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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 1, 2007, 1:56 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I like your idea of the Tamron 17-50.

But then why add the 28-135? I agree with NHL there's too much overlap.

Why not look for something like a 70-200 or 70-300, or even the new Sigma 50-150 f2.8?


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 4:05 PM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

davepw wrote:
Quote:

Although I see clear advantages with your approach, am I correct that if I'd like to be able to carry one lens for indoor family pictures, it seems that the 10-22 and 28-135 lenses do not have a good range for those uses?

My thinking is to go with three lenses for family, vacation, etc -- a wide, regular, and extended walk-around zoom lens -- and then add special primes and longer fast zooms for sports, portraits, etc. Not the most economical or convenient, but seems to give me the right tool for the right job, and in some cases, give me a single lens to carry.
Hmmm - I shot all my family Christmas shots this year with my 28-135 and 85mm 1.8. When I need to take a big family picture I use my 17-40.

As for overlap - I'd rather have overlap than gap. A 50-150 sounds like a decent idea. But throwing out a lens because you have 22mm of overlap? and replacing it with a lens that leaves you with a 20mm gap?

And to forestall the argument that 20mm isn't much of a gap - the reverse could be said, 22mm isn't much of an overlap.

in the end you want the primary walkaround lens to be on your camera 70% of the time (when you don't have a specific need - i.e. all-purpose family, vacation, etc...). I don't like splitting the difference. Just another view.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 5:00 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18
Default

JohnG, I agree with you on the overlap. For me it's important to have a well-rounded walkaround lens. So I got the Tamron 24-135. I expect to use this most of the time. I also purchased a 70-300 IS for situations when I really need zoom, which I might upgrade to a Sigma 100-300 f4 later or downgrade to a Sigma 70-300 APO depending on how much it gets used. I also purchased the Canon 50mm 1.8 simply because it's cheap and I'm happy with it. I've already taken lots of family portraits with it. That leaves me with the kit lens, for which I foresee very little use.
bakaroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 5:10 PM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The issue is when one starts to mix/match full-frame and 'digital only' lenses...
-> Like most people who started early with dSLR, the only game in town was the 28-135 IS USM (there was no EF-S or 'digital only' lenses then). Once you bought this lens then the 17-40L was the next logical option (I went with Sigma the 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX which is also a full-frame HSM) - When I bought the 12-24 for thoses dramatic landscape shots then my 17-35 became the least used lens, in fact I don't recall bringing it with me for any of my recent trips!

If you start with a 'digital' lens like the suggested 17-50 then adding the 50-150 will make perfect sense and they are both f/2.8. One of my friend got one and it's much smaller than a 70-200 f/2.8 (and lighter too)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 11:47 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Default

Thanks NHL, peripatetic, John,bakaroni. Each of those posts added some great perspective for me. The reaction here seems to be consistent with many posts and reviews I've read re: the different ways people build their lens line-up, and NHL's post helped explain how people wind up in different places.

Well, I've picked up the Tamron 17-50...so far, so good -- worked out great today as intended at a family gathering. At some point when 17mm is not wide enough I'll add something like a 10-20 and a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 as I hear how great those are. I also plan to get the 70-200 f/4L or the 70-300 IS this spring for outdoor sports. To answer peripatetic's question, I do not want to use a 50-150, 70/200, or 70/300 as I am looking for a one lens walk around solution for vacations and outdoor day trips. I do plan to add a 70/200 or 70/300 for sports, and that would eliminate most of the benefit of a 50-150. The nice thing about the 50-150 is the f/2.8, but at a relatively high price and given that a 70-200 or 70-300 would make this largely redundant, does not seem like the best bet in my particular situation.

So that leaves me with the question of this walk-around, and two lenses come to mind.

The tremendous appeal of the Canon 28-135 ($350 after rebates) is based on five factors: convenient walk around range for what I expect to shoot, low cost, IS, form factor, fast/quiet focusing, and very good reviews.

Tamron 24-135 (also $350) emerging as an option too -- tradeoffs are slightly wider range, slightly better end user reviews, but no IS.

Sigma seems expensive($650), and it would require me to carry a second lens for walk-around since starting point is 50mm. Advantage is low light shooting.

Is my logic reasonable, and any strong opinion between the Tamron 24-135 and the Canon 28-135? The raw data says the Tamron is slightly better, but I am drawn more to Canon lenses, and the IS, fast focus, and USM.




davepw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 4:20 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

As it looks as if there are good rebates on the Canon option I would go for this, however keep in mind that in about a month Sigma launch their new 18-200 lens which has IS (OK so they call it OS but it's basically the same thing) and this could be a very interesting option for a walk around lens.

For me a walk around lens would need to start at 17 or 18mm as when walking around I want to be able to do landscape/shots ofarchitectureand 24 or 28mm are just to long (38.4 and 44.8mm in 35mm respectively). It is the problem we all have, trying to get the best fit of lenses. If you are going for one of the above then I will say again go for the Canon.

The other point you mention is a lens for outdoor sport. Don't get something like the 70-300 lens as it is just too dark (f5.6 at 300mm) you are far better off with the 70-200mm f2.8 (Sigma or Canon), 100-300mm f4 Sigma (not really any good under the lights at night) or if you are going to do loads of sport then grab a 120-300mm f2.8 Sigma. Indoor sports you are looking at 50mm 1.8, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2 depending how close to the action you are going to be.

This game would be a lot easier with an unlimited budget wouldn't it!!!
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 9:56 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
This game would be a lot easier with an unlimited budget wouldn't it!!!
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is an attractive low-budget solution (especially if the 120-300 f/2.8 is too costly for some people) at the compromise of just 1-stop

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 100-400 f/5.6L IS (as many folks here do) but IMO the Sigma 100-300 f/4 can easily replace both for a one lens solution. If you require f/2.8 then this is not an option, but if you constantly shoot at the long end of the 70-200 or with a 1.4x TC then do consider the Sigma over the Canon 70-300 IS:
-> It costs less than the 70-200 f/2.8 plus teleconverter but its IQ is better than any 70-200 f/2.8 + TC combo
-> With a 1.4x TC it not only exceeds the reach of the 100-400L but also outresolves it (you can't do this with the Canon 70-300 IS).

Of course it's up to you if you fall in love with IS, but I rarely use this feature on mine... but then my subject are always moving or I always shoot with flash-fill to increase the contrast and/or saturation which usually are lacking in low-light!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2007, 12:35 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Default

Thanks, Mark1616 and NHL...great input! I think I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on the 35-124 IS and a 50 f1.8, and then turn my attention to a longer zoom lens. The information you provided will really help with that. Sigma was not initially on my radar for this range, so I will give those a good look.
davepw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2007, 3:07 AM   #19
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I thought Canon had madea new lens for a moment with the "35-124 IS" but guess you mean the 28-135 IS lol. Don't forget you are still going to need something for the wide end of things as you are only getting the equivalent of 44.8mm which is not great. Apart from that you have some good ranges covered here.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2007, 10:23 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
I thought Canon had madea new lens for a moment with the "35-124 IS" but guess you mean the 28-135 IS lol. Don't forget you are still going to need something for the wide end of things as you are only getting the equivalent of 44.8mm which is not great. Apart from that you have some good ranges covered here.
Yes, I meant 28-135IS! My bad - I need more sleep and less time looking at lens spec's! LOL. Seriously though, this is a great way to learn a lot about photography, and I really appreciate all the help I am getting from you and others.

Regarding the wide angle lens, I agree this is a gap I will need to fill. I think I will wait a little until I learn a little more about lenses and about my specific needs. It looks like some excellent choices out there from Canon, Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma.

Thanks again! Dave
davepw 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 7:03 AM.