«

First of all, I apologize - I understand this is a 1000th time this
question is brought up.

However, I read old posts until I got a headache and I still would
like to get a "fresh" advise.

I just bought a Canon Rebel XTi (400D) body (silver). I have a lens
from my old Rebel G. The lens is by Canon, EF 28-90 f/4-5.6.

Now, I don't know a whole lot about "real' photography. I used Rebel G
basically as a "point and shoot" camera, and bought a P&S digital in a
couple of years. So, the existing lens, even though it's probably not
all that good, is going to last me for a year or so. It already
produces some portraits that I find stunning, compared to my older
digital camera.

I would like to get a better lens, eventually. I wonder if somebody
could suggest a versatile, all-purpose (i.e. from decent angle to a
decent zoom - I am unlikely to walk around with a bag full of glass),
sharp lens for about $300.

I do understand that a single lens can't do everything. I am looking
for a good compromise. Usually I do three types of photos: portraits,
family scenes (mostly kids running around, or family events) and city
streets / buildings, while on vacation.

Thanks !

> I would like to get a better lens, eventually. I wonder if somebody
> could suggest a versatile, all-purpose (i.e. from decent angle to a
> decent zoom - I am unlikely to walk around with a bag full of glass),
> sharp lens for about $300.
>
> I do understand that a single lens can't do everything. I am looking
> for a good compromise. Usually I do three types of photos: portraits,
> family scenes (mostly kids running around, or family events) and city
> streets / buildings, while on vacation.

The closest thing to what you ask for would probably be the 17-85 f/4.5.6
IS, It's bound to cost rather more than 300 dollars though, unless you can
get a good deal on a used one. On an XTi this lens would give the same wide
angle as the 28-90 gave on a film camera, and a fair bit more tele at the
long end. And it has image stabilization of course, which is not to sneeze
at. It's not the best lens in the world by any means, but it will deliver
the goods.

A Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would be a substantial improvement on your 28-90 but
with less zoom range. And, as you have found, 28mm on a digital SLR is not
wide at all. Tamron makes a 17-50 (?) f/2.8 which is also apparently quite
good, but the zoom range may be too limited for your tastes. You may be able
to pick up either of these, used, for about 300 bucks I think.

Other than that, any of the third-party 18-200-ish superzooms. Image quality
at either end of the zoom range is not all that great though, and f/5.6 at
200mm is nothing to shout about. You'd better have good light when using
one.

On Feb 13, 3:48 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <staale.sanne...@bibits.no>
wrote:
> > I would like to get a better lens, eventually. I wonder if somebody
> > could suggest a versatile, all-purpose (i.e. from decent angle to a
> > decent zoom - I am unlikely to walk around with a bag full of glass),
> > sharp lens for about $300.
>
> > I do understand that a single lens can't do everything. I am looking
> > for a good compromise. Usually I do three types of photos: portraits,
> > family scenes (mostly kids running around, or family events) and city
> > streets / buildings, while on vacation.
>
> The closest thing to what you ask for would probably be the 17-85 f/4.5.6
> IS, It's bound to cost rather more than 300 dollars though, unless you can
> get a good deal on a used one. On an XTi this lens would give the same wide
> angle as the 28-90 gave on a film camera, and a fair bit more tele at the
> long end. And it has image stabilization of course, which is not to sneeze
> at. It's not the best lens in the world by any means, but it will deliver
> the goods.
>
> A Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would be a substantial improvement on your 28-90 but
> with less zoom range. And, as you have found, 28mm on a digital SLR is not
> wide at all. Tamron makes a 17-50 (?) f/2.8 which is also apparently quite
> good, but the zoom range may be too limited for your tastes. You may be able
> to pick up either of these, used, for about 300 bucks I think.
>
> Other than that, any of the third-party 18-200-ish superzooms. Image quality
> at either end of the zoom range is not all that great though, and f/5.6 at
> 200mm is nothing to shout about. You'd better have good light when using
> one.

Thanks for reply. How is the build quality of Tamron vs Canon lenses ?
I heard that e.g. Sigma lenses have lots of quality variations
(including sharpness) from lens to lens, even on same type lens.

Amamba <> wrote:
: On Feb 13, 3:48 am, "St??le Sannerud" <staale.sanne...@bibits.no>
: wrote:
: > > I would like to get a better lens, eventually. I wonder if somebody
: > > could suggest a versatile, all-purpose (i.e. from decent angle to a
: > > decent zoom - I am unlikely to walk around with a bag full of glass),
: > > sharp lens for about $300.
: >
: > > I do understand that a single lens can't do everything. I am looking
: > > for a good compromise. Usually I do three types of photos: portraits,
: > > family scenes (mostly kids running around, or family events) and city
: > > streets / buildings, while on vacation.
: >
: > The closest thing to what you ask for would probably be the 17-85 f/4.5.6
: > IS, It's bound to cost rather more than 300 dollars though, unless you can
: > get a good deal on a used one. On an XTi this lens would give the same wide
: > angle as the 28-90 gave on a film camera, and a fair bit more tele at the
: > long end. And it has image stabilization of course, which is not to sneeze
: > at. It's not the best lens in the world by any means, but it will deliver
: > the goods.
: >
: > A Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would be a substantial improvement on your 28-90 but
: > with less zoom range. And, as you have found, 28mm on a digital SLR is not
: > wide at all. Tamron makes a 17-50 (?) f/2.8 which is also apparently quite
: > good, but the zoom range may be too limited for your tastes. You may be able
: > to pick up either of these, used, for about 300 bucks I think.
: >
: > Other than that, any of the third-party 18-200-ish superzooms. Image quality
: > at either end of the zoom range is not all that great though, and f/5.6 at
: > 200mm is nothing to shout about. You'd better have good light when using
: > one.

: Thanks for reply. How is the build quality of Tamron vs Canon lenses ?
: I heard that e.g. Sigma lenses have lots of quality variations
: (including sharpness) from lens to lens, even on same type lens.

I let myself get talked into buying a Tamron lens a while back and they
are garbage.
--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Amamba <> wrote:

>Thanks for reply. How is the build quality of Tamron vs Canon lenses ?
>I heard that e.g. Sigma lenses have lots of quality variations
>(including sharpness) from lens to lens, even on same type lens.

I think you've got the right sort of understanding. Canon
and Nikon, for example, are top line manufacturers. That
means that for lenses their quality control is rather good.
It does NOT mean that all of their lenses are super wonderful.
Some designs just don't cut it.

Other manufacturers, and Sigma is a very good example, also
have some good designs and some lousy designs. But they can
keep costs down by NOT controlling quality as tightly as
Nikon or Canon. So the sample to sample variation can
be larger with Sigma.

The best advice, I think is the following: Read reviews
and avoid what are generally thought to be dogs. If
you can afford it, stick to the top of the line manufacturers.

If you are like most of us and can't do that, then your
job is a bit harder. Find good designs (by reading reviews)
among the second line manufacturers and then try to buy
at a place that will do an exchange if you get a dog.

In the end, however, when it comes to buying anything,
it is more difficult to be poor than rich...

PS: I have, for example, the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for my
Canon 300D. It is a wonderful lens (at least my sample)
and I love it. It won't cover a full frame camera, but
then I can't afford a full frame camera...


--
--- Paul J. Gans

>Thanks for reply. How is the build quality of Tamron vs Canon lenses ?
>I heard that e.g. Sigma lenses have lots of quality variations
>(including sharpness) from lens to lens, even on same type lens.

Build quality is about the same as mid-range Canon lenses, 50mm 1.4, 85mm
1.8, that kind of thing. Not "L" quality, but way better than the
cheap-and-cheerful 50mm 1.8, 18-55mm EF-S stuff.

Sigma is infamous for sloppy quality control. There are far fewer complaints
about Tamron, they seem to be more consistent in their quality. That said,
there is the occasional dog out there - but that can be said for Canon "L"
lenses too! I've had two tammys and was quite happy with both.

"Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
news:equ001$afr$...
> Amamba <> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for reply. How is the build quality of Tamron vs Canon lenses ?
>>I heard that e.g. Sigma lenses have lots of quality variations
>>(including sharpness) from lens to lens, even on same type lens.
>
> I think you've got the right sort of understanding. Canon
> and Nikon, for example, are top line manufacturers. That
> means that for lenses their quality control is rather good.
> It does NOT mean that all of their lenses are super wonderful.
> Some designs just don't cut it.
>
> Other manufacturers, and Sigma is a very good example, also
> have some good designs and some lousy designs. But they can
> keep costs down by NOT controlling quality as tightly as
> Nikon or Canon. So the sample to sample variation can
> be larger with Sigma.
>
> The best advice, I think is the following: Read reviews
> and avoid what are generally thought to be dogs. If
> you can afford it, stick to the top of the line manufacturers.
>
> If you are like most of us and can't do that, then your
> job is a bit harder. Find good designs (by reading reviews)
> among the second line manufacturers and then try to buy
> at a place that will do an exchange if you get a dog.
>
> In the end, however, when it comes to buying anything,
> it is more difficult to be poor than rich...
>
> PS: I have, for example, the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for my
> Canon 300D. It is a wonderful lens (at least my sample)
> and I love it. It won't cover a full frame camera, but
> then I can't afford a full frame camera...
>

I have the same Tokina for my Canon and I've taken some great photos with it
as well. I traded a Canon 17-40 f/4 L to get the wider Tokina, and I like
this lens better.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:12:11 -0600, Frank Pittel
<> wrote:

>I let myself get talked into buying a Tamron lens a while back and they
>are garbage.
>--

1. That's like saying, "I bought a Chevy once. They are all junk."
2. Any chance of getting you to say *why* that individual lens was
garbage?

--
The Dixie Chicks won the Grammy
for Best Country Album on Sunday
even though they are boycotted
by country radio stations. You
can tell the vote was held in
Hollywood. The other nominees
for best country were Cuba,
Switzerland and Vietnam.

Bill Funk wrote:

>> I let myself get talked into buying a Tamron lens a while back and
>> they are garbage.
>
> 1. That's like saying, "I bought a Chevy once. They are all junk."

This statement only applies to Chrysler products.






Rita