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.

[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.

[btaylor]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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

[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