Lens Upgrades

[Flaming]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Flaming]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

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.

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

[Flaming]

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

[Dan Fleming]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

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....[]

[Dan Fleming]

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.