Question From Newbie ???

actually i was in your position a year ago and i bought the tamron 28-75. and now i have the canon 24-105L on the way and if/when it meets my expectations i will sell the tamron.

that was my point about one's needs changing. if you can't see the reason for buying the expensive lens then hell no don't buy it.

the canon 24-70L turns me off not only because of price but it is also big and weighs a ton....and the sigma is no better plus it uses an 82mm filter.

the tamron is the smallest in its class but i also didn't get the extra 4mm at the wide end with it....hence another compromise.

so i've been there, bought the lower price spread and now i have the L on the way .

ed rader

If you are looking for justification for buying a third party lens here, you'll probably find plenty of people who will tell you to go ahead, that they're fine, and that you won't be able to tell the difference between those lenses and Canon lenses.

On the other hand, you'll find plenty of people that will tell you that Canon L's are the only way to go and that if you buy third party lenses now, you'll just eventually sell them and buy L's later when you discover their quality.

I've owned both. I currently own only one non-Canon lens in an FD mount. I've sold the rest. Why is this? Primarily because I see lenses as tools to achieve an end, and because I like quality, consistency, reliability and robust build. Those same factors may not be as important to you as price. To get a cheaper lens, you're going to have to give up something else. TASTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). So, third party lenses many be a more than adequate solution for you. Only you will be able to determine that.

Mark

Thanks guys, well back to the drawing board. I do like to have top quality products and I understand that lenses are probably the most important investment that you can make. Well I need to do some more thinking and studying on this topic before I begin to shell out the money.

Im kinda new to photography and have the canon digital rebel. The first one, not the latest that just came out. I bought an ef 75-300 Image stabilization lens from canon. I recently took pictures indoors at a basketball camp and most of the pictures came back blurry. I tried all different types, inclduing the portrait, the fast action....even the M, AV, TV......I tried everything. Can anyone let me know what I did wrong. the only way the picture came out good, was if the person didnt move at all! TIA

Image stabilization is for static images, not moving ones. That's why everything was blurry. You need to understand the connection between ISO, aperture, and shutter to take good sports action pics. The easiest way is to set a high ISO (e.g. 800 to 1600 depending on the amount of ambient light) and set Av to the lowest number possible (i.e. "wide open"). That should kick up the shutter speed high enough to capture action. If you don't have enough light and you don't have a fast enough lens, it won't work. Shutter needs to be at minimum 1/400 to stop action with 1/500 being optimal.

I mean this in a most helpful way..........


If your new to photography buying the best lens is the least of your worries. The larger the aperature, the harder it can be to focus, so a slower lens at higher ISO might get you a better image while your starting.

IS, while its a blessing sometimes, it also can ruin images when used on a tripod if you're fumbling through settings and forget it.

The last thing is if you shoot weddings you need 1 type of lens, cars you need another, and wildlife yet another. So, I wouldnt break the bank just yet. Personally I'd get the kit lens and the 75-300, see what focal lengths you use, then buy better lens in those area's as you progress.

Larry, if I were you I would get the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro and a Canon 580EX flash. Put the rest in the bank, buy a nice tripod or another lens like the Canon 50mm F1.4. That's what I did, Sigma 24-70mm, 580EX and nice tripod. From what I understand, the Canon 50mm F1.4 is sharper than the Sigma or Canon 24-70mm.

When I look into purchasing a camera SYSTEM - body and lenses, I make sure that all my lenses will operate in the same way. For this reason, I have always stuck with a single brand (and series within the brand) when buying photographic equipment.

The problem that I see some folks getting into when selecting lenses from various manufacturers (or even different families within a specific manufacturer) is that they wind up with a set of lenses that are radically different from each other from the photographer's tools point of view.

For example, some lenses have a focus (or zoom) ring that does one thing when turned, say, clockwise. Other lenses do the opposite when you turn the ring clockwise. Some lenses have a real focussing ring while others have you turning the front element (like the Canon 18-55 EF-S "kit" lens). Lenses from different manufactures function differently, feel different, etc.

Having a kit of lenses with these radical differences is like trying to drive radically different cars at random times. You never get comfortable enough to have your actions be truly "learned" and automatic when the chips are down and you need to make an instantaneous decision. You have to constantly think your way through the controls when all your lenses (or automobile controls) aren't the same. This will bite you in the butt at times.

That is very true for some and not for others ... same with many comments when these choice options are discussed. Glad you mentioned 'some folks'

Radically different ... lenses? Personally, I have had Tamron SP, Tokina Pro, Sigma EX, Canon, Canon L, Zeiss, Pentax, and Jupiter over the last year or so and I never once remember turning rings the wrong way, other than perhaps the first time or two.

Some may have the opposite experience. That's life. I suspect it's like the car mechanic who jumps in and out of 15 cars a day and never stalls once, while someone else takes time to adjust and maybe stalls a few times because they are so programmed to drive the same way. Preference more that big deal. That's fine.

As to resale, I've mentioned so many times it's getting boring to me and no doubt everyone else. I depends. Buy junk and you get next to nothing. Buy well reviewed, popular lenses of any brand and you will do well on depreciation. The two lenses I made money on SH where the 50-500 Sigma and 70-200 2.8 Sigma. I have yet to lose much on any lenses, but I shop around, buy low and/or SH. Buy a Canon L at full retail and sell it 6 months later then I suspect you'll lose more than I've lost on all my lenses put together. I guess if I totalled all my buys and sells I'd be around 50% better off on the 3rd party stuff depreciation compared to the L's.

I think JoJo sums it up well. There are many better reasons to want the Canon rather than the competition at this range. Work out what you need and then buy what you need. Or, if you prefer, just buy what you want. I could afford any of them if I really wanted to. I've owned the Tamron and the Sigma and had the 24-70 L for an afternoon to see what the fuss, one way or another, was about. I bought the Sigma. No IQ differences across the three for me and the Canon was big, heavy and clumsy. My opinion and I'm happy others think different. No problem.

Had I wanted to use silent USM in the rain I'd have bought the Canon. Had I wanted something lighter and smaller and longer for travel I'd have kept the Tamron. I wanted fast enough AF, decent build quality, IQ and some more on the wide end. It did the job. The only zoom around this range I'd buy other than the Sigma right now would be the 24-105mm IS L.

Horses for courses. Personal preference. No right answers. Most of the 'stuff' people seem to find so important in their 'gear' is actually of little important in the overall scheme of things and what is actually needed to take a shot worth looking at: imagination, exposure and composition.

What I find using primes with 100% manual operation and focus is that my keeper ratio is radically up and my shots are better and need little PP. Bigger, faster, costlier isn't always better ... at least in my experience. Often slower and considered gets the results. Hare and Tortoise