DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Yet another - Which Lens is best?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 10 of 10, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/19/2005 12:50:39 PM · #1
My two most used lensese are an 18-50 2.8 and a 70-300 4-5.6. (both sigmas)

I find at times the 50 is not enough zoom, and starting putting on the 70-300 is too much zoom except for a shot or two.

I have a tamron 28-80 that i have not used in months, and will be trying it again to see if it fills the range issue, but when i quit using it becuse the quality of the 18-50 was superior(contrast, color, sharpness) and the slightly wider 18mm vs 28mm was very handy, not to mention the extra constant aperture was really useful.

So i am thinking of getting a wider range walk around.
The lenses under consideration:
Sigma 18-125 3.5-5.6 $299
Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 DC $399
Sigma 55-200 4-5.6 DC $159

Anyone have experience with any of these? Know of any reviews of them?

My thoughts....
18-125 - not a DC (aps sized) lens, i have not heard much good, range is probably the most useful, not being a 10:1 zoom it might be OK at both ends

18-200 - probably my first choice, but also the most expensive. a DC lens, so not good if i upgrade to a full frame camera one day, from what i remember of hte reviews the ends of its range are not that good, and 6.3 is really small, so how useful is it?

55-200...just heard about this one today and nknow nothing. Would require switching lenses at times, but 55 is not too bad. the ap range is fair, the price is great - how is hte image quality? again, a DC lens but at this price i don't care as much.

An outside thought is hte canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 for $359. Any input on the optical quality of this one?

basically, it is great when i am at a museum and can use one lens, or a sporting event. However, there are times (at a fair, field trip with my kids) that i need a wider zoom range in one lens than wha ti have available. I will probably use if for portraiture (outside and with studio flash) so that is a minor consideration.
10/19/2005 01:05:56 PM · #2
Did some looking and found Sigma makes a 24-135 2.8-4.5 for $359 ish.
I like the idea of this one - the 2.8 is better, the 135 on a 1.6x camera is 216...any reviews of this one?

How about the canon 28-135 IS....a bit more money, but the IS feature on a walkaround might be real handy.

Yeah, now i'm trying to include every lens made, huh? Not really..tyring to read the reviews at photozone.de and stay above average, max aperture and range, minimum distortions and perhaps a shade on the warm side since i seem to like that in my pics.

HELP!

Message edited by author 2005-10-19 13:16:39.
10/19/2005 01:06:59 PM · #3
As a rule of thumb, any lens with a zoom range greater than 3:1 is going to be less than satisfactory, optically, on at least one extreme of the zoom and usually both extremes. Your Tamron 28-80, incidentally, is a very inexpensive lens with a reputation as a bit of a dog. The Tamron 28-75, on the other hand, at around $400, is an extremely good lens of its type. So much so that when the "world" found out about it they couldn't meet the demand; mine was backordered for nearly a month. It's a great walkaround lens, IMO, and it does a pretty nice "near macro" range too, down to 1:2...

A 55-200mm at $159.00 cannot be much good optically. It just isn't possible... I guess it depends on your standards, though. It might stack up well against other consumer lenses; indeed, the few owner's comments I've found online suggest that it does. They all seem pleased with it for the price.

I admit that I'm a spoiled photographer, after all those years shooting top-line pro equipment, so I'm really picky with my lenses and would rather save money until I cana fford top-tier glass.

R.
10/19/2005 01:15:34 PM · #4
Prof Fate - quit screwing around with consumer glass !!

Check out the 28/135 IS USM from Canon
Then save up for a 70/200 L (Canon)
Get the 50mm1.4 and you are covered for everthing.
10/19/2005 01:20:23 PM · #5
Originally posted by setiprime:

Prof Fate - quit screwing around with consumer glass !!

Check out the 28/135 IS USM from Canon
Then save up for a 70/200 L (Canon)
Get the 50mm1.4 and you are covered for everthing.


I have the 50 1.8. Don't use it enough to splurge on teh 1.4
the 18-50 2.8 is NOT consumer glass, but there is nothing in the 18-200 (or 24-105 etc) that is not middle of the road or less (the canon $1250 L glass is not in my budget - but you're welcome to discuss it with my wife ;)

A 70-200 is on my eventual want list (either the canon yo mention or the sigma 70-200 2.8) but at this time i am satisfied with my 70-300 lens.

I just keep needing a longer range walkaround. Xmas is coming...my birthday is coming...I have not bought a lens for over 3 months now...
10/19/2005 01:33:10 PM · #6
Originally posted by bear_music:

As a rule of thumb, any lens with a zoom range greater than 3:1 is going to be less than satisfactory, optically, on at least one extreme of the zoom and usually both extremes.

I agree. Hence I am a bit leery to go with an 18-200 lens, but the convenince factor is weighing on my mind.
Originally posted by bear_music:

Your Tamron 28-80, incidentally, is a very inexpensive lens with a reputation as a bit of a dog.

for the price it is rather good. I chose it over the kit lens (1/2 the price) and was satisfied for the time i used it. My main complaints with it are 1)speed as in max apetrure 2) color/contrast
Originally posted by bear_music:

The Tamron 28-75, on the other hand, at around $400, is an extremely good lens of its type. So much so that when the "world" found out about it they couldn't meet the demand; mine was backordered for nearly a month. It's a great walkaround lens, IMO, and it does a pretty nice "near macro" range too, down to 1:2...

Was one of the ones i considered before i got my Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC. I am extremely happy with the Sigma. I chose it partly for the wider end (18vs28 of the tamron) and partly becuse i like the color/contrast o f my sigma 70-300 over that of ht etamron 28-80 and figure such 'warm' tone are probably a Sigma trait. Reviews put it optically equal to the canon 17-40L. My only complaints are i want more range on the long end and perhaps more accurate focusing (but that is mostly me, lighting, possibly come camera shake, and my camera (i need a 20D!))

Originally posted by bear_music:

A 55-200mm at $159.00 cannot be much good optically.
I agree, but then sometimes you can be surprised. I think it is off the list..what is the point of having a walka around if yo have to change it to cover the full range?

10/19/2005 02:11:50 PM · #7
I'm giving it to you straight - the Canon 28/135IS is a very underrated lens. I don't know what you do when you "walk around" but 135mm is more than enough for most folks. Plus you don't have a foot long lens sticking out in front of you.

That lens made me several Thousand dollars last year - thats proof enough for me. I shoot for money so I invest on what gives me the best return for my dollar.
10/19/2005 02:31:32 PM · #8
Originally posted by setiprime:

I'm giving it to you straight - the Canon 28/135IS is a very underrated lens. I don't know what you do when you "walk around" but 135mm is more than enough for most folks. Plus you don't have a foot long lens sticking out in front of you.

That lens made me several Thousand dollars last year - thats proof enough for me. I shoot for money so I invest on what gives me the best return for my dollar.


Instead of doing something productive with my day, i have been looing at pics taken with various lenses here on DPC...and i think th eCanon 28-135 IS is the one i'll go with. I'd like to spend less and have a wider aperture, but the IS kind of offsets the one and the other, well, it's only money, right?

Besides, I hear canon lense focus faster than the non-canon lense...so this way i can find out!

I'll try seom test shots later to see what 28 and 135 truly look like just to be sure, and of course whet my appetite.
10/19/2005 05:46:53 PM · #9
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

... An outside thought is hte canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 for $359. Any input on the optical quality of this one? ...


I have that lens. I bought it used from a dpc member before I even had a camera I could use it on; sort of like making a commitment to myself that I would eventually make the jump to dslr; and that when I did I would have a "walk-around" so as not to be forced to make an impulsive lens buy just to be able to use my new cam. I knew at the time that it did not have a reputation as a high quality lens. The reviews are middle of the pack at best. But as I have learned to use it to it's best advantage I have raised my opinion of it, and earned a few decent challenge scores. Like most inexpensive lenses, it's performance suffers at the extremes of it's aperture and zoom ranges. But if you stay in the middle of those ranges, and don't try to force it in situations with less light than it is suited to, it can produce high quality images just like a more expensive model.
10/19/2005 06:14:41 PM · #10
Prof_fate, I also have the sgma 18-50mm and canon 70-200mm f4L, I sold my other lens for buying these two beauties, and I have to say I don't miss the 51-69mm range at all, besides you can almost always cover that range with a few steps forward or backward.

My 2 cents.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:16:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:16:57 AM EDT.