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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5, 2004, 9:26 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 39
Default

I have looked at the digital rebel,10D and nikon d70. The camera that I like the best is the 10d. As everyone knows this is the most expensive so that leaves me only enough money to buy one of the following lenses or something in the same price range. Please do not suggest that i buy a non zoom lens or save for a $1000+ l lens. The lenses that I can afford are the Canon EF 24-85MM USM LENS $289.
the Canon EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6 USM IMAGE STABILIZER lens $398. and the Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 MACRO XR Di LD-IF F/ CANON EOS $309. If anyone is fimilar with the quality (or lack of)of these lenses or any reasons why I would choose one over the others please let me know.
jjgncmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 6, 2004, 2:41 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28
Default

The Canon ef 28-135 IS is a VERY good lens. I am also having fun with the Sigma 18-55 DC which if you want a cheap wide angle is a real bargain!
biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2004, 11:33 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

jign, you have spent a pile of money for a good digital SLR that I'm sure you will have a great time with. I've heard that the 28-135 is okay as well.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2004, 8:11 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I have the 28-135. Not the best lens on the planet, but for that price I don't expect it to be.

It's a good size to handle by hand or carry around and it's fairly sharp.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2004, 10:29 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

I shoot with the Canon 28/135 IS, ALL the time.

It is a top notch lens - it is my main "Walk around" lens and works VERY well in low light situations.

Free Advice - Don't skimp on the glass - "Cheap glass = Poor shots"
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2004, 8:45 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

Interesting question. A bit risky of course, because there's a good chance, for afficionados, that money spent on skimped lenses will be wasted with eventual replacement with better lenses.

This is a lesson that I'm learning again with the 28-200 Tamron (chromatic abberation at 200, to be explored further).

That said, it is a good question -- what's the best lens that won't cost a fortune. The answer, one in which I'm fairly sure, is one of the 50 primes -- the best lenses for the money. Professionals shoot with primes (sometimes exclusively, sometimes in combination), and cropping is so natural in the digital world, that we should ask "why not"! However, it's also obvious that most people, myself included, find convenience in zooms.

To me, the list of lenses identified by the original poster is pretty good. Most of the material that I've seen rates the Canon 24-85 the lowest, but it also has the widest angle here, something that matters in both the film/full frame world, and the 10D/300D.

I think that I would pick the Tamron 28-75 myself, but I'd want to check first if the Canon 28-135 is as susceptible to flare as some have suggested, and to do/see any othercomparisons possiblebefore I discarded it. It certainly has a good reputation and Photodo rating.

Here's a photo.net thread comparing the two directly. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=0081Zp

However, everything that I've read so far points me to the 17-40L, so for my own upgradeneeds, I haveto consider that as a starting point -- the 28-75 may be a nice complement, or overlap too much. In addition, one of the 50's is a nice alternative. Being effectively 80, they approach the range of the very popular and highly successful 85-90 portrait/macros of the past film/full frame world, and is significant closer than the 40 (64). The fast speed of the primes should make them very nice portrait lenses.

To complete the message, another poster suggests the 24 and 50 primes as a budget starter, which is also a good option IMO. Jim Larson in this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=007tIY
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2004, 11:30 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Madwand

The 17-40L is a wonderful, great lens. The only complains I have are that filters are expensive (big front element) and that the focal length ring is kinda small and close to the body. I find I bump the protruding flash on the 10D when changing the focal length. Oh, the other downside is cost. It's expensive.

Other than that, I am very happy with that lens. I realy should use it more often.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 11:02 PM   #8
Bui
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6
Default

I totally agree that buying cheap lens will be a waste of money because you will eventually replace it. It happened to me many times, and I keep forgeting this. I simply can't wait to have sufficient to buy the best and settle for less and got frustrated with its limitation. I owned and used a 28-135 IS andthis lensdoes has flaring issue since the first day I used it. in generalIthought it is a good lensand good lens it is compared to 'cheap' kit lens until I tried the 24-70 2.8 L.Sharpness and other aspects such as color satuaration andbuild qualityof L lens isso far superior to thenon L lens that I swear to myself that from now on I will only buy L lens, it's worth the wait to save money. If people found the 28-135 is good and fit for their purpose then it's fine, but personally Ithinkthe 28-135'sperformanceis mediocre. You get what you paid.
Bui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 9:45 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 39
Default

Thank you everyone for your advice. I visited a few camera stores and tried the 10D(and the rebel) with several of the recommended lenses. I also realized that I shoot alot more wide then telephoto shots. I finally bought the 10D with the canon 17-40mm F4 l USM lens. I couldn't resist the quality I got with this combination. I got the lens and camera from an online store buydig.com that I had used in the past. I got the camera for 1285.00 and the lens for 619.00 after a 40.00 rebate from Canon.
jjgncmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 10:25 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

I hope you'll enjoy your new tools/toys, andI'm pretty sure you will. Congratulations.
Madwand 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 6:00 PM.