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 31 Jan 2009 (Saturday) 11:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So I have a bit of a dilemma (on walkaround lenses and telezooms)

 
KjellG
Member
Avatar
66 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
     
Jan 31, 2009 11:29 |  #1

Hello everyone :)

As the title suggest I have a bit of a dilemma regarding lenses. I'm planning on going on a trip around summer this year for maybe 2-6 weeks and my photogear is lacking some lenses on the telephotorange. I've got a 5D, 17-40 and a 50mm but no walkaround zoom or telezooms.

My budget is somewhat limited (I have maybe around $500-700 to spend on lenses) so I was thinking of getting a tamron 28-75 2.8 and a teleconverter 2X so I can have both walkaround and a moderate tele if I need it. But I'm thinking 28-75 isn't a big range since I'm wanting to do streetphoto and such, and the Canon EF 28-135 is - from what I've seen - not the best choice for IQ, and the Canon 24-105 is too expensive.

So, what's a good idea? The 28-75 2.8 and a teleconverter or something else?

Thanks in advance.


Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-Emo Phillips
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hypertech
Senior Member
403 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jan 31, 2009 11:46 |  #2

The 70-200 f/4 goes for about $500 used on here quite a bit. I think that would be my choice under those criteria.


Canon 5Dm2, 50D, XSi (450D), 580 EX IIx2
24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 50mm f/1.4, 18-55mm IS, Tokina 116
www.reflectivecanvas.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
erkkimies
Member
39 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jan 31, 2009 11:50 |  #3

KjellG wrote in post #7226665 (external link)
Hello everyone :)

As the title suggest I have a bit of a dilemma regarding lenses. I'm planning on going on a trip around summer this year for maybe 2-6 weeks and my photogear is lacking some lenses on the telephotorange. I've got a 5D, 17-40 and a 50mm but no walkaround zoom or telezooms.

My budget is somewhat limited (I have maybe around $500-700 to spend on lenses) so I was thinking of getting a tamron 28-75 2.8 and a teleconverter 2X so I can have both walkaround and a moderate tele if I need it. But I'm thinking 28-75 isn't a big range since I'm wanting to do streetphoto and such, and the Canon EF 28-135 is - from what I've seen - not the best choice for IQ, and the Canon 24-105 is too expensive.

So, what's a good idea? The 28-75 2.8 and a teleconverter or something else?

Thanks in advance.


I think that 28-75 2.8 And the teleconverter would be actually pretty good

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Jan 31, 2009 12:04 |  #4

Will the Tamron even work with a teleconverter ?

Anyway , with a 2x converter, i doubt if IQ would be very good.


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KjellG
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
66 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
     
Jan 31, 2009 12:36 |  #5

^ From what I've heard it should work. I'm not sure about the IQ degradation because I haven't studied it so much.

I thought about the 70-200/4 too but then I have no walkaroundlense really. Unless I get both but that's above my budget =/


Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-Emo Phillips
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eagle
Goldmember
Avatar
4,371 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Likes: 141
Joined May 2005
Location: Akron, Ohio
     
Jan 31, 2009 14:37 as a reply to  @ KjellG's post |  #6

Get the 28-135, it's a great walk around. And check the shots out in the lens sticky for it, you'll be surprised.


7D MKII ■ 10-22 ■ 15-85 ■ 28-135 ■ Σ 50-150 ■ 70-200 f4L ■ 100-400L ■ 580EX II
Gear-PCSmugMug (external link) ShutterStock (external link) Alamy (external link) Eagle's Nest Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KjellG
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
66 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
     
Jan 31, 2009 15:10 |  #7

The test shots I've seen are pretty crisp, but will it hold up when it comes to printing images? Like big images? I was hoping to have some exhibitions eventually and I'd hate it if the pics were of too poor quality for printing.

It's so low-priced I have to wonder why, especially since it's both IS and USM. Maybe it's just build quality?


Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-Emo Phillips
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Jan 31, 2009 15:32 |  #8

^ its 'cause it's a kit lens.

a 28-75 with 2x tc is not gonna be sharp. Either try the 28-135 and see how you like it, or shell out the money for the 24-105.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TurboDean
Senior Member
265 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
     
Jan 31, 2009 16:25 as a reply to  @ KjellG's post |  #9

Are you willing to carry a lens? The 17-40 is relatively small, so if you had another smallish telephoto lens, would that do? IMHO, I would not count on the tammy + 2x TC to produce acceptable results.

For a smaller tele, I suggest the Canon 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM, if you can find one.

Relatively compact for its range (~2.9" x 4.8" at its shortest), metal lens mount, a large turn a ring to zoom (no push/pull), non-rotating front lens element, easily affordable 58 mm filters. One of the biggest pluses for me was the super fast, quiet, and accurate ring USM focusing motor and FTM. Optics wise it was very nice up to150mm, but still perfectly reasonable at 210 with good support (no IS, mind you!).

Reviews I found when I was looking at theis lens originally: mir.com (external link), emedia.leeward.hawaii.​edu (external link), photo.net (external link)

I sold mine (~$250) it to pay for a 100-300/4.5-5.6, because at the time I was using a 17-85 and though the 100-300 would make for a better travel package. Now that I use my 17-55 (closer to your 17-40), a telephoto starting at 70mm makes for a better package, IMO.


Dean
~40D based GEAR~
~Smugmug~ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 616
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 31, 2009 17:40 |  #10

KjellG wrote in post #7227654 (external link)
The test shots I've seen are pretty crisp, but will it hold up when it comes to printing images? Like big images? I was hoping to have some exhibitions eventually and I'd hate it if the pics were of too poor quality for printing.

It's so low-priced I have to wonder why, especially since it's both IS and USM. Maybe it's just build quality?

Worrying about the IQ of the 28-135 while planning to try and use any wide angle zoom with a 2X TC strikes my as a major disconnect. The odds of a wide angle zoom + TC being acceptable is poor. You can at least count on the 28-135 alone to be acceptable.

My first choice would be to add the 70-200/4 and use a two-lens kit (17-40 + 70-200). Swapping between these two lenses would certainly be no more cumbersome than swapping in and out a TC, and I guarantee the 70-200 is much better than any 24-XX lens with a TC on it.

My second choice would be to add a single solution like the 28-135.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soxfan356
Member
Avatar
158 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Chicago
     
Jan 31, 2009 17:51 |  #11

70-300 IS is pretty good


-Dan
Canon 40d, 28-135 IS, 70-300 IS, 100-400L IS, Sigma 10-20, 430exII
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff81
Goldmember
Avatar
1,689 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: SoCal
     
Jan 31, 2009 17:54 |  #12

JeffreyG wrote in post #7228405 (external link)
Worrying about the IQ of the 28-135 while planning to try and use any wide angle zoom with a 2X TC strikes my as a major disconnect. The odds of a wide angle zoom + TC being acceptable is poor. You can at least count on the 28-135 alone to be acceptable.

My first choice would be to add the 70-200/4 and use a two-lens kit (17-40 + 70-200). Swapping between these two lenses would certainly be no more cumbersome than swapping in and out a TC, and I guarantee the 70-200 is much better than any 24-XX lens with a TC on it.

My second choice would be to add a single solution like the 28-135.

I agree. I think thats you're best choice. You'll have a gap, but you can foot zoom and it won't be that big of a deal.


6D | Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art, Canon 85 f/1.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
khall
Goldmember
3,803 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Wollongong Australia.
     
Jan 31, 2009 18:11 |  #13

Use your 50mm as your walk around lens. If you need a wider lens put your 17-40mm on. As others have suggested look for a secondhand 70-200mm which hopefully would come in your 500-700 dollar price range.
Have a nice holiday.


YNWA.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TurboDean
Senior Member
265 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
     
Jan 31, 2009 20:15 as a reply to  @ khall's post |  #14

70-200 is a good one, but cumbersome if looking to go light. I typically travel with the 17-55 and 70-200/4, but if I know I'm not going to packing my bag around, I slip the little 100-300 into a jacket pocket.

I sometimes wish I still had the 70-210/3.5-4.5 to go with the 17-55. Hmm... how much do I miss it... :)


Dean
~40D based GEAR~
~Smugmug~ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carpenterken
Member
50 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: michigan
     
Jan 31, 2009 21:30 |  #15

JeffreyG wrote in post #7228405 (external link)
Worrying about the IQ of the 28-135 while planning to try and use any wide angle zoom with a 2X TC strikes my as a major disconnect. The odds of a wide angle zoom + TC being acceptable is poor. You can at least count on the 28-135 alone to be acceptable.

My first choice would be to add the 70-200/4 and use a two-lens kit (17-40 + 70-200). Swapping between these two lenses would certainly be no more cumbersome than swapping in and out a TC, and I guarantee the 70-200 is much better than any 24-XX lens with a TC on it.

My second choice would be to add a single solution like the 28-135.

I have to agree her also. A 70-200 4.0 goes for $500 (used) all day long.
Although I don't get the bad rap the 28-135 gets. I have this lens and don't use it much based on all the bad raps. But, every time I put it on, I'm amassed at the IQ I get out of it.
These two candid type shots (both with little or no pp) where taken with the 28-135 #1 with the 40D and #2 (me by the way) with the 1D
#1

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i221.photobucke​t.com …istaken/Fish/IM​G_6598.jpg (external link)


#2
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i221.photobucke​t.com …istaken/Fish/B8​6G7412.jpg (external link)


I do believe the 24-104 would be nicer, but it's 3x the cost.

Canon, 1D2n, 40D, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8, 28-135is, 17-40L, 85 1.8, 50 1.8, 1.4 tc, 430ex, 580ex. set of Radio Poppers, and wanting more.

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

1,972 views & 0 likes for this thread
So I have a bit of a dilemma (on walkaround lenses and telezooms)
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 is Chris Parrish
903 guests, 225 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.