Originally Posted by Oren
It's a great lens for what it is: an inexpensive wide to telephoto super zoom.
28-135 is to 5D what 17-85 is to 40D.
It's a great lens for what it is: an inexpensive wide to telephoto super zoom.
28-135 is to 5D what 17-85 is to 40D.
Anyway I got my 40D with the 17-85 as a demo from a local camera shop for $1000 CAD. It's a great lens, and having used the 18-55 for a while, it's a definite step up for me. I also noticed that (with use of the 18-55) I didn't feel that I was getting wide enough. So in turn I got the Tokina 12-24 f/4 zoom. Haven't looked back.
Anyway my parents (*sigh* - Yes, I'm 15) bought the 55-250 zoom with their Xti last May, and I'm using that as my main long lens. It's a good lens, and IS helps, but I'm beginning to see the limits of the lens - 5.6 isn't quite fast enough for hockey, focusing isn't quite "there" all of the time...
As I get more and more involved in my high school's slideshow and yearbook, and a local newspaper, I find myself longing for some L glass - Specifically the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 24-70 2.8 - So I'd have myself coverage from 12-200mm.
Anyway now that you've read my novel of a post, I'd say this: Make sure that 28mm is wide enough for you. It very well could be, but just make sure it suits you're needs.
Also, the temptation to go L is there, and will always be there. The 70-200 is a great lens hands down, but I'm sure you'll want yourself a 24-70 too sometime soon [H]. My take: Find the limits of your first lens, then move on.
That's easy, my typical game day set-up is 1DMKII w/ EF400mm F/2.8L IS USM, XTi w/ EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM and XT w/ 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM. I put the 400 on a monopod and sling the XTi over one shoulder and put the XT around my neck. Sometimes the Agony-of-Defeat is best captured with the 24-70.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.00/TN_5F00_IMG_5F00_6486.jpg[/img]
XT, EF24-70mm F/2.8L USM, Av, F/8.0, 1/800, ISO-400
alexniedra, I used to want the 24-70... I always thought: hmmm 17-55 or 24-70.
I now know that the answer is probably the 17-55 for many reasons.
Dallasphotog, this is a great photo, I like it. How can you handle 3 cameras with 3 heavy lenses like these?
Oren,
My vote would be for the 40D and the 17-85 combo. If you were considering the 28-135, then the IQ and build quality of the 17-85 can't be far off from that. My friend picked up the 40D a couple of months ago with the 17-85 and loves it. He's taken some really nice images with it from what I have seen. From reading most of the posts here at TDP, I think most people really like their 40D's. I think you really need a general purpose lens first and foremost that can give you wide-angle capabilities and then work on the 70-200 f4 as your next purchase. I used the 17-40 as my first L lens with my 20D and I thought it was a great lens to start with (but just a little short on the long end sometimes).
I just picked up the 5D II recently, and I can tell you that the VGA screen is an absolute thing of beauty, compared to the display on my older 20D. Is that and the extra megapixels you get with the 50D worth an extra $250, I don't know, but that is almost half the price of a new 17-85.
These discussion boards are great to get advice on decisions, but sometimes you just have to go with what's in your current budget and make due until you save up for the gear you really want (lots of L glass!). It seems you have done most of the research you need to make an educated decision on what to get----jump right in and get it! That way you can do what you really want to do and take some great pictures!
I don't know... we all know that any new DSLR coming out from now on will have a VGA screen and HD movies (and an HDMI port - which will be useful for me). I don't care for the HD movies, but I really want the VGA screen as any new camera around will have one.
Oren,
I'm new to DSLR having switched over in the last year, so I am very familiar with the questions and frustrations you are going through right now. The previous posters have given you much good advise and I won't repeat any of that. I think your last post is very telling, it seems you want the VGA screen, but you can see a use for the HDMI port. This is the same kind of problem I keep having, I forget to classify features by by what I NEED versus what a WANT.
Keep in mind that a cheap body with a great lens can produce better results than a great body with cheap lens. Also bodies are like computers, they lose their value very fast and are obsolete rather quickly. Lenses, on the other hand, typically do not become obsolete, and retain their value for many years.
My advise is look at your budget, decide what kinds of photographs you are going to take most of the time, then pick the best lenses that fit your needs and worry a little less on the body. You will be replacing the body before any of the lenses, unless you buy the wrong lens in the first place.
Sincerely,
David McKinny
Another update: I think that at first I'll be getting the 50D + 17-85. I see that I can get it for about $1630 over here. At the morning when I wake up = within ~8 hours from now, I'll give this shop a call to check out that they still offer this kit and for that price, as we all know that prices has increased recently and this shop doesn't seem to update their site very often. If they still have it at this price, it might be what I'll be buying - at least at first. Then I guess I'll rent a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and see how the 70-200 range feels and whether it is useful for me.
-Why I said f/2.8 IS after I talked so much about the f/4 non-IS? Simple reason: there is just one rental shop all over the country here and they don't have a big collection - they don't have the f/4 version for example.
Ok that's it for now, anybody has some thoughts? comments? anything to tell me before I get 50D + 17-85?
Hmmm.... Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II or Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
The Canon is a slow lens but focus speed is pretty much fast and accurate and it has a silent ring USM.
The Tamron is fast - constant f/2.8 but has less reach on the long end, focus is slower than with the Canon and not very much accurate according to Bryan, and it does not have fast and silent focus motor.
Now, one of the big reasons that made me realize that I need to move to DSLR was that I wanted to stop indoor action without using a flash. I'm not talking about stopping indoor sports and the like - just babies, kids and people who are moving around.
If I go with the Canon, this lens is slow - f/5.6 at the long end (which I'll probably be using a lot), so that's not good unless the 50D ISO performance is so good so it can compensate for the slow max. aperture.
If I go for the Tamron I might just miss the action as a result of the slow focusing speed. With the Canon I still might get the shot but it will be blurred, and that I can get with my P&S as well... don't need a high end DSLR for blurred pictures.
So people... please help, I'm confused [^o)]
Bryan says the Tamron "AF is rather fast, but the high pitch buzz made by the focus motor is deceptive - making the lens sound slower.
I found AF accuracy to be quite good with relatively few missed shots"
That matches my experience.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote