Lens Upgrades

Hey all,


I am a college student and therefore do not have much money to work with, but I do like to take some amateur shots as I wander around with my D-SLR (I have posted some on these forums. Generally, I have a lot to learn and I don't dedicate too much of my time to photography). I got my camera a year ago when a Cannon EOS 10D with the Cannon EF 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM was given to my dad. He does lots of international traveling so he decided he did not want to carry the big, bulky, and heavy camera around as he traveled so he traded me for my Panasonic FZ7. I think I won, but then again my camera was a little newer than the 10D. Anyway, I have been considering buying a new body or possibly a new lens. I really would like a telephoto lens and at the same time it would be really cool to have a wide angle lens to shoot buildings along with other scenery and inside buildings especially with a wide aperture for lower light shooting. The one thing I miss the most from my old camera is the macro so I would be very interested in a macro lens. I enjoy taking pictures of flowers especially. All this considered what would you recomend I buy? I should be able to afford something in the range of $700 in the relatively near future. Would you recomend that I start with a new body first maybe? That about sums that up. Also, if you people have any suggestions on things I should look into to become better at shooting I would appreciate the suggestions.


Samuel

Get a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 with a set of Kenko ext tubes. Upgrade to a couple peices of goodglass before you get a new body.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_7950.TIF-reduced.JPG[/img]





This shot would be impossible if it weren't for good glass....[:)]


Taken with a Rebel XTI and a Minolta 600mm f/6.3, I was leaning out of my window and shot in burst and kept the sharpest one. It happed to be the best one too.

Buy lenses. The 10D is a great camera; I use mine every day. [:)]

Hey, you could just move to Chicago and borrow my glass ;). More seriously I love the Sigma 150mm for both macro and portraits. It has some limitations on the speed of focus, but now that I have the viewfinder dialed in for my eye I can manually focus quite quickly. I have even been able to do sporting events decently. (Have you seen the picture I got of peter's football game? Aunt Debi has a print.) Another option would be to take the previous responder's suggestion, or instead of the tamron 2.8 go with the canon f/4 equivalent lens. That would be about the same budget.





DF

f/2.8 is a HUGE advantage over the Canon f/4, the Tamron also has a tripod ring, has better image quality overall, has much betternative magnification so you don't have to stack as many ext tubes andgain less vigeneting, thinnerDOF from f/2.8, you can put a 2X extender and still retain AF.Some say that the AF isn't up to par but for an ameture it will be fine, much better thanthe kit lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

f/2.8 is a HUGE advantage over the Canon f/4
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Possibly, if you are primarily indoor or shooting late or early. Or, as you note later want the narrow DOF. I find for most of the pictures I take, as I shoot primarily flowers and outdoors landscapes, I usually want above an f/4. This is especially true in Macro work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

the Tamron also has a tripod ring
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

True, its kinda frustrating that Canon does not ship with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

has better image quality overall,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I have to, through hearsay, disagree with you. My primary source of hearsay is Brian's reviews. The enthusiasm and positive comments in the Cannon f/4L review are in a different category than those found in the Tamron review. On a full frame, which the OP does not have, Brian noted vignetting, flare, and pincushion/barrel distortion issues. He also noted on two copies softness at 135mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

has much betternative magnification so you don't have to stack as many ext tubes andgain less vigeneting,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

If the OP is getting extension tubes he may as well use them with his current 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 lens as a 25mm tube puts him over 1x magnification. Related to the fact that the OP owns that specific lens already the Canon f/4L runs 67mm threads which is the same size his current lens runs, he could share filters between both lenses which is a nice little cost saver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

you can put a 2X extender and still retain AF
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Yeah, an f/8 lens has issues except on the best bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Some say that the AF isn't up to par but for an ameture it will be fine, much better thanthe kit lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I would debate that. A slow AF is incredibly frustrating even just for following people around. My biggest complaint with my Sigma 150mm Macro lens is the slow AF when I am trying to shoot candids, or bugs, or pretty much anything that moves. I am curious as to which lens is "the kit lens" you refer to.


Another consideration is weight. The canon comes in at about 1/2 the weight of the Tamron. You can more easily take it for walks and long hikes because of this. I hope I have added a couple more ideas for the OP's consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whatsreal

The enthusiasm and positive comments in the Cannon f/4L review are in a different category than those found in the Tamron review.

---

Do not use comments to base your desicion on anything, look at the facts. What I said was overall image quality, not nit-picky this is better than this or this is better than that. You could say that 135mm is a little softer, but the Tamron is a little better overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whatsreal

I would debate that. A slow AF is incredibly frustrating even just for following people around. My biggest complaint with my Sigma 150mm Macro lens is the slow AF when I am trying to shoot candids, or bugs, or pretty much anything that moves. I am curious as to which lens is "the kit lens" you refer to.

---

A macro lens has very slow AF even campared to the slowest lenses, thats the nature of macro lenses. I was referingthe 18-55mm kit lens, most of the other kit lens I have tried have about the same AF. I have tried the Tamron and it is not slow, it's just not as fast and Canon or say Sigma.


Also I forgot to mention is f/2.8 lets in twice as much light, or shoot in half as much light. Neither lens has IS so you are better off taking the f/2.8 so when you need you have it, and if you have to stop down you have lost nothing from a end-result perspective.Say you are taking a portriat in low light, and you are using ISO 1600, f/4, 160th. You don't have enough shutter speed to hand hold 200mm, but if you have f/2.8 you can use 320th enough to hand hold 200mm. I know this is a tough situation, but if you have f/2.8 you can do it. Besides thinner DOF is usually preferable in a portriat situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whatsreal

The canon comes in at about 1/2 the weight of the Tamron.

---

Thats not a big deal, I hand hold 5 lbs lenses all the time andit is not that bad as some people make it. The weight differnce between theTamron and Canonis marginal, much better to have the right lens for the job.

I'd go the Canon over the Tamron any day of the week. The slow autofocus alone is enough to turn me off the Tamron - as Whatsreal mentioned, there's nothing more frustrating than poor autofocus - the keeper rate is significantly lowered. Fast focus is pretty important with macro photography, especially with insects etc.


I'd trade one stop of light for quick focus any day. In saying that - it is nice to have the larger aperture when you need it but looking at the kind of shooting you're into I think f/4.0 will cover your needs. Have a look at FastGlass's photo above of the midget Kangaroo, it was taken at f/6.3 and the background blur is more than acceptable.


I agree that you should investigate the Kenko extension tubes as well. I own them and they work very well and are a cheaper alternative to a macro lens. That should give you some good flexibility anyhow.


Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btaylor

Have a look at FastGlass's photo above of the midget Kangaroo, it was taken at f/6.3 and the background blur is more than acceptable.

---

It's a squirl!


Anyhow, 600mm at f/6.3has about 6 times as much backround blur than than 200mm at f/4, how do I know? Because I own a Minolta 70-210mm f/4.


Like I said the Tamron is not slow, look on youtube. I have also seen (not used) the Canon f/2.8 IS and it was probably about twice as fast, about the speed of light....[;)] The Tamron has reasonably fast AF, and notslow. Try a manual lens, now that's slow! Whats more important is how acurate the AF is and not to hunt all over the place.


You do not need fast focus for macro, that's why even Canon's macro lenses have slow AF. Actully manual focus is how many people use macro lenses anyway, even though they have AF.


John

Hey all,


Thanks for all the feedback. Johan thanks for the encouragement to keep the body. I would agree it is a great body, I was just curious if anyone found any good reason to dump it for maybe a used 30D or there in. I would enjoy a more powerful body, but I guess everyone agrees that the better glass is the way to go.


That said you all don't agree at all on the issue of what lens. The lenses that you mention are all just fine lenses but they each have their drawbacks, as all things engineered will. With that in mind here is a basic synopsis of what I would use the lens for and what would quickly annoy we with a lens; I really like to shoot nature in general. I have begun to shoot some portraits here and there but I don't do that the majority of the time. I am almost always shooting a scenery or a cloud or whatever I find very pretty. So focus speed is really not something that irks me too much. The other side of the story is I am extremely irked when a really nice shot is just the littlest bit out of focus. I have more pictures that I have only had a few tries to get right and the one shot that I managed to frame well is just a little front or back focused. This problem is apparent with my current lens and body combination. I have to shoot about double the number of shots so that I can get a similar number of focused shots as a good lens body combo. I guess therefore that what I would really like to hear is someone's opinion who has both lenses and/or has used them a fair bit so that they can say what is what.


On the other side, how about exploring other lenses such as primes. The sigma 150mm F2.8 macro is a really cool lens but is it something that really works well in the area that I would use a lens? I have been borrowing a lens from a friend (Canon 85mm F/1.8) and it is a lot of fun to have all that great quality glass working for me. I have found it to be very accurate and the diffuse backgrounds that can be achieved with it are really cool. I especially like it for those portraits that I have just started to mess around with. It can be a little tight on my 1.6x camera but usually it leaves a different angle to be found. I don't know if I have any pictures that are good, but later if I have some cool shots then I will post them here. The one thing I am not nearly as much of a fan of is the fact that it only covers a range that my current lens covers (although it is about 3 times as fast). If any of you have any comments on my experience with that lens or how to implement its functionality with another lens I would be thoroughly interested.


One last thing. I asked for any ideas on literature or maybe a website that might give me ideas on how to shoot and explain all the technical jargon involved with photography. Any ideas will be very much appreciated.


Whatsreal, I will take you up on moving to Chicago if you have a room for me. :P

Ok, how about the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS. I know it's a little bit out of your buget, but it is extrmely sharp, and the IS allows you to hand hold about 4 stops slower shutter speed, has great AF, slightly better than the non-IS version, weather sealing,you will only cry one with that lens. Look at Bryan's ISO 112233 crops, it hasincredible sharpness. If you really want get out on a limb, check out the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS, for portriats it's awesome.

Hey John,


Thanks for the idea. I had not ever looked at either of these lenses. I have looked at the Sigma 70-200 that Bryan has reviewed, but is sounds like there are very few lenses that are really that good. Is this generally true across the board with the sigma? Have you heard of others with that lens who can't find any problem with it? Do you use or own or have you used the tamron?


I had not ever read the review of the f/4 IS before and now that I am looking at it is sounds very tempting but there is the small (or rather very large) problem on the price. It is just a little more than it seems like I could justify putting into a lens. The other lens that seems like it would be interesting is the 17-40mm f/4 IS because it is so wide and I can not cover that range right now. That with the 70-200 would seem to cover most of my needs but then again it might not be as effective a lens combo as it might appear.


Samuel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

but is sounds like there are very few lenses that are really that good. Is this generally true across the board with the sigma? Have you heard of others with that lens who can't find any problem with it?

---

I have not used any Sigma lenses whatsoever, I heard from one person that his much older version of the Sigma 70-200mm was exelent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

Do you use or own or have you used the tamron?

---

I have tried the Tamron at a camera shop and was happy with the AF performance, but the image quality was great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

The other lens that seems like it would be interesting is the 17-40mm f/4 IS because it is so wide and I can not cover that range right now.

---

The Canon 17-40mm f/4 does not have IS, if you are also looking at that focal length range also take a into the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.


John

Thanks John,


I have checked out the Tamron 17-50 and it looks like a killer of a lens. I have a couple of questions though. Will that lens work with only EF-S bodies? Also since it is basically a walk-around lens would it be worth the upgrade over my 24-85? The reason I ask about the EF-S is the 10D was made before that spec and therefore does not support it.


Samuel

Ignore this. I didn't read Flaming's post well. I am a moron. Gaah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

Will that lens work with only EF-S bodies?

---

Yes, your 10D is a EF-S body. Any Canon camera with a 1.6 conversion factor is a EF-S body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

Also since it is basically a walk-around lens would it be worth the upgrade over my 24-85?

---

I would defentilly be worth the upgrade, but since you don't have a medium telephoto lens I would recomend you get a 70-200mm of some kind before a general perpose lens because you will have a wider focul length range.


You could also get a ultra-wide such as a Canon 10-22mm....[:)] I love throwing curve balls at people....[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

Will that lens work with only EF-S bodies?

---

Yes, your 10D is a EF-S body. Any Canon camera with a 1.6 conversion factor is a EF-S body.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

The 10D does have an ASP-C sensor, but not the white dot that represents EF-S mounting. It has the red dot that lines up with EF mounts. I do not know if this means the EF-S lenses cannot be mounted (are the mounts physically different?) I know the red and white dots are in two different places on my camera body which would lead me to believe that his 10D could not mount EF-S lenses.


Edit: I just looked at a couple of old Rebel vs 10D reviews. They all stated that the 10D cannot take EF-S lenses, even though it has the smaller sensor.

"Because this mount was not introduced until after the 10D was designed, these newer Canon EF-S lenses will not work on your EOS-10D. You'd need to stick with EF mount lenses in the Canon lineup. But, most third party lenses designed for models with an APS-C size sensor will work on your 10D (for example, Sigma's DC series lenses)."


-http://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses/151734-compatible-lenses-canon-10d.html


That is why I have not bought the 10-22mm lens. I would love to have that super wide angle ability but the lens will not work on my body. It seems like everything I want but I would have to by at least a 20D to use it. :(

That's odd because the mounts looked the same to me, just different lenses.

I was just thinking about this. I realized that canon had to make them physically different or you would be able to accidentally mount an EF-S lens on an EF body and shatter your mirror and maybe cause other problems. However they would have to be close enough to not interfere with each other's mounting style.

Has anyone here used he 50mm F/1.8? It sounds interesting mostly because of the price. I don't hardly have money to spend and on top of that I really don't worry left right and up the middle about the sharpness and all that of a lens. Sure I would love L glass but as an amateur it is not the most important. Just would like any thoughts from people out there.

Midget Kangaroo, love it btaylor, I haven't seen to many of them outin the Isa ol mate [;)] Cute squirrel though.


Scott

There's a few of the sneaky buggers around here mate. You just have to be careful not to get too close or they'll spit Western Taipans at you. There's not much use for them though because us Mount Isansare too big to ride in their pouches [:P]

To many years undergorund blowing stuff up, yeah you can keep your western taipans, we're happy with the browns, they don't chase you when there ticked off, as much. Have you got any other HDR photos mate, I really liked the one you did a few months ago I think, it was a water / river scene on dusk if I recall.


Scott

Haven't done a lot of HDR work lately mate. This is one I took couple of months back though. Don't worry we've got plenty of brown snakes our here as well. Nearly lost my border collie to one a fortnight ago. Enjoy.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/Moondarra-HDR_5F00_TDP.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaming

Has anyone here used he 50mm F/1.8? It sounds interesting mostly because of the price. I don't hardly have money to spend and on top of that I really don't worry left right and up the middle about the sharpness and all that of a lens. Sure I would love L glass but as an amateur it is not the most important. Just would like any thoughts from people out there.

---

I've got both the 85/1.8, which seems to be the best Canon lens in the EUR 400,- price range regarding any quality measure you throw at it, and the 50/1.8 II. In my experience the 50 comes pretty close to the 85 in optical quality &mdash; when it's in a good mood, which means that the AF is having a good day; or when I use manual focus&hellip; If 50mm is a focal length that is useful to you, go for it, it's surely good enough to give you an introduction into working with a good prime.


Colin

Thanks Colin,


I borrowed the 85mm a few months ago from a friend and was thoroughly impressed with it. Therefore if you think that the 50mm f/1.8 is similar I will start to save up those pennies. :) I don't have a supper great lens right now as far as optics and I found working with the prime I composed pictures that were of much more interest since I was limited by my focal length.


Also btaylor love all the work you put into those HDRs. They are really cool. I have to say that this one is especially cool in my opinion since I really like sunrises. Keep them coming! :)


Thanks all,


Samuel