Canon lenses... again !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Amamba, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. Amamba

    Amamba Guest

    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 !
     
    Amamba, Feb 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > 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.
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Amamba

    Amamba Guest

    On Feb 13, 3:48 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <>
    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, Feb 13, 2007
    #3
  4. Amamba

    Frank Pittel Guest

    Amamba <> wrote:
    : On Feb 13, 3:48 am, "St??le Sannerud" <>
    : 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
     
    Frank Pittel, Feb 13, 2007
    #4
  5. Amamba

    Paul J Gans Guest

    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
     
    Paul J Gans, Feb 14, 2007
    #5
  6. >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.
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Amamba

    U-Know-Who Guest

    "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
     
    U-Know-Who, Feb 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Amamba

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Feb 15, 2007
    #8
  9. 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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 15, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    503
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    712
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    704
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. One4All
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,038
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jan 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page