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 51 - 75 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/05/2005 01:40:13 AM · #51
Originally posted by ace flyman:

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

I thought maybe I will sell the 75-300.
While it was my favorite on my film eos300, I don't
use it at all on mu eos300D...
That's why I was looking for a better range. I do love to zoom
in on thing. (:
02/05/2005 01:50:05 AM · #52
Originally posted by yido:

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.


Hi Tom, Thanks for the info.
I am not sure I understand. You mean that when using the IS the range is 110? That means it is basically like the 28-105, right?
I know what you mean about "the feel" of it, but I will prefer a light lens as prosibble. The camera itself is heavy enough for me. LOL.
02/05/2005 01:59:22 AM · #53
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

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.

Mmm. For me, since I love to zoon in, I am not sure this argument hold.
I am not used to a wide angle lens. While using film I mostly used 75-300...
What is the equivalent when on a 300D for the 28-135?
02/05/2005 02:14:25 AM · #54
Can anyone please tell me what is the crop factor? And what does it mean regsrding the EOS300D? I wasn't aware not all the lens will go well with it...
02/05/2005 02:27:01 AM · #55
The 300D sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. So, you must (in this case) multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.6x to get the same field of view on a 300D as a 35mm film camera.

In practical terms a 28mm lens will have the same field of view on a 300D as a 44mm lens on a film camera. 44mm is too wide for a lot of applications. You can't always 'zoom with your feet' and, also, perspective changes when you're further away from something.

To answer your question a 28-135mm lens, when put on a 300D, will act like a 44-216mm lens. There's a reason why they've made the 17-85 for the 300D and the 20D...because 44-216 is not a traditional focal length range, and for most people not incredibly useful. If you're into that focal length, that's cool.
02/05/2005 03:43:41 AM · #56
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

The 300D sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. So, you must (in this case) multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.6x to get the same field of view on a 300D as a 35mm film camera.

In practical terms a 28mm lens will have the same field of view on a 300D as a 44mm lens on a film camera. 44mm is too wide for a lot of applications. You can't always 'zoom with your feet' and, also, perspective changes when you're further away from something.

To answer your question a 28-135mm lens, when put on a 300D, will act like a 44-216mm lens. There's a reason why they've made the 17-85 for the 300D and the 20D...because 44-216 is not a traditional focal length range, and for most people not incredibly useful. If you're into that focal length, that's cool.


Thanks for a simple and clear explnation. (:
So the 17-85 is actually what I know (from film) as 27-136. Cool!!!
But it will cober most of whay I have today with the kit lens - 28-90.
Since I like to zoom in, and use the camera mostly to take pictures of people, I still think 28-135 will be really great for me, and from what I gather it will free me from the need for the 75-300! I will be able to use one lens most of the time...

Since I have been shooting with the 28-90 for the last 8 months, I alreasy know 28 is OK with me. They were time in which I could use 17, but mostly it was OK. (:

One other question. Will I be able to use 28-135 without tripod? I find I can't do so with the 75-300. That's why I stopped using it...
02/05/2005 11:06:53 AM · #57
Originally posted by marbo:

Also consider the sigma 18-125mm at about half the price of the canon and a better range. This stays on my camera most of the time.


Couldn't find any review here.//www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F100
Anybody know anything about this lens?
02/05/2005 11:20:28 AM · #58
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yael27:

Where can I read about the lens you mention? Do you have it? Is it really that good? WIkk it work with both EOS300 (D and film)?


I was reluctant to buy a non-Canon lens, too, but since I got this Tamron, it has become my "usual" lens. Two of my last four challenge entries were taken with the Tamron (both of them ribbon-winners). It scores very highly in these lens ratings, and it'll work fine on film and digital EOS cameras. It's a bargain for the price.


You kind of got me with those two links:
AF SLR LENS TEST GUIDE
It got: Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP : 4.14 (3) = very-good - This is the lens, righ? (the Di is missing, and I need to know I am getting what I was reading about, LOL)


Comparing with Canon EF28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM

From what I understand it has the same field of view as a 45-120mm lens would on a full frame 35mm camera. It should be enough, I guess.

So, just to make sure - will it work with EOS300D and EOS300?
He always mention it with EOS 20D...

Thanks for all the info.

Message edited by author 2005-02-05 11:21:18.
02/05/2005 01:41:33 PM · #59
I'm pretty sure he is talking about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di in his test.

Yes it will work on the Rebel.

Fred Miranda Review of the Lens

I just bought one of these myself....waiting on it to come in 8)

Message edited by author 2005-02-05 13:44:38.
02/05/2005 03:44:41 PM · #60
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

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, <snip>.

just because you own one doesn't mean others should too.


Perhaps I am wrong in your opinion, but that is what I do. The 28-75 is my favorite walkaround length. The 17-40 fixed f4 did not suit my needs as I find the f/4 too slow and the high end of 40mm too wide for a general walkaround. I also found the max with of 17mm too narrow with the 1.6 crop, so I bought the efs 10-22 to fill in the low end to get a 16mm equivalent.

If you tend to get up very close to your subject then 28mm is not short enough, but I find a certain amount of distance makes people more comfortable. An 80 mm (50mm with the crop) lens is the ideal portrait lens and that is outside the 17-40's range. It is a great lens but it is a specialty lens, and better suited to full frame than the 1.6 crop. I own lenses that can take me from 700mm to 10mm and the 28-75 is the most usefull lens for the way I shoot.
02/05/2005 03:49:37 PM · #61
Originally posted by yael27:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

The 300D sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. So, you must (in this case) multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.6x to get the same field of view on a 300D as a 35mm film camera.

In practical terms a 28mm lens will have the same field of view on a 300D as a 44mm lens on a film camera. 44mm is too wide for a lot of applications. You can't always 'zoom with your feet' and, also, perspective changes when you're further away from something.

To answer your question a 28-135mm lens, when put on a 300D, will act like a 44-216mm lens. There's a reason why they've made the 17-85 for the 300D and the 20D...because 44-216 is not a traditional focal length range, and for most people not incredibly useful. If you're into that focal length, that's cool.


Thanks for a simple and clear explnation. (:
So the 17-85 is actually what I know (from film) as 27-136. Cool!!!
But it will cober most of whay I have today with the kit lens - 28-90.
Since I like to zoom in, and use the camera mostly to take pictures of people, I still think 28-135 will be really great for me, and from what I gather it will free me from the need for the 75-300! I will be able to use one lens most of the time...

Since I have been shooting with the 28-90 for the last 8 months, I alreasy know 28 is OK with me. They were time in which I could use 17, but mostly it was OK. (:

One other question. Will I be able to use 28-135 without tripod? I find I can't do so with the 75-300. That's why I stopped using it...


That is one of the reasons I am going to get the Canon 28-135mm IS - for the Image Stabilising. Not only can you shoot in lower light than a non stabilised lens, but you can hand hold at lower shutter speeds.

Steve
02/05/2005 03:51:46 PM · #62
Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8 ,looks like a great walkabout lens for 1.6 crop camera.
$499 and photos I've seen taken with this lens look very sharp !

Photo
photo
photo

Message edited by author 2005-02-05 15:55:45.
02/05/2005 03:55:13 PM · #63
That's why I was suggesting the 17-85.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Perhaps I am wrong in your opinion, but that is what I do. The 28-75 is my favorite walkaround length. The 17-40 fixed f4 did not suit my needs as I find the f/4 too slow and the high end of 40mm too wide for a general walkaround. I also found the max with of 17mm too narrow with the 1.6 crop, so I bought the efs 10-22 to fill in the low end to get a 16mm equivalent.

If you tend to get up very close to your subject then 28mm is not short enough, but I find a certain amount of distance makes people more comfortable. An 80 mm (50mm with the crop) lens is the ideal portrait lens and that is outside the 17-40's range. It is a great lens but it is a specialty lens, and better suited to full frame than the 1.6 crop. I own lenses that can take me from 700mm to 10mm and the 28-75 is the most usefull lens for the way I shoot.

02/05/2005 05:35:28 PM · #64
If you like the zoom range of the 28-90mm then you will like the zoom range of the 28-105mm Canon lens more. If you need to do more landscape or outdoor type of shooting, then wider lens like the 17-40 may be better. However, you stated that you like to zoom in on things and having a wider lens than a 28mm is actually a wide angle (<44mm film equivalent. <50mm is usually considered wide and >50mm film equivalent us usually considered telephoto). Hence, I don't think you want anything wider than what you have (28mm).
As for the 28-135IS, once past about 110mm it does not zoom in much more despite rotating the zoom ring to 135mm. Many have said that it zooms more like the 28-105mmm lens, meaning you can twist the zoom ring more, but not much more zoom is attained. The 28-105mm is smaller in diameter/weight/price. I think it would focus faster and quieter than the Tamron or the Sigma, as most Cannon USM lens focus faster than non Canon lens.
I think this lens would suit you well.
02/05/2005 06:16:44 PM · #65
Regarding the Tamron 28-75 XR Di, it may not zoom enough for your needs as you like the 28-90 range.
The Sigma 18-125 may actually have more wide angle coverage than you want as well.
If you really don't want to carry lenses and want the most range for the buck from one lens, Tamron's 28-300 XR Di ($400) and Sigma 28300mm f/3.56.3 (newer one with 62mm filter, $250) might be good choices for you if you like to zoom upto about 200mm or so. I hear that they are optically good till about 200mm then really get softer past that. You probably need to use a small aperature and a tripod near 200-300mm range if you want to get a good shot, but you can probably get a decent hand held shot to about 200mm is you have lots of light. I think out of these two, the Tamron is better. Another option is the Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242AF Autofocus ($300). I heard good things about this one as well but I've no personal experience with any of these lenses. It's just what I've heard from many others.
Remember, there are two Canon 28-105mm lenses, 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM ($130) is a cheaper one without a distance scale window and Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ($300) is the one with a distance scale window, and is in the same class as the 28-135IS and I suspect will perform about the same optically.
I think most would say that the Canon's will have equal or better optical quality than the other choices (except the Tamron 29-75XR Di).
In the end, you have to look at the zoon range, price, weight, and optical quality that you want and make your choice out of these. I personally prefer to have a Canon as my main lens, just a personal preference/brand loyalty. But honestly, if you talking about these mid level consumer lenses, your skills will make more of a diffence than the lens.
02/05/2005 07:40:09 PM · #66
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro:

100% crop no post processing - Handheld, 1/400sec, f/13 @ 300mm ISO-400.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21367/thumb/143930.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21367/thumb/143930.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

A tad soft but nothing USM can't take care of.
02/05/2005 10:27:01 PM · #67
This site has really good evaluation of lens.
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105
02/06/2005 03:35:47 AM · #68
Originally posted by yido:

If you like the zoom range of the 28-90mm then you will like the zoom range of the 28-105mm Canon lens more. If you need to do more landscape or outdoor type of shooting, then wider lens like the 17-40 may be better. However, you stated that you like to zoom in on things and having a wider lens than a 28mm is actually a wide angle (<44mm film equivalent. <50mm is usually considered wide and >50mm film equivalent us usually considered telephoto). Hence, I don't think you want anything wider than what you have (28mm).
As for the 28-135IS, once past about 110mm it does not zoom in much more despite rotating the zoom ring to 135mm. Many have said that it zooms more like the 28-105mmm lens, meaning you can twist the zoom ring more, but not much more zoom is attained. The 28-105mm is smaller in diameter/weight/price. I think it would focus faster and quieter than the Tamron or the Sigma, as most Cannon USM lens focus faster than non Canon lens.
I think this lens would suit you well.


I now (thanks to all the info I got in this forums) know what I want.
My needs are 28-105mm. BUT (there is always BUT, isn't there, LOL) from what I read here it isn't such a good lens ):
that's why i though to "compromise" on the range of the tamron 28-75. It just sound such a great lens! and the price is reasonable. If only ot was 28-105! LOL.
02/06/2005 12:11:29 PM · #69
I would take that site's recommendation with a bit of caution. I think they are biased and do not seem to post actual test results, just some subjective ratings that they came up with. Note that Tamrons and Nikons are generally highly rated in the 4's, while only Canon lenses that are rated in the 4's are the L series (usually regarded as onen of the best lens series by most). It rates the Canon 28-135IS as good at 3.25, while most Cannon afficianados regard this lens as one of the best all around lens. It rates your 75-300mm lens in the 2's to give you a reference point. On my last shooting settion, I think 4/5 had a 28-135IS on their D1 Mark II (a professional photog who also teaches photography), D20, D10, and DR.
You should also check out //www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105 which concludes this lens as one of the best all around lens. This site actually has cropped pictures to make comparisons with other lens.
Having said all this, I think your choice of Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is an excellent choice. I've had the 28-90mm Canon lens that you've had and using the Tamron will be like night and day when compared to the Canon 28-90.
02/06/2005 12:34:59 PM · #70
Originally posted by yido:

I would take that site's recommendation with a bit of caution. I think they are biased and do not seem to post actual test results, just some subjective ratings that they came up with. Note that Tamrons and Nikons are generally highly rated in the 4's, while only Canon lenses that are rated in the 4's are the L series (usually regarded as onen of the best lens series by most). It rates the Canon 28-135IS as good at 3.25, while most Cannon afficianados regard this lens as one of the best all around lens. It rates your 75-300mm lens in the 2's to give you a reference point. On my last shooting settion, I think 4/5 had a 28-135IS on their D1 Mark II (a professional photog who also teaches photography), D20, D10, and DR.
You should also check out //www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105 which concludes this lens as one of the best all around lens. This site actually has cropped pictures to make comparisons with other lens.
Having said all this, I think your choice of Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is an excellent choice. I've had the 28-90mm Canon lens that you've had and using the Tamron will be like night and day when compared to the Canon 28-90.


yido, thank you. You are probably right. all around (:
I am just torn between range and quality.
The 28-105 should be perfect for me. And and it is cheaper. If the quality is good, than it is a winner for my needs.
The 28-135 is even better - range talking, and probably quality talking too. but I read some bad reviews.
I got to the Tamron base on what I read, and not because of its range(which is VERy important for me). And the money is OK too. I am not sure about the weight tho. It is 500g...
From what I read it will be a fantastic lens! I am just afraid I will miss the extra mm. ):

I will go to the local store this Friday, and check the three of them.
I will also go to the link you added, and read more info about the Canon lens.

As you see, i am still confuse. ):

I found great reviews here regarding Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom

Also found some not so good reviews here regarding the 28-135 canon

They didn't have reviews regarding the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II. I don't think it is the same as Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM, right? I will look for more info about this one...
02/06/2005 12:45:02 PM · #71
check this site out, //www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75d.html
it is a comparison btwn Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-135IS, with actuall pictures in controlled setting for comparisons. Very informitive and you can see for yourself.
02/06/2005 12:46:35 PM · #72
Just yesterday I sold my Canon 28-135 on eBay so that I could buy the Tamron 28-75. This thread and the review links helped convince me that the Tamron is a steal. While I had great results with the Canon, it was never fast enough. The Bob Atkins comparison of these lenses clinched it for me. ...That and the buydig.com price of $345 minus a $40 rebate (probably good only in the USA, however)...

02/06/2005 12:50:19 PM · #73
I personally think the Tamron outperforms the Canon 28-135IS, upto 75mm of course. From 75-135mm range, it's all Canon, ha ha. If you still have your 28-90, you can mark off on your lens at the 75mm mark and work with that zoom range and see if that is okay for you. If that range is ok, then Tamron is a really good lens to get. Probably the best for the money at that range. IF you regularly find that you want more range, then you should look at something else, as I think a properly composed picture with good optics is better than a poorly composed/zoomed in picture with excellent optics, unless you crop of course, ha ha.
02/06/2005 12:55:21 PM · #74
lenkphotos,
I agree with you. I bought the 28-135IS one month ago, knowing full well about the Tamron. For me, I wanted the extra range, liked the extra bulk of the lens, wanted the possiblity of a slightly quicker focus with the USM, and prefer to have a Canon as my mainly used lens (personal bias).
I've seen the Bob Atkins test as well and think when really cropped, the Tamron performs better from 28-75mm. However, the difference is mainly noticible if the two images are cropped 100-200% and compared side to side. I think they are both good lenses and would serve most enthusiasts well, unless you are a professional level photog.
02/06/2005 01:07:10 PM · #75
Yido, very good points... I agree that the Canon 28-135 is an excellent lens for the money. Since I shoot a lot indoors (weddings, parties), the extra speed (f2.8 throughout the range) of the Tamron is useful to me - despite the IS on the Canon. I also have the canon 17-40L and 70-200 F4 L, so now have the range fairly well covered.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 06:50:38 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: 09/19/2021 06:50:38 PM EDT.