Lens evolution... please tell me your story

[DocFrankenstein]

I went to Henrys a few days ago, with the sole purpose of looking at the lens there.

Basically I wanted to handle a zoom of about 70-200 in different sizes.

I tried sigma 80-300, cheap canon 75-200 and the 70-200 f/4 L

What can I say? Both sigma and cheap canon wiggle a bit. Plastic and a really cheap feel. When I got my hands on the L stuff Oh man. Micron precision and behaviour.

I know that sooner or later I'm gonna go L way, but I could buy a plastic canon on the way.

I am wondering what your experience is regarding lenses. What did you start with? What did you sell? What did you regred bying?

I'm just getting into it, and I only have 18-55 standard for 300d.

[Stapler123]

Well, I was in a possitions much as your self, having only had the Kit lense, I was thinkin of the other cheaper zooms. Unfortunately I found these forums, and read through the archives, and saw the pictures.

I ended up going with the 70-200 f4L which after only uising 3 days I am in love with. I'm starting to think I could take pictures of turds, and people would tell me how great the turds look. I also got the nifty 50 to replace the the slow zoom end of the kit lense. I think it too is well worth its price, but I havn't had it on as much as the cool looking one.

I will probably keep the kit lense for a bit longer as It is still my only wide angle, and it will be a bit before I can afford another L to replace it.

The eos system is the first that I have owned more than one lense for, and the one I have taken the most pictures with. Thats pretty much my lense story so .. there you go.

[Aylwin]

Well, let's have a beginner's story before we hear from the real photographers.

The 28-135 IS was the first lens I got for my 10D. I was very happy with it. I got decent shots. I thought focus and colors were good. But it was my first time with a DSLR. I guess I was just too excited. Not that the 28-135 IS is bad though. More on that later.

Then I got the 50 1.8 because of all the rave reviews. I thought why not? Anyway, it's ridiculously cheap compared to any of the other lenses. I was even happier. I could take lots of indoor without having to use a flash (I hate using a flash but that's mainly because I don't know how to use it properly). The 50 1.8 more than paid for itself. I got great portrait shots and it was my main lens around the home.

Then I got the 75-300 IS. It was either that or the 17-40 4L. It was cheaper so I got it. My initial reaction was "It's loose!" but apparently that's normal. I guess it's a good lens though and I've taken a few good photos with it but mainly it gathers dust. It's the one lens I regret buying. It's not the lens' fault though. I just don't have much opportunity to use it. I guess it doesn't go along with my shooting habits.

Because of my disappointment with the 75-300 IS, I eventually got the 17-40 4L. I realised immediately that this was the lens I should've bought instead. It has now over took my 50 1.8 as my most used lens. It has also replaced my 28-135 IS as my main walk around lens. So now I have 2 lenses gathering dust.

Not too long ago, the upgrade bug bit me again and I was itching to upgrade. I sometimes felt I needed a faster lens. I considered getting another prime but wider would distort portraits and longer would require me to be too far from the subject. In the end, I decided to replace the 50 1.8 with the 1.4 version. The impact was noticed immediately and it wasn't the lower f-stop. Focus and colors were simply better.

Very recently, I came across a thread where Rad described taking a heldheld photo at 1/6 shutter speed with the 28-135 IS. I had never tried it because I simply assumed it was impossible to produce decent results. Anyway, I did try it and it's true. It can be done! So now I'm dusting off my 28-135 IS and starting to use it again. I've also noticed that it produces sharper/clearer photos than my 17-40 which is an "L". I have trouble accepting this but then the problem may actually be the photographer.

So that's my story and those are my lenses. My trusty ol' 28-135 IS is getting used again. I have a 50 1.4 which, imho, is my best lens. I have the 17-40 4L which will continue to be the most used.

And then there's the 75-300 IS which I wouldn't mind getting rid of. It still in the bag though in case I need it but I never do. I'm very interested in the new 70-300 DO IS but there seems to be some issues with it so I'll have to wait. And besides, I'll probably never use it anyway so why bother?

[Steveo31]

Good story Aylwin.

I loooove L lenses, only cause they are a lot more solid. A lot. I too have the 28-135 IS and what can I say? It's loose. I'm not really confident that it would survive a hike somewhere.

One of these days I'm going to get L lenses up the yin yang.

[Andy_T]

Originally Posted by Aylwin

And then there's the 75-300 IS which I wouldn't mind getting rid of. It still in the bag though in case I need it but I never do. I'm very interested in the new 70-300 DO IS but there seems to be some issues with it so I'll have to wait. And besides, I'll probably never use it anyway so why bother?

Aylwin,

just two things

- the 75-300 IS should - like the 28-135 IS - be capable of taking decent pictures at pretty long exposures. Have you tried that out?

- the 75-300 DO will optically not be that much of an improvement over the 75-300 IS as the increase in price suggests. Take a look atthis review of the EF 70-300 DO IS USM. It compares the new lens to your 2 IS lenses and the 70-200/2.8L. The 70-200/4.0L, will - like the 2.8 version, but cheaper - provide a lot sharper pictures, and you could use the 1.4 converter to get to 280 mm on the 10D.

Best regards,
Andy

[Aylwin]

Thanks, Steve.

Andy,
No, I haven't tried but I have thought about it. I found a comparison between the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 non-IS L. I wish I could find the link again but anyway it was a comparison about how both perform handheld at low shutter speeds. Of course, I expected the 75-300 IS to win but if I remember correctly, it was okay even as slow as 1/30 at 300mm. One of these days I'll do my own tests.

As for the 70-300 DO IS, thanks for the link. Actually, I'm only interested in it for 2 reasons. First, the 75-300 IS is so loose that it bugs me. I'm assuming/hoping the 70-300 DO IS doesn't have this problem. Secondly, I like the smaller size (and weight?). However, for just those two reasons, whether or not it's worth the price is another story.

Regards,
Aylwin

[RikWriter]

I haven't been in the hobby for that long, but here's how it went for me.
I bought the DRebel with the kit lens at Circuit City, and while I was there I picked up a cheap Canon 80-200 lens. A few weeks later, I bought a Phoenix 100-400 lens at a camera shop...I figured, hey, $300 for a 100-400, what could go wrong?
Anyway, then I went on vacation out west and after several missed shots because the Phoenix wouldn't focus fast enough and several more shots ruined because it wouldn't focus WELL in low light, I found out what could go wrong.
So, while I was in Vegas near the end of our vacation, I bought a Sigma 12-24 wide angle lens (which I love) and a Sigma 28-200 (because I thought, "Hey, I can use that sort of versatility walking around"). Problem was, the 28-200 was incredibly NOT sharp, and was a stark contrast to the 12-24.
I came back from my trip and divested myself of the 28-200, the 80-200 AND the piece o' crap Phoenix and bought a Canon 70-200L f4, a Canon 28-105 USM and a Canon 50mm prime (the cheap but beautiful one). Those three, the Sigma 12-24 and the kit lens make up my current arsenal.
I hope, sometime in the near future, to pick up a Sigma 50-500 or maybe (dare I dream) a Canon 100-400L lens. I wish I hadn't wasted the money I did though.

[bertelm]

I first upgraded from a kit lens to a Tameron 28-200 on my film slr. I loved the versitility of the lens.

However, when I upgraded to the 10D, I really noticed how soft the lens was. On a 4x6, the softness isn't as apparent as when you view the picture on a big monitor... So, my next lenses where a Canon 75-300IS and a Canon 24-80. Although they are not known for their sharpness, they were much sharper than the Tameron. For the 1st year, I enjoyed both lenses - the 24-80 is a nice lighweight lens that gives me a great focal range for everyday pictures. The 75-300 was still a bit soft, but I loved the IS and that alone produced some great pictures for me.

To compliment my collection I added a sigma 12-24 - that gives my digital SLR a true wide angle capability. I call this my fun lens - as it produces lots of interesting pictures.

I'm sure it must be the same for others in this forum, as you get better at photography, you get much more critical of your equipment/pictures. The weak link in my lens collection was the 75-300, so I replaced this with a 100-400L lens - what a difference! I'll probably be looking at replacing the 24-80 lens next year, but I haven't decided on what to replace it with yet. I'll also likely add a 50mm lens to my collection. And hopefully, that will be it for the next few years...

Several people have asked me if I would have done things differently had I know what I know now - ie, go for the quality lens up front. I'm not sure I would have. I think 10 years ago, an "L" lens would have been wasted on my. At that time, the cheap equipment wasn't the limitting factor - it was the photographer.

[EoSD30fReAk]

my lens changing went very quick!

i bought the D30 and a Canon EF 24-85usm, some days later i bought the Canon 28-105usm.
i wasn't satisfied with the range so i bought a 28-135IS wich i still love!
also some one gave me a cheap canon 35-80 wich i've never used
than i went for the big guy! the 100 - 400L IS and a couple of months on this forum later i was convinced in buying the 17-40L and i don't regret buying it!

i now only use the 28-135IS and the 17-40L and the 100-400L IS

i sold the 28-105 and gave away the 35-80 but i still own the 24-85 but it's only getting dust! i just can't let go of my first lens i guess

[blinking8s]

i had only the 18-55 for 2 months, then got the 50mm f1.8 then the 70-200 f4 L two weeks ago...i went and looked at the 28-135 IS and did not like it, so i got online the 2nd i asked about it on there, then bought it the next day

[arumdevil]

Originally Posted by Stapler123

I'm starting to think I could take pictures of turds, and people would tell me how great the turds look.

how's this for a turd?



taken with a friends 70-200 f/4 L of course!

[Jmurman]

Originally Posted by arumdevil

how's this for a turd?



taken with a friends 70-200 f/4 L of course!

I dont know....that turd looks soft to me

[Canuck]

I'm with you guys and add one thing...looks like crap!

Ok in a nutshell, I had the Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 and Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 lenses from film days. I slapped that on the 10D and was getting Err 99 all the flipping time. I was about getting frustrated and found this forum. The world has never been the same since! So after some time and saving some dosh, I flogged (sold) the 70-300 to finance the last bit of the money needed for the beast. In Aug, 2003 I ordered the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX/HSM/APO/IF and took it to Wales for its first use. This was a monumental change! Now I was shooing with a lens that was about 15x mon expensive as the 70-300 and it showed. I had what looked like the beginning of Nirvana! So some time went on and I got the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L followed by the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L. The 16-35 first saw action in England and the 24-70mm in Ireland. I am not going back to consumer lenses, save for the 50 mm and a very select few others. I am in the process of editing some pics that compare the Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 (about $80) and the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L (about $1380). I know this isn't really fair, but maybe by showing them side by side it will start to click why some of us push the L lenses/Sigma EX line. So there you have the transition from consumer to pro glass.

[arumdevil]

Originally Posted by Jmurman

I dont know....that turd looks soft to me

no, by the time I found it it was already quite old, and therefore quite crusty and hard. It may have had a soft core but the part you can see was definitely hard

I did lie though, it wasn't taken with any kind of L lens, just my humble 75-300

[samdring]

you don't need to ask - you can see the settings on that one!