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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 25, 2005, 9:19 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Default

Hi All,

I have been going around and around about what kinds of lenses to get ona 20D and I'm about to order the camera and lenses. As much as I hate to spend $2200 on a lens, you gotta spend money to make money, and there is no sense buying a cheapie lens (or several), when I can get a regular and awsome normalrange-telephoto like the white body Canon EF 28-300 f3/5-5.6L IS USM. I am a big guy, and carrying around a heavy 20D with a 4 pound lens isn't a problem for me.

I will be shooting in lots of dusty places like the desert and in caves, so I need the ruggedness and water resistant nature of this lense. I also like the 12x zoom, and that fact that when the lens is on the 20d, because of the conversion factor, I essentially would have a 450mm tele lens. And, it has great color and sharpness, allegedly.

Anyone use this as their primary lens?

The other 2 lenses I'd get would be a good wide and a good macro. Otherwise, I would expect to use this 28-300 most of the time.

Oh yeah, the other cool thing is just to have a white body lens on my Canon camera!
speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 26, 2005, 1:11 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

speleojeff wrote:
Quote:
I will be shooting in lots of dusty places like the desert and in caves, so I need the ruggedness and water resistant nature of this lense.
Only a few L lenses are dust and water resistant - The 28-300 f/3.4-5.6L IS USM is not a DW-R lens...
Have you check its MTF vs lesser lenses like the newer 24-105L (or the EF-s 17-85)?

Just my opinion only - but isn't the 28-300 f/3.4-5.6L kind of unwieldy in the confine of a cave with quite a narrow FOV and a flash on top of it (@ f/8 )? As a reference instead, here's the MTF of an 18-200mm DC lens wide opened (also an 11x zoom): http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3247




NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2005, 6:20 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Default

Being a real novice, I have no idea what those MTF charts mean. Sorry. The 24-105 lens looks nice, and with the conversion on the 20D, it would give me about the equivalent of a 40-150mm lens. Not too shabby. Problem is, I'd still have to get a real telephoto to go along with it, so that is another $500, and I'm back in the price range of that white body lens, which will do it all except wide and macro. I suppose I can go without a dust/moisture proof lense. I could always get aSigma for dirty work.

I'm not getting any EF-S lenses, they won't work ona Canon film body.

I am concerned about Sigma quality. I had one of those fall apart on me years ago, so I'm leery of them and want to stick with Canon.

I'll stop in to a camera store and give that 24-105 a look-see, and hopefully they will have a whitebody to look at too.
speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 7:38 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

speleojeff wrote:
Quote:
I am concerned about Sigma quality. I had one of those fall apart on me years ago, so I'm leery of them and want to stick with Canon.
You must be confused with the low-end Sigma which is just like any 'cheap' Canon... which tend to be poorly made

The Sigma EX is their professional series and carries 4 (to 7) years warranty depending on where you buy - How long is the guarantee for the L again? I have both and I'm confident that Sigma can offer a better value, but then some folks just don't want to stray from the brand name lenses: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65




Quote:
Being a real novice, I have no idea what those MTF charts mean.
FYI - http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/mtf.htm

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 11:37 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Default

Thanks for the MTF website!

I checked the Sigma lineup, but they didn'tseem to have an EX lens that compared with the 24-105L.

I still am interested in the whitebody, just because I'd like a 12x zoom. I would get a 20mm wide, and a macro as well. I really want to buy a lens that is going to last me 10 years, so if I spread the cost of the 28-300 whitebody, that is only $220 a year foran amazing 12x zoom.
speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 11:59 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Keep in mind that the wider the zoom range the greater the optical compromise, this is particularly true if the zoom starts at anything that could be considered wide angle and goes to telephoto.

Optically the 28-300 is one of the best 10x zooms available, but that still isn't saying all that much.

By splitting the focal length and carrying 2 lenses to cover that same range you could spend less and get quite significantly better optical quality.

And for perhaps $400 more you could get the 24-105 L and the 100-400 L, which would give you a significant increase at both ends of the zoom range and give MUCH better optical quality across the range.

I would strongly suggest you compare the MTF charts for the lenses to get an idea. Also check out the lens reviews at FredMiranda.com - the 28-300 is a very odd lens. Most people find it strange to spend that much money on a lens which is of very average optical quality.

It's real advantage is that on a FF35mm body it should be the only lens you ever need, and of course it has L build quality, but you're getting a 20D so you will need to be swapping for wide angle shots.

I would think that if you did sink that much cash on that lens you might soon suffer from quite serious "buyer's remorse".



peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 9:52 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic

The 28-300L is actually quite new - It supercedes the older 35-350L I believe, but I agree there are much better wide/tele combos for less
BTW isn't 300/28 a 10.7x ratio zoom (where does 12x come from) ? :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 10:25 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

speleojeff wrote:
Quote:
1. As much as I hate to spend $2200 on a lens, you gotta spend money to make money, and there is no sense buying a cheapie lens (or several), when I can get a regular and awsome normalrange-telephoto like the white body Canon EF 28-300 f3/5-5.6L IS USM.

I will be shooting in lots of dusty places like the desert and in caves, so I need the ruggedness and water resistant nature of this lense.
Quote:
Anyone use this as their primary lens?

The other 2 lenses I'd get would be a good wide and a good macro. Otherwise, I would expect to use this 28-300 most of the time.

Oh yeah, the other cool thing is just to have a white body lens on my Canon camera!
You might want to rethink your priorities. Let's look at your needs.

1. Spend money to make money. 20D is the wrong body. Even the dust/moisture resistant lenses need the matching body for dust/moisture resistance. That means a 1DMkIIn or a 1DsMkII. Not the 20D. And not even the 5D. That's just a consumer body with a big sensor. However, it would help your 28-300 to be a little more useful.

2. Hardly anyone would use that as a "primary" lens, because it lacks wide angle on a 1.6 crop factor camera. But then what is a "primary" lens? For a year, I shot with nothing but a 50mm F1.4. Is "only" lens comparable to "primary" lens?

3. Other lenses you plan to get. You're going to be disappointed when you see that the wide angle and macro L lenses are not white.

4. Looking cool. Many of the people I see with cameras and white lenses look and act like dorks, not photographers. Most of the non-photographer public doesn't know about white lenses and will think you must have some kind of cheap K-Mart lens, since it doesn't match the camera. Some of those who do know an L lens by its color are robbers, muggers, and other thieves on drugs, who will want to hit you over the head with a rock so they can get $100 for your $2,000 lens. Before I flash a $2,000 lens around this city, I have to get my 9mm and CHL!


wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 6:29 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the 28-300 is too much of a compramise lens.. spending that much on a lens of average optical quality just doesnt seem like good economics..

better split up over a few lenses.. and that may mean splitting up your purchases..

getting what you need in the fewest lenses possible you may look into..

17-40L, 50 and/or 85 primes, 100-400L or something like that..

or 17-40L,70-200 2.8, 300/400 prime...

and btw, carrying around a camera with a 4lb lens all day gets annoying, i dont care how big you are.. trust me i bench 400 and my 80-400gets annoying..so its not a realy great idea to have a 6lb kit as your "Walkabout" .
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2005, 10:45 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

C'mon guys, the man has a touch of L fever let him go, he can't hurt himself - only his wallet.
Setiprime 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 9:08 AM.