the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro instead.

Best regards,
Andy

Yea, I know. Still though, there's got to be some significant reason for the difference in price...

[grego]

Yea, I know. Still though, there's got to be some significant reason for the difference in price...

Price difference with what? The Canon and Tamron or Tamron and Sigma?

I thik you lose a little with the 10-22 in that it is not 2.8, and fast lens seem to be your new aim. And if you still use your Elan, it would be nice to use a nice WA on it. Can't do that with the 10-22.

[rklepper]

I have the 24-70 L and really like it. I think also that when you pay this much for a lens you probably shout just that much louder if you get a bad copy.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the negatives we hear about lenses, though, are more due to people not giving them a fair chance. My experience has been that any lens does not do its best right out of the box. You kind of need to grow into the lens.

[rklepper]

And let me add that I have done my share of growing into DSLR in the last 6 months. Some of it quite painful.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Price difference with what? The Canon and Tamron or Tamron and Sigma?

I thik you lose a little with the 10-22 in that it is not 2.8, and fast lens seem to be your new aim. And if you still use your Elan, it would be nice to use a nice WA on it. Can't do that with the 10-22.

Sorry, I meant the difference between basically the tamron and or sigma against the canon. Since, the price difference between canon to tamron or canon to sigma is pretty close.

As for the Elan, I thought about that, but I don't really like shooting film. I bought the camera for a photography class I'll be taking for the next 9 months or so. It's film only, and ah, I donno.

Maybe, 16-35 f/2.8L, 35 f/1.4L,Tamron 28-75, 85 f/1.8, and 135 f/2L. Then again, I still think 24-70 range is where most of my shooting will be done, and I'd rather invest most of my $$ there. Hense the 24-70L and 35L. Those would end up being my most heavily used lenses.

Maybe, I should keep my 17-40... I do love it, just not it's apeture... 10-22 is just about as slow... hmmmmm

Eh, alright, this is what I really want to know, is there a noticable difference between pictures taken with a 24-70L and a tamron 28-75? Like, the difference between a 85 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.2L for example. The contrast and colors of the 85L are un-touchable by the f/1.8 version. Is there something simular between the canon L and tamron?

[grego]

Your ideas sounds pretty sound which every way you do it. Well you know what you are getting the L, and its not just image quality. All those good L's usually have that good contrast, sharpness, color, saturation. Like the 85's are both sharp, but the L has more color, contrast and saturation. The 85 1.8 is great, but the 1.2 is just greater. Heck, Im sure without the 1.2, that 1.8 would be an L and like 1 grand at least.

I guess the best question asked, is if you are likely going to be using the 24-70 the most, why not put more money into the most used one. But they say that 24-70 Sigma DG Macro is pretty good. I've used the Tamron for a while and was pretty pleased with it, although never used the Sigma. If you do get rid of the 17-40 and don't replace it, I think a focal length of 24 on the midrange zoom would be best for you.

[SolPics]

I tested the Tamron and Canon zooms before I bought the Canon. They are both great lens. I like to print 8 1/2 by 11 and 11 by 14 pics so I like the Canon which IMO had better color and contrast. It does get a little getting used to, it's a heavy lens. I justified the extra cost the same as you stated because it was going to be my primary lens.

If you're going to use this lens alot I think it's worth the price.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I tested the Tamron and Canon zooms before I bought the Canon. They are both great lens. I like to print 8 1/2 by 11 and 11 by 14 pics so I like the Canon which IMO had better color and contrast. It does get a little getting used to, it's a heavy lens. I justified the extra cost the same as you stated because it was going to be my primary lens.

If you're going to use this lens alot I think it's worth the price.

Aw, yes, thank you!:lol: I think I'll actually like the weight of it. I just like the feel of heavy lens. I kinda think they add some stability when shooting. For me at least. I'm guessing this thing's AF is going to be fast enough to shoot sports right? I'm hoping to take it to the skate park when I get it and shoot some wide angleish shots of people flying over my head and stuff. It can totally handle that right?:)

[SolPics]

It does focus very fast. Offcourse shooting moving objects depends on your panning skills, but the lens is definitely is upto it. I would recommend a AI servo, center focus, and high shutter speed (above 500) to get a sharp picture. Enjoy!