Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Jul 2008 (Thursday) 12:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

30D + 70-200L + ? to complete

 
jfarsang
Member
Avatar
73 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Vanvouver, BC / Blaine, WA
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:28 |  #1

I'm looking at having an all-around lens to compliment my 30D/70-200L.

Unfortunately, I put the bulk of my $'s into a 30D/70-200L combo.

I was originally shooting for a 300D/18-55/55-200 kit.

To cut the story short :

In the photog store, salesman at the counter had a 70-200L mated to a 30D just sitting there.

Salesman said I can play around with it and he walked over to another customer.

I saw the white lens and I swear it was telling me to pick it up.

So I did, snapped some shots, put them on my usb key and headed home not thinking much.

Sharpness and image quality are amazing.

Of course you all know the outcome. :mrgreen:

So, now I'm looking for a sub-$400 all-around lens.

I've read and read and read until I could read no longer.

I'd like some advice if possible.

My shooting style is preferably outdoors. Low-bright light. Some baby pics (sister just had a 2 month baby).

To be honest, I came from a Nikon D40 + 18-55 kit lens to the 30D/200 and still can't believe the difference. It will sink in soon.

I will be shooting hand held 99% of the time.

Is IS a strong factor ?

Looking at 17-80/100 range.

Recommendations would be great. I figured I would not cheap out on the body/200 and have an average lens for now until I can upgrade later.

Much appreciated guys

Jesse


40D | 70-200L | 18-55 IS | insert lens here | a steady hand | n' other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sadatk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,392 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:34 |  #2

tamron 17-50 2.8




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ridebmx
Senior Member
Avatar
707 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Northwest, Iowa
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:36 |  #3

IS is good for handheld, it allows you to run a lower shutter speed with less chance of blur

so if you can get it, get it.

your best off getting a good lens, than spending money on one to upgrade later on.

you could always pick up a 18-55 kit lens, they are pretty cheap and can actually take good pictures if you use it right.


Camera gear: 40D, 350D Gripped, AE-1 Program, 70-200mm f/4L, Tokina 12-24mm, Thrifty Fifty 1.8, 75-205 3.5-5.6 macro, 28mm 2.8, 188A, 430EX, Nikon Sb-28, Skyport Triggers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfarsang
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
73 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Vanvouver, BC / Blaine, WA
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:42 |  #4

The tamron 17-50 2.8 looks appealing and the right price point.

Sigma 17-70 was another I was considering.

Just like hundreds of others looking for some prodding. :p

I'm leaning towards the 17-50.

Is the 17-70 a LOT more reach or those of you who have the 17-50 find it an acceptable walk around / travel lens ?


40D | 70-200L | 18-55 IS | insert lens here | a steady hand | n' other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ironchef31
Senior Member
623 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:45 |  #5

sadatk wrote in post #5886467 (external link)
tamron 17-50 2.8

my vote for this one.


Ken
30D, 18-55mm, nifty 50, 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS

I tried to bounce my flash off the ceiling once. Left a mark on the ceiling and broke my flash.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tmonatr
Goldmember
Avatar
1,585 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Tennessee
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:48 |  #6

sadatk wrote in post #5886467 (external link)
tamron 17-50 2.8

+1 for what he said. I have it and love it. I also had the Sigma 17-70. It was a very nice lens, very sharp. But I wanted the constant 2.8 aperture.


Tim
Bartender - "So, you guys are dictionary salesmen."
Roy Munson - "You would be punctilious in assuming that."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ducko
Senior Member
Avatar
804 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2007
Location: On a pond
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:55 |  #7

I'm sorry to even say it since you want something under $300 but the perfect setup in my opinion is the 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L. I don't use the 16-35 as much as the 24-70. I don't even own the 70-200 2.8L IS yet, but I will. If you lived close, I'd let you borrow my 24-70 if you let me borrow your 70-200. :-)


--Ducko

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfarsang
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
73 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Vanvouver, BC / Blaine, WA
     
Jul 10, 2008 12:56 |  #8

ducko wrote in post #5886586 (external link)
I'm sorry to even say it since you want something under $300 but the perfect setup in my opinion is the 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L. I don't use the 16-35 as much as the 24-70. I don't even own the 70-200 2.8L IS yet, but I will. If you lived close, I'd let you borrow my 24-70 if you let me borrow your 70-200.

:p

I'll try out a 17-50. Posted a WTB

Thanks for the nudges guys.


40D | 70-200L | 18-55 IS | insert lens here | a steady hand | n' other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JCheungPhoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,338 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Virginia
     
Jul 10, 2008 13:08 |  #9

I'd suggest the sigma 24-60 or 24-70 f/2.8 for a nicer walkaround focal length (personally i feel ultra-wide is better covered by a dedicated UWA lens like the 10-20mm range. so the 24-60 sigma is a great fit (and inexpensive to boot


gear
freewebs.com/jcheungph​otography

"prior planning prevents piss-poor performance"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coolshot
Member
Avatar
211 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Hayward, Ca
     
Jul 10, 2008 13:30 |  #10

Right now im considering getting a 24-70 variant, sigma or L. I mainly shoot family and friends. Looking back at my exif data, it is showing me shooting mainly between 24-50mm, even on a crop body.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,456 views & 0 likes for this thread
30D + 70-200L + ? to complete
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
863 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.