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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens for Canon EOS
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/04/2005 04:28:00 PM · #26
I intend buying the 28-135mm IS Canon lens...I have used my neighbours...it is very good.

You already have the 50mm f1.8 Canon standard lens, so you have a good general portrait lens.

I think your first idea is best, 28-135....stick to that.

Steve
02/04/2005 04:29:52 PM · #27
Originally posted by Formerlee:

I intend buying the 28-135mm IS Canon lens...I have used my neighbours...it is very good.

You already have the 50mm f1.8 Canon standard lens, so you have a good general portrait lens.

I think your first idea is best, 28-135....stick to that.

Steve


Thanks (: Will it really get better shots than my 28-90 kit lens? Just wondering... LOL.
02/04/2005 04:34:51 PM · #28
Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?

Sigma 18-125 details

Well it`s definitely better than the canon between 18-27.99mm after that i`m not sure :) but it`s much sharper than the canon kit lens.
I chose the sigma over the canon because 28mm is not wide enough for me and i like the feeling of a spare £240 in my pocket.
02/04/2005 04:40:42 PM · #29
Originally posted by yael27:

Is it such a good lens because of the 2.8? I was hoping to get a better zoom. I love to zoon in. When I was shooting with film I mostly used 75-300. Do they have a lens that has a better zoon, and still 2.8, and as good as this one?


f/2.8 certainly helps in low light. I took this shot handheld through at car window at 55mph at night.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Tamron makes a 28-300mm lens in the same series, but it's not a constant aperture. If it's anywhere near as sharp as the 28-75, that's gotta be a killer walkaround lens!
02/04/2005 04:49:55 PM · #30
Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

I intend buying the 28-135mm IS Canon lens...I have used my neighbours...it is very good.

You already have the 50mm f1.8 Canon standard lens, so you have a good general portrait lens.

I think your first idea is best, 28-135....stick to that.

Steve


Thanks (: Will it really get better shots than my 28-90 kit lens? Just wondering... LOL.


I thought the kit lens was 18-55mm?
02/04/2005 05:00:22 PM · #31
Originally posted by marbo:

Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?

Sigma 18-125 details

Well it`s definitely better than the canon between 18-27.99mm after that i`m not sure :) but it`s much sharper than the canon kit lens.
I chose the sigma over the canon because 28mm is not wide enough for me and i like the feeling of a spare £240 in my pocket.


I agree. The Sigma is a great lens. I use it 90% of the time now. The 28-135 with IS is tempting, and the Tamron that Shannon uses sounds good, but there's not enough wide angle. The Sigma has 10mm on it!

The Sigma also takes excellent close ups.
02/04/2005 05:08:05 PM · #32
Originally posted by Formerlee:

Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

I intend buying the 28-135mm IS Canon lens...I have used my neighbours...it is very good.

You already have the 50mm f1.8 Canon standard lens, so you have a good general portrait lens.

I think your first idea is best, 28-135....stick to that.

Steve


Thanks (: Will it really get better shots than my 28-90 kit lens? Just wondering... LOL.


I thought the kit lens was 18-55mm?


Probably so. i am just still using the film term...
02/04/2005 05:09:56 PM · #33
actually John, I answered her first questions as best as I could, then offer other lenses that were of better quality that she made had missed, just like she asked.

What's silly is posting to a thread just to criticize someone else who has attempted to be helpful. And judging by the number of people who also chimed in regarding primes ... I guess you think we're all just silly.

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The prime lens suggestions here are silly. They aren't the same kind of lens the original poster is asking about.. lol
02/04/2005 05:12:05 PM · #34
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yael27:

Is it such a good lens because of the 2.8? I was hoping to get a better zoom. I love to zoon in. When I was shooting with film I mostly used 75-300. Do they have a lens that has a better zoon, and still 2.8, and as good as this one?


f/2.8 certainly helps in low light. I took this shot handheld through at car window at 55mph at night.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Tamron makes a 28-300mm lens in the same series, but it's not a constant aperture. If it's anywhere near as sharp as the 28-75, that's gotta be a killer walkaround lens!


It sound good, and I guess 3.5 f should be good enough. I will have to look for more info to see if it is in the same level as the lens you have. probably not ): And the price is tempting. (:
02/04/2005 05:14:58 PM · #35
Originally posted by marbo:

Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?

Sigma 18-125 details

Well it`s definitely better than the canon between 18-27.99mm after that i`m not sure :) but it`s much sharper than the canon kit lens.
I chose the sigma over the canon because 28mm is not wide enough for me and i like the feeling of a spare £240 in my pocket.


Mmmm. It says it is only designed to be used only on digital SLR's.
I wonder if I should still get something that will work with my film SLR too. I rarely use it this days. Mmmm. Very complicate. LOL.
02/04/2005 05:20:00 PM · #36
Originally posted by hopper:

actually John, I answered her first questions as best as I could, then offer other lenses that were of better quality that she made had missed, just like she asked.

What's silly is posting to a thread just to criticize someone else who has attempted to be helpful. And judging by the number of people who also chimed in regarding primes ... I guess you think we're all just silly.

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The prime lens suggestions here are silly. They aren't the same kind of lens the original poster is asking about.. lol


Oh, I think he was just kiddin. Wasn't he?

Anyway, all the info I am getting here is VERY helpfull. I don't trust the seller to tell me what's best, and I learn a lot hearing what you guys use. For example, I didn't even think about Sigma or Tamron...
And now I also know I just HAVE to give another chance to my 50mm 1.8...
02/04/2005 05:48:46 PM · #37
i don't think he was kidding, but i do know that john is a good guy. i'm not offended, just speaking my mind ... no harm done :)

Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by hopper:

actually John, I answered her first questions as best as I could, then offer other lenses that were of better quality that she made had missed, just like she asked.

What's silly is posting to a thread just to criticize someone else who has attempted to be helpful. And judging by the number of people who also chimed in regarding primes ... I guess you think we're all just silly.

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The prime lens suggestions here are silly. They aren't the same kind of lens the original poster is asking about.. lol


Oh, I think he was just kiddin. Wasn't he?

Anyway, all the info I am getting here is VERY helpfull. I don't trust the seller to tell me what's best, and I learn a lot hearing what you guys use. For example, I didn't even think about Sigma or Tamron...
And now I also know I just HAVE to give another chance to my 50mm 1.8...
02/04/2005 06:10:03 PM · #38
People who say "get a 50 and use your feet as a zoom"....

There are many, many situations where you cannot step away any further. You are limited by buildings, walls, ditches, canals, cars, roads, etc etc etc. Especially in the old European cities with their tight streets (build with a cart and a horse in mind) a 50 is extremely (to the point of almost unuseable) limiting on a 1.5x or 1.6x crop camera. I have one (AF 50 f1.4), but cannot imagine using it as my main lens. Fine for portraits, but when you want a bit wider view it is just to narrow even when you use your feet.
I thought it wouldn't be this way, but I have run into buildings trying to "zoom out" or would have had to jump over a 5 meter creek to frame my shot. It is freaking frustrating and I am going to order a 24mm f2.8 this week (because I do not want to buy a 6 times more expensive f2.8 zoom right now).
It is always easier to step closer than it is to step back.
02/04/2005 06:15:39 PM · #39
Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by marbo:

Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?

Sigma 18-125 details

Well it`s definitely better than the canon between 18-27.99mm after that i`m not sure :) but it`s much sharper than the canon kit lens.
I chose the sigma over the canon because 28mm is not wide enough for me and i like the feeling of a spare £240 in my pocket.


Mmmm. It says it is only designed to be used only on digital SLR's.
I wonder if I should still get something that will work with my film SLR too. I rarely use it this days. Mmmm. Very complicate. LOL.


Yes, that's true, but it's also only $250 including a lens hood. Yet I've compared it favorably in tests to the 50mm 1.8 for colors and sharpness. (Not a scientific test, but you can see the comparisons in this thread.)

There's also a new Tamron available with better range, but I haven't seen any reviews of it yet:

Tamon 18-200

Of course, if you don't want the lower range, then the 28-135 with IS could have a real advantage: I have IS on my Canon S1 and I think IS rocks! It definitely is an advantage indoors for still subjects.

02/04/2005 06:37:37 PM · #40
This lense (Tokina 24-200 AT-X 242 AF) seems to have some good qualities for the money. Nice range.
02/04/2005 07:02:49 PM · #41
I've had this lens for a couple of years now. It's great because of the range and build quality. I use it for everything unless I need more light (then I use the 50mm 1.8) or extra wide angle (then I use the 18-55 kit lens). I would only suggest this lens if it's the only one you will buy for some time.

Originally posted by casualguy:

This lense (Tokina 24-200 AT-X 242 AF) seems to have some good qualities for the money. Nice range.
02/04/2005 07:33:57 PM · #42
Um...nobody's mentioned the EF 17-85 IS, which is a much better fit than the 28-105 or 28-135 for a 1.6x camera. I have the 28-105, and while not a bad lens for $200, isn't near wide enough on the 10D.
02/04/2005 07:44:30 PM · #43
Originally posted by scalvert:

Unless you have a real aversion to third party lenses, or need the extra reach (you're probably covered with the 75-300), consider the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 for $369. It's a great all-around lens, and even sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8.


I second that best walkaround lens for the way I shoot.
02/04/2005 07:52:20 PM · #44
You have the 75-300mm and 50mm. I just got the Cannon 24-70mm 2.8L. Yes, ouch the bank acct. hurts. That zoom range would fit in with what you have...IMO
02/04/2005 08:31:50 PM · #45
I have the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di lens and I like it alot. For the price and the range that it gives, you can't beat it. The pictures are sharp, the autofocus is fast and it's compact. The reason I like Tamron is:

1. 6-Year warranty
2. Comes with Lens Hood
3. Value for the $$

Here is a review of the lens,There is also a link for the review of the Tamron 28-75 XR Di Lens. I may purchase that also, simply for the constant f/2.8.

Tamron Lens Review
02/04/2005 09:21:40 PM · #46
Originally posted by Formerlee:

Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

I intend buying the 28-135mm IS Canon lens...I have used my neighbours...it is very good.

You already have the 50mm f1.8 Canon standard lens, so you have a good general portrait lens.

I think your first idea is best, 28-135....stick to that.

Steve


Thanks (: Will it really get better shots than my 28-90 kit lens? Just wondering... LOL.


I thought the kit lens was 18-55mm?


For the Rebel, yes. However, 28-90 or 28-105 are kit lenses for film cameras.
02/04/2005 11:54:18 PM · #47
I have a 28-135IS as my main lens but think the 28-105 is about same optically. The IS is actually close to a 110, not a true 135 from what I tested and read. If you can do without the IS, I'd get the 28-105 and save some money. I don't have the Tamron 28-75 XR, but it is faster and cheaper than the 28-105IS. I hear nothing but good reviews about this lens including the review from popular photography. You can check this out on their site yourself. Having said all that, I really like the 28-135IS for the range and it's bigger size and weight. It is a bit thicker, longer, and heavier than the other lens I mentioned and it just feels better in my hand. I don't think it's optically any better though. Just my subjective feel when I hold it on my Rebel.
Hope that helps.
02/05/2005 12:42:44 AM · #48
Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yael27:

Is it such a good lens because of the 2.8? I was hoping to get a better zoom. I love to zoon in. When I was shooting with film I mostly used 75-300. Do they have a lens that has a better zoon, and still 2.8, and as good as this one?


f/2.8 certainly helps in low light. I took this shot handheld through at car window at 55mph at night.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/143102.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Tamron makes a 28-300mm lens in the same series, but it's not a constant aperture. If it's anywhere near as sharp as the 28-75, that's gotta be a killer walkaround lens!


It sound good, and I guess 3.5 f should be good enough. I will have to look for more info to see if it is in the same level as the lens you have. probably not ): And the price is tempting. (:


I got the tamron 28-300mm last weekend, I have had some excellent results thus far with it, price was great, not too soft on the long end and I think its the lighthest 300 that you will find. I haven't had it hunt on me yet. And take pretty darn good macros (300mm at 19 inches) it has a stiff zoom, also has a lock to avoid lens creep when hanging from your neck. The Di's are designed with digital in mind but work as well on film bodies.
02/05/2005 01:27:42 AM · #49
these suggestions of getting a 28-xxx lens for general use are very poor advice for a camera with a 1.6x crop. after getting my 17-40 i never use my 28-105 for walkaround because a 44mm equivalent for the wide end is far too long. it was a mistake for me to buy such a lens, and would be even moreso when the 17-85 IS is available for the 300D. the 17-85 is a 28-135 equivalent when on a 300D, so why not get it? the 28-135 is a great range for film , but of fairly limited use once you get used to a wide angle lens.

just because you own one doesn't mean others should too.
02/05/2005 01:35:51 AM · #50
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by marbo:

Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?

Sigma 18-125 details

Well it`s definitely better than the canon between 18-27.99mm after that i`m not sure :) but it`s much sharper than the canon kit lens.
I chose the sigma over the canon because 28mm is not wide enough for me and i like the feeling of a spare £240 in my pocket.


Mmmm. It says it is only designed to be used only on digital SLR's.
I wonder if I should still get something that will work with my film SLR too. I rarely use it this days. Mmmm. Very complicate. LOL.


Yes, that's true, but it's also only $250 including a lens hood. Yet I've compared it favorably in tests to the 50mm 1.8 for colors and sharpness. (Not a scientific test, but you can see the comparisons in this thread.)



Thanks for the link! I found there a lot of info!! (:
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/16/2021 08:04:27 PM

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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/16/2021 08:04:27 PM EDT.