Lens Upgrades

[Flaming]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

[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.

[Colin500]

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 — when it's in a good mood, which means that the AF is having a good day; or when I use manual focus… 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

[Flaming]

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

[ShutterbugJohan]

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

[Dan Fleming]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Dan Fleming]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.

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.

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.