Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2003, 3:27 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10
Default I've done it too...now which lens!

I made the leap and have just ordered a 10D. I'm not overly impressed with the 300D built quality, it does feel quite cheap & plasticy - and if i'm spending that kind of money, i'd rather spend the extra few hundred for quality!

Now - which lens. I'd like a 28-200 or similar. What's the difference in image quality between a Sigma or Canon? Bearing in mind, I only have a few hundred to spend now the 10D has wiped me out!

Thanks.
CraigBFG is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 14, 2003, 6:27 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

If your not looking for pristine quality of glass quite yet, and mostly looking for an all around lens for now. Sigma has a 28-300mm Hyper Zoom that sounds like it might be pretty fun. Not sure the quality of the images, by my Sigma EX and do some dandy work. Just wish I had more time to play with it to figure out what I am setting wrong in full manual mode... :?
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 7:56 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

Craig

My first choice would be the Canon brand name with USM. The EF 24-85mm F 3.5-4.5 is a good all around lens, for a little less money, the EF 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 is a good choice. You can also consider to spend a little extra to get the EF 28-135mm with IS. If you're interesting in extra wide coverage for landscape shooting, the EF 20-35mm F/3.5-4.5 is also a great choice. All of the above lenses are better than good and affordable prices.

Most recently, I have a chance to do some test shots with the new Tamron 28-75mm Di F/2.8, this is a very good performance lens, with the constant aperture of F/2.8 which is great for shooting portrait, AF is quite fast and it seems to be a great all around lens.
The price is about less than $320 at onecall.com incl free fedex shipping. Cheers
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 10:58 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default

Remember, lenses will probably stay with you through multiple bodies...

Not wanting the Digital Rebel because it seems too 'plasticy' then going out and buying a cheap plastic lens doesn't make much sense, does it? Hehe. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.

You might like the 28-135 IS. Seems to be a popular 'one lens' solution.
The Photo Tuell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 12:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

What type of photography will you do?

I went out to shoot the fall trees (wonderful colors) this past weekend. I used the 28-135 IS. Generally, I'm happy with the lens (good for the money, reasonable zoom range.) But in this case, it just didn't cut it. I couldn't get entire trees in the shot and had to back away... changing the angle of view and therefor the picture.

I'm now in the hunt for something which has a wide end in the mid to upper-teens.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 2:06 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
I'm now in the hunt for something which has a wide end in the mid to upper-teens.
... This is what I've been telling people all along (forget 28 with the 1.6x factor!)! My EF 28-135mm IS USM is the least used of all my lenses!!! At the long I want the DOF and the speed of the f/2.8 of my 70-200mm, and @ the wide its too narrow. :lol: :lol: :lol:

... and here again one is stuck with two equally difficult 'affordable' choices: The excellent Sigma 15-30mm EX but give up on the ultrasonic or go for the less stellar 17-35 mm EX HSM. I went for the later because of the ultrasonic and the f/2.8, because sometime for landscape shots with available light, a few minutes of daylight make a world of differences for sunrise/sunset (ie red/gold vs blue/white sky). One can of course use slower shutter speed but for seascape or windy/moving clouds it's not possible...

There's always the upcoming 12-24mm 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 2:12 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

NHL, just curious. Why do you want the F2.8 for the wide-angle? Because of low-light situation I would imagine. DOF at wide angle is already fairly big anyway, and might not get you much compared to a F4 lens.

Of course, F2.8 on the 70-200 is really nice for the extremely shallow DOF. I have one myself :-)

My last vacation I mostly used my 17-40 lens (lots of landscape pictures), after that I used my 70-200 the most. As you said the 28-135 I used least. But that was mainly because of the type of pictures I took on that trip. When I'm out and about and shooting people or just need one lens with a bit of zoom, I take the 28-135 with me.

BTW, does your 28-135 have lens-creep? Mine doesn't stay at the zoom I left it at when I point it up or down. Very annoying. I wonder if it can be adjusted?

Thanks,
Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 2:21 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It's for the low-light like I explained previously thoses warm color only last a few minutes... By f/4 it's usually gone! The other thing to consider is the morning mist/clouds might have been burn-off by a higher sun as well...


Quote:
BTW, does your 28-135 have lens-creep? Mine doesn't stay at the zoom I left it at when I point it up or down. Very annoying. I wonder if it can be adjusted?
This was my very 1st comment to Eric on this lens when I got it... (beside having to pay extra for the lens shade... when everyone else include even a nice case for free) :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 2:30 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

In your experience one stop really makes a difference in those situations? I mean, it happens often enough to you where using a one stop slower shutter speed is not an option? Wow!

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2003, 2:40 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It's not really one-stop is it when you're already trying to capture an underexposed morning light... Remember you also need to freeze thoses cresting waves too! I'm an early riser and like to shoot before its ready (There's also no crowd... @ those times)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:29 AM.