Which Lenses to Buy?

[JTPAIN]

What do you make of the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens?

[thekingb]

There's no 3rd party zoom with comparable IQ at 300mm. The 70-300L is at the top of the field.

As for the 28-300L, it's enormous - the heaviest canon zoom -- and expensive. It is almost twice the weight of the 24-70L, but it's the best all around super zoom. I might buy it for that once in a lifetime trip to a far away place where conditions make lens changes really hard and you can't carry much with you. But even then, 28mm on a crop body isn't wide.

[JTPAIN]

But 100-400mm over the 70-300mm with a 1.4x converter?

[thekingb]

The 70-300L won't work with canon converters. I am told that it works with the kenko 1.4x, but of course you lose AF. So no, I'd go 100-400 before 70-300 with a 1.4x.

[Steve U]

Super zooms as mentioned in earlier posts are very convenient, but only you know what type of photographer you are and what you like to shoot. And those parameters will change often and very quickly once you start shooting. If image quality (IQ) is important to you, the super zoom will eventually be sold and high IQ zooms like the 17-50 or the 15-85 or the 24-70, will be your next purchases. And then you will start buying fast primes for ultimate IQ. That is the path taken by a lot of the members of this site.
Canon 17-50 IS and a 70-300L would give you greater convenience and superior usability and a super IQ package on a crop body camera.
Good luck with your decisions.

[andnowimbroke]

Just to clarify, Tamron makes the 17-50 lens but doesn't have IS. The Canon model is a 17-55mm with similar image quality. It's about twice the price of the Tamron, but you get the added value of a better (sounding) autofocus system and the excellent image stabilizing system.

[neuroanatomist]

To further clarify Tamron also makes a version of their 17-50mm with VC (their moniker for IS), but unlike the non-VC version which is close to the excellent Canon 17-55mm in IQ, the Tamron with VC is not nearly as good from an IQ standpoint.

For the purposes you state, I'd recommend the Canon 17-55mm IS or Tamron 17-50mm non-VC (depending on budget) and the 100-400mm (or the 70-300mm if you plan to travel a lot and are willing to trade 100mm for portability).

[Steve U]

Thanks guys, too early in the morning for me, Canon 17-55, is what I meant.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Speaking of the Kenko extension tubes, I used them recently (paired with the relatively inexpensive 85mm f/1.8) to get this shot:

Sean,

Interesting shot using the 85mm f/1.8. How much of an extension tube did you need to get this shot? I understand using extension tubes that you lose infinity focus, but how much focusing distance do you lose on the long end with the 85mm setup?

Thanks
Dave

[Dave Throgmartin]

Sean,

Interesting shot using the 85mm f/1.8. How much of an extension tube did you need to get this shot? I understand using extension tubes that you lose infinity focus, but how much focusing distance do you lose on the long end with the 85mm setup?

Thanks
Dave

I just realized that Dr Croubie answered my question in one of the links. Using 68mm of extension tubes the working distance is minimal!

Dave