Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Need lenses (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t944872-need-lenses.html)

Max 03-29-2012 04:49 PM

Need lenses
 
I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
price)
I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.

Max


eatmorepies 03-29-2012 09:58 PM

Re: Need lenses
 

"Max" <thesameoldme@att.net> wrote in message
news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astrawe b.com...
>I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
>price)
> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
>
> Max
>


Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
camera to produce the images it's capable of.

My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
quality of the images.

They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me 707 new in 2006 was
sold last month on eBay for 693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
professional lenses hold their value so well.

The 70-200mm starts around 450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
f4L IS - it is astounding.

John



Max 03-30-2012 01:56 AM

Re: Need lenses
 


"eatmorepies" wrote in message news:9tk47sFe9bU1@mid.individual.net...


"Max" <thesameoldme@att.net> wrote in message
news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astrawe b.com...
>I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
>price)
> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
>
> Max
>


Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
camera to produce the images it's capable of.

My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
quality of the images.

They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me 707 new in 2006 was
sold last month on eBay for 693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
professional lenses hold their value so well.

The 70-200mm starts around 450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
f4L IS - it is astounding.

John

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:

http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb

It seems to fit my needs.

Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.

Max


otter 03-30-2012 05:12 AM

Re: Need lenses
 
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:56:31 PM UTC-5, Max wrote:
> "eatmorepies" wrote in message news:9tk47sFe9bU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Max" <thesameoldme@att.net> wrote in message
> news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astrawe b.com...
> >I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
> >price)
> > I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
> > a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
> >
> > Max
> >

>
> Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
> as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
> camera to produce the images it's capable of.
>
> My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
> Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
> than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
> punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
> camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
> lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
> quality of the images.
>
> They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me 707 new in 2006 was
> sold last month on eBay for 693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
> professional lenses hold their value so well.
>
> The 70-200mm starts around 450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
> f4L IS - it is astounding.
>
> John
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
>
> It seems to fit my needs.
>
> Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
>
> Max


The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is generally regarded as excellent. There are other choices, though. Only you can decide.

For the tele, the 70-200 f4L is an excellent lens at a reasonable price (compared to the f2.8L).

But, again, it is your money and your choice. You can always buy cheaper to begin with and then sell to trade up.

eatmorepies 03-30-2012 07:57 AM

Re: Need lenses
 


>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
>
> It seems to fit my needs.
>
> Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
>
> Max


And here's a review of that lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

John


Wolfgang Weisselberg 03-30-2012 12:38 PM

Re: Need lenses
 
Max <thesameoldme@att.net> wrote:
> I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
> price)
> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.


How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?

For example, there's the 10-22 EF-S as an ultrawide --- wide
enough?

Do you need fast lenses? Or would lighter, slower lenses be
OK?

Do you need them to have little gap between their ranges?

Could you be interested in a 50mm (the f/1.8 is Canon's
cheapest lens, but optically good)? Very usable for low
light photography ...

Do you actually need a tele zoom, or would a tele non-zoom
(say one of 85mm, 100mm, 135, 200mm, 300mm, ...) be 'good
enough' (optically they are usually better, they just don't
have the zoom range, obviously ...).

-Wolfgang

J. Clarke 03-30-2012 02:32 PM

Re: Need lenses
 
In article <9tl7b6Fg9qU1@mid.individual.net>, jcpieman@lineone.net
says...
>
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
> >
> > It seems to fit my needs.
> >
> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
> >
> > Max

>
> And here's a review of that lens.
>
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>
> John


Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps) I'm
forever hitting the stabilizer control instead of the autofocus (they're
right next to each other). The front element rotates. Focus is
horribly slow. It's just a miserable thing to work with. If I had
realized how bad it was I'd have saved my money and gone with the 55-
250, which is just as bad but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything
but a cheap lens.

I realize this sounds like carping and for casual use it is but when you
shoot a few hundred images a day it gets to be real annoying real fast.

In the same price range as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Tamron has a lens
with similar specifications that addresses most of the annoyances.
That's the SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. Optical performance is
similar, there's full-time manual focus and the front element doesn't
rotate. The autofocus and IS switches are still close together, but
since it has full-time manual there's seldom any need to use the
autofocus switch. Whether the focus is any faster and whether the zoom
creeps I don't know. If I had it to do over again I'd go for the
Tamron. The only downside is that it has 62mm filter mount which means
I'd need to add another polarizer to my collection.

If price is no object, Canon also has a 70-300 L lens which addresses
most of the shortcomings and has better optical performance, but it's
three times the price.




Wally 03-30-2012 03:24 PM

Re: Need lenses
 
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:46 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <9tl7b6Fg9qU1@mid.individual.net>, jcpieman@lineone.net
>says...
>> >
>> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
>> >
>> > It seems to fit my needs.
>> >
>> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
>> >
>> > Max

>>
>> And here's a review of that lens.
>>
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>>
>> John

>
>Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
>favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
>focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
>manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
>thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps)


If the zoom creeps, then you must have the old version that hasn't
been fixed. That version also suffers from poor sharpness when used in
portrait mode. Get it fixed and both issues will go away.

http://tinyurl.com/cykewp2
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/...ervice_notice/

The 70-300mm is probably a suitable choice for the OP. Its sharpness
is well short of L performance, but it is adequately sharp for most
uses if you are not a pro. It is a reasonable price. It is light and
compact, and those are significant advantages if you are on the go.

As an aside, the 70-300mm works as a great long focal length macro
lens when fitted with the 500D closeup attachment.

Wally

Max 03-30-2012 07:08 PM

Re: Need lenses
 


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:MPG.29df8e1c683cf22c98a57b@hamster.jcbsbsdoma in.local...

In article <9tl7b6Fg9qU1@mid.individual.net>, jcpieman@lineone.net
says...
>
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
> >
> > It seems to fit my needs.
> >
> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
> >
> > Max

>
> And here's a review of that lens.
>
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>
> John


Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps) I'm
forever hitting the stabilizer control instead of the autofocus (they're
right next to each other). The front element rotates. Focus is
horribly slow. It's just a miserable thing to work with. If I had
realized how bad it was I'd have saved my money and gone with the 55-
250, which is just as bad but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything
but a cheap lens.

I realize this sounds like carping and for casual use it is but when you
shoot a few hundred images a day it gets to be real annoying real fast.

In the same price range as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Tamron has a lens
with similar specifications that addresses most of the annoyances.
That's the SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. Optical performance is
similar, there's full-time manual focus and the front element doesn't
rotate. The autofocus and IS switches are still close together, but
since it has full-time manual there's seldom any need to use the
autofocus switch. Whether the focus is any faster and whether the zoom
creeps I don't know. If I had it to do over again I'd go for the
Tamron. The only downside is that it has 62mm filter mount which means
I'd need to add another polarizer to my collection.

If price is no object, Canon also has a 70-300 L lens which addresses
most of the shortcomings and has better optical performance, but it's
three times the price.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the info. Price *is* a consideration. I am an amateur
photographer and have no illusions about winning any contests.
We travel in an RV and I like to have photo "memories".
I will take a serious look at the Tamron.
Again, Thanks.

Max


David Dyer-Bennet 03-30-2012 07:23 PM

Re: Need lenses
 
"Max" <thesameoldme@att.net> writes:

> "J. Clarke" wrote in message
> news:MPG.29df8e1c683cf22c98a57b@hamster.jcbsbsdoma in.local...
>
> In article <9tl7b6Fg9qU1@mid.individual.net>, jcpieman@lineone.net
> says...
>>
>> >
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
>> >
>> > It seems to fit my needs.
>> >
>> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
>> >
>> > Max

>>
>> And here's a review of that lens.
>>
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>>
>> John

>
> Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
> favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
> focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
> manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
> thing and bust it.


Interesting. Full-time manual focus is something that my main lenses
now have -- but I've never, ever, used it intentionally. In fact, I
kind of consider it a danger -- I can bump the focus by mistake, so I
have to be careful where my hands go on the lens.

The only place I've wanted it is on my macro lens -- which doesn't have it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.