Steve'sDigicams

DJPetron · Jun 21, 2004, 10:52 AM

I just got a Digital rebel last week. What an incredible camera. The images are amazing, and it is so easy to take pictures. I no longer have to wait for that ideal moment to take a of my kids, I can keep snapping and eventually get it. Thanks madwand, gibson, ohenry, et. al for the advice.

What Ilearned was that I needmore than the kit lens. In reading about the lenses I see names like Canon, sigma, tamron, f-this and f-that and I have no idea what the "f" I need. As you know, I am not taking pictures for artistry, I am capturing the life of my family (point and shoot only). Is there a huge difference between lenses in the same price category. (about $400 or less).

The photo store down the street has a Sigma 28-300 for $269 (or maybe it is a 28-200), but I don't think that it has image stabilization, which seems pretty cool. Also, is there qa big difference the auto-fucus speeds in lenses? I can spend more on a lens, but want a good value.

What is important in walk-around lens for indoor and outdoor shots. What the F-do I need:lol:.

I know it's vague, but I appreciate the help. Thanks again for educating me.

Don

mrkryz · Jun 21, 2004, 11:10 AM

The Canon 28-135 IS would be a nice lens for you given what you say you want to shoot. Its not as expensive as the 2.8 lenses (better in low light) but with the image stabilization it will help you use slower shutter speeds w/o excessive blur

Lists for about $409 at B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/149629.jpg

Setiprime · Jun 21, 2004, 11:36 AM

I must agree with MRKRYZ regarding the 28/135 IS (canon of course). This is my most used lens in my kit.

You can stand back far enough to not distract the kids, and yet zoom in for the tight shots. It's not an L lens, but a VERY good lens for all around shooting. Buy a lens hood for sure.

Here's a bunch of my stuff - nearly all of them in the other albums, are shot with the 28/135 also.

http://community.webshots.com/user/setiprime2003

Very good value for the money !!!

Good Shooting -

DJPetron · Jun 21, 2004, 11:41 AM

Thanks for the advice, guys. I always enjoy reading your posts. You really know your stuff. I'd read that that lens was pretty good for a walk-around, but was hoping for a little larger one, maybe 28-200.Maybe it's a guy thing, but I always want bigger, even if I don't need it.

I also saw a bunch of these on ebay. Do I need to be afraid of buying used and save $100?

Any other recommendations?

Don

mf_blues · Jun 21, 2004, 3:00 PM

DJ

I had the Sigma 70-300mm which was a very good lense for £149.90 Sterling but I wanted a wider zoom so I took it back and bought the Tamron 28-300mm.

So far it seems better than the Sigma but it's not has quick focusing,saying thatthe results are generally sharper, you do however have to be more carefull to make sure you're focused on the subject you want. But once you're on the image is very good. I am happy I decided to change the Sigma for the Tamron but I do need to get out and do a lot more to be 100% sure of this lense. Don't think I'll be taking this one back though.

It's very compact too, A06E model BTW. 28-300mm XR

Not as good as Canons lenses I dare say but it's down to what you can afford at the end of the day.:-)

cheers

Mart.

gibsonpd3620 · Jun 22, 2004, 9:41 AM

I concur with others on the Canon 28-135 USM IS. You can also purchase a Tamron 1.4X teleconverter to reach out a little further. You will lose one f stop with the teleconverter. I use the less expensive converter becuase autofocus and IS still work with this one. The combination does require good light.

DJPetron · Jun 22, 2004, 9:58 AM

OK, maybe size does not matter. I think I'm sold on the Canon 28-135. The extra zoom would be nice, but I can always crop it down in PS Elements. I appreciate all your help. I think that this might be a hobby I could really blow a lot of money on over the years.

I'm not sure what a 1.4 teleconvertor does though. What can you tell me about it? Does it take a 28-135 up to an effective 39-189? Is there an advantage to using that over a sigma 70-200 lens, which are pretty inexpensive?

Don

gibsonpd3620 · Jun 22, 2004, 11:19 AM

The teleconver does increase the range of the lens. It attaches to the camera the same as a lens. You attach the lens to the teleconverter. The DR has a focal multipliere of 1.6 which makes the lens 45mm to 216mm. The teleconverter increases the range to 63mm to 302mm. I have not used or read about the Sigma lens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jun 21, 2004, 10:52 AM	#1
DJPetron Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 16	I just got a Digital rebel last week. What an incredible camera. The images are amazing, and it is so easy to take pictures. I no longer have to wait for that ideal moment to take a of my kids, I can keep snapping and eventually get it. Thanks madwand, gibson, ohenry, et. al for the advice. What Ilearned was that I needmore than the kit lens. In reading about the lenses I see names like Canon, sigma, tamron, f-this and f-that and I have no idea what the "f" I need. As you know, I am not taking pictures for artistry, I am capturing the life of my family (point and shoot only). Is there a huge difference between lenses in the same price category. (about $400 or less). The photo store down the street has a Sigma 28-300 for $269 (or maybe it is a 28-200), but I don't think that it has image stabilization, which seems pretty cool. Also, is there qa big difference the auto-fucus speeds in lenses? I can spend more on a lens, but want a good value. What is important in walk-around lens for indoor and outdoor shots. What the F-do I need:lol:. I know it's vague, but I appreciate the help. Thanks again for educating me. Don

Jun 21, 2004, 11:10 AM	#2
mrkryz Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 325	The Canon 28-135 IS would be a nice lens for you given what you say you want to shoot. Its not as expensive as the 2.8 lenses (better in low light) but with the image stabilization it will help you use slower shutter speeds w/o excessive blur Lists for about $409 at B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/149629.jpg

Jun 21, 2004, 11:36 AM	#3
Setiprime Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 484	I must agree with MRKRYZ regarding the 28/135 IS (canon of course). This is my most used lens in my kit. You can stand back far enough to not distract the kids, and yet zoom in for the tight shots. It's not an L lens, but a VERY good lens for all around shooting. Buy a lens hood for sure. Here's a bunch of my stuff - nearly all of them in the other albums, are shot with the 28/135 also. http://community.webshots.com/user/setiprime2003 Very good value for the money !!! Good Shooting -

Jun 21, 2004, 11:41 AM	#4
DJPetron Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 16	Thanks for the advice, guys. I always enjoy reading your posts. You really know your stuff. I'd read that that lens was pretty good for a walk-around, but was hoping for a little larger one, maybe 28-200.Maybe it's a guy thing, but I always want bigger, even if I don't need it. I also saw a bunch of these on ebay. Do I need to be afraid of buying used and save $100? Any other recommendations? Don

Jun 21, 2004, 3:00 PM	#5
mf_blues Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 184	DJ I had the Sigma 70-300mm which was a very good lense for £149.90 Sterling but I wanted a wider zoom so I took it back and bought the Tamron 28-300mm. So far it seems better than the Sigma but it's not has quick focusing,saying thatthe results are generally sharper, you do however have to be more carefull to make sure you're focused on the subject you want. But once you're on the image is very good. I am happy I decided to change the Sigma for the Tamron but I do need to get out and do a lot more to be 100% sure of this lense. Don't think I'll be taking this one back though. It's very compact too, A06E model BTW. 28-300mm XR Not as good as Canons lenses I dare say but it's down to what you can afford at the end of the day.:-) cheers Mart.

Jun 22, 2004, 9:41 AM	#6
gibsonpd3620 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,585	I concur with others on the Canon 28-135 USM IS. You can also purchase a Tamron 1.4X teleconverter to reach out a little further. You will lose one f stop with the teleconverter. I use the less expensive converter becuase autofocus and IS still work with this one. The combination does require good light.

Jun 22, 2004, 9:58 AM	#7
DJPetron Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 16	OK, maybe size does not matter. I think I'm sold on the Canon 28-135. The extra zoom would be nice, but I can always crop it down in PS Elements. I appreciate all your help. I think that this might be a hobby I could really blow a lot of money on over the years. I'm not sure what a 1.4 teleconvertor does though. What can you tell me about it? Does it take a 28-135 up to an effective 39-189? Is there an advantage to using that over a sigma 70-200 lens, which are pretty inexpensive? Don

Jun 22, 2004, 11:19 AM	#8
gibsonpd3620 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,585	The teleconver does increase the range of the lens. It attaches to the camera the same as a lens. You attach the lens to the teleconverter. The DR has a focal multipliere of 1.6 which makes the lens 45mm to 216mm. The teleconverter increases the range to 63mm to 302mm. I have not used or read about the Sigma lens.