Why THOSE Lenses -- Here's why (with photos)

A fellow DPReviewer e-mailed me inquiring about my lens choices... after writing him back I realized it might be helpful to some here to hear about my process, and to see examples from each lens.

I am a pretty decisive person, and I also like to research what I am going to buy (especially when I'm spending a lot of money). I don't really enjoy hearing about testing a lens with rulers and focus charts, but like to hear about real-world experience and the practical, real-life reasons people like the lenses they use. That in mind, I though my summary might be useful to others who think like me (scary thought).

Why I chose these lenses... making the choice really came down to first deciding what was important to me (fast lenses) and then reading lots of reviews. I'm also on a budget, and the idea of spending $1000 or more on ONE lens is a hard one to swallow. Would I have bought the 24-70 f/2.8 L or the 70-200 f/2.8 L if I had money to burn? Hard to say.

The post will be too long if I include them all here, so I'll break each lens up into it's own reply...

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 -- I knew going in that this would be the range I'm shooting in most often... the "walk around" lens that lives on my camera. It was probably the lens offering I read the most about because there were 3 choices... Sigma, Tamron and Canon all make f/2.8's in this range. The Canon was way out of my league (price-wise), and with the reviews I read on the Tamron, it was hard to justify the Canon's price. Sure, I heard all the horror stories about Tamron's quality control issues, but I've seen similar "this is too soft at f/2.8" posts about the Canon L. If I pay $1000 for a lens it BETTER not be soft at f/2.8! The other thing about both Tamron and Sigma... the companies themselves are located on Long Island, so if I needed to send a lens in for calibration or servicing I could just drive there and drop it off. This ended up being the case with one of my Tamrons... this one, the 28-75 f/2.8, needed to be calibrated. I had it back from Tamron two weeks from the day I dropped it off (in Commack).

The turning point for my decision on Tamron vs. the Sigma was a review I read on Fred Miranda from a professional fashion photographer. She/he said (paraphrasing) they were so satisfied with the Tamron, using it primarily for professional fashion shoots as their primary lens, and that it certainly met or exceeded the quality of the 24-70L. She also said other photographers on staff would fight over this lens, reaching for it more often than it's L cousin.

For nearly 1/3 the price of the L, even with the "hassle" of possibly having to send it in for calibration (which many don't need to do), it's still worth it. I have been MORE than satisfied with sharpness, edge to edge, and wide open. No use it having fast lenses if they are too soft to use at their widest aperture.

Another bonus -- Tamron lenses have a 6 year warranty, standard.





Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 -- I wanted something a little wider for those days in the city or for traveling. I don't use it all that much, but when I do it NEVER lets me down. I recently used it on a trip to Boston/Salem and my pictures came out simple stunning -- it was SO useful to have that extra 11mm on the wide end. This lens was a no-brainer. The Canon 16-35L or 17-40L were simply too expensive for a lens I knew would sit in my bag a great deal of the time... and especially since neither are f/2.8. The 17-85, while a nice range, is also too slow at f/4 (for me), and honestly, I'm just not impressed with the quality I see (in general). The 10-22? To expensive for me at the time, and was pretty new then too (as I remember). Also, not f/2.8. Sigma makes a 17-35 f/2.8-4 but it gets mediocre (at best) reviews. The Tamron shines in most of what I've read, and it's price was perfect. Plus it seemed a good match to have two Tamrons from 17mm up to 75mm in fast glass.

Let me say too, with both Tamrons, especially the 28-75, their minimum focusing distance helps to to substitute as a psuedo macro, which is nice when I want to grab a close-up of a flower or something. Macros aren't my primary interest, but I do like to do them from time to time.





Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Canon 50mm f/1.4 -- This actually wasn't my first choice. I had originally purchased a 50mm f/1.8 ("plastic fantastic"). I realize a lot of people have been very happy with the $80 version (and who can blame them at that price), but mine front-focused terribly. Since I heard the 50 1.4 was just a "must have" for people who like fast, good-in-low-light lenses I returned the 1.8 version and replaced it with the more expensive 1.4 version. It actually doesn't get used all that often and I've struggled with deciding whether to sell it or not. I just know the minute I sell it I'll want it back -- but I'd also like to buy the 60mm f/2.8 macro (macro is the one area I'm really lacking). I'm still researching that since I've heard that the 60mm macro is just amazing... but it just seems a bit redundant to have that and the 50mm (albeit f/1.4) in my bag.

I do love the lens everytime I use it. It's a little soft at f/1.4, but just going to f/1.8 or f/2.0 solves that, and I wouldn't call it "unusable" at the 1.4. It's one of thoses lenses that when you use it, you want to keep using it, ESPECIALLY when you want to capture low-light ambiance.





Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Canon 85mm f/1.8 -- Simply amazing. This lens has got to be the perfect "portrait" lens... Bokeh is beautiful, sharp right from wide-open. I've used it when I need just that little bit more reach, or when low-light calls for it. I actually wish I used it more! This was the lens I did the least research on, but heard so many good things about around the forums. It was my "on a whim" lens.

With Kenko extension tubes:



Just the lens:



Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 -- Originally this isn't the lens I bought... I only very recently bought it (end of August). Originally I wanted a more powerful zoom, and I bought the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. Not a bad lens at all, very cheap, pretty darn sharp for the price, but slow (f/4-5.6). For the price, I couldn't really complain, but there were a lot of downsides -- in low light it did too much "hunting" while trying to focus. As a Macro it only worked at the 300mm end and was very hard to handle (hand-hold). The aperture was just too restrictive for any low-light photography (without flash).

I recently sold it and bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which is a whole new animal. Quality is outstanding. I read a lot of reviews that basically put it in the same class as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L... only it's cheaper, and obviously it lacks IS. I have been excessively happy with it, and can't WAIT to shoot one of my daughters plays with it (she does a lot of drama/acting classes).





Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Last by not least...

Canon 135 f/2.8 SF -- This isn't the 135 f/2 L -- it's the "cheaper" version that also has a soft focus feature (less than 1/2 the price). I bought this lens when I still had the slower Sigma as a faster alternative in a longer focal length. I had seen some pictures by a guy on the forums (Wm Bates) who did a whole series of shots with his wife (Wanda's Picture-A-Day), some using this lens, and was SOOOO impressed with the quality. I've used it myself in low-light situations and have been REALLY happy. The soft-focus feature is a neat one, but it's a sharp lens when SF is turned off. At at it's price, a GREAT buy.





Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

In all my lenses other than the large and heavy Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 size and weight were important to me. It's not a deal breaker if it's heavy, but it's an added bonus if it's compact or light or both. All my lenses are small and light, with the Tamron 28-75 being the heaviest (but far lighter than the comparable Canon 24-70L), and by no means is it heavy. I am not the type to carry a tripod (hence why I like fast glass), nor do I want to be lugging 30 lbs. of equipment with me. I like the idea of primes, but the convenience of zooms, so I tried to find the balance between the two without sacrificing quality.

The one exception is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which is a beast (but not as big as SOME of those monster zooms I've seen! How do you guys do it?? LOL). I realized pretty early on for a zoom like this it just needs to be heavy if you're going to get fast and good quality. Time will tell how much it gets used and if I keep it. Might have to get "traded in" at some point for a 200mm prime if I find I'm just not using it much other than at the far reaching end.

And no, I won't be selling it on ebay (for those who have followed THAT story!) -- LOL

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

My 24-70L is very sharp wide-open, and the color and contrast is better then the Tam. Better to save up, build slowly, and get the best. Lenses in one's kit should be thought of as long, long term. Lenses are like brain surgeons, accountants, and lawyers....better if one doesn't go cheap...go for quality first.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

One can always soften a photo....I don't think this was a good choice. For film, yes, of course. For digital? Nope!

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

..IMHO

SFishy said:

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 -- I knew going in that this would be the range
I'm shooting in most often... the "walk around" lens that lives on
my camera. It was probably the lens offering I read the most about
because there were 3 choices... Sigma, Tamron and Canon all make
f/2.8's in this range. The Canon was way out of my league
(price-wise), and with the reviews I read on the Tamron, it was
hard to justify the Canon's price. Sure, I heard all the horror
stories about Tamron's quality control issues, but I've seen
similar "this is too soft at f/2.8" posts about the Canon L. If I
pay $1000 for a lens it BETTER not be soft at f/2.8! The other
thing about both Tamron and Sigma... the companies themselves are
located on Long Island, so if I needed to send a lens in for
calibration or servicing I could just drive there and drop it off.
This ended up being the case with one of my Tamrons... this one,
the 28-75 f/2.8, needed to be calibrated. I had it back from Tamron
two weeks from the day I dropped it off (in Commack).

The turning point for my decision on Tamron vs. the Sigma was a
review I read on Fred Miranda from a professional fashion
photographer. She/he said (paraphrasing) they were so satisfied
with the Tamron, using it primarily for professional fashion shoots
as their primary lens, and that it certainly met or exceeded the
quality of the 24-70L. She also said other photographers on staff
would fight over this lens, reaching for it more often than it's L
cousin.

For nearly 1/3 the price of the L, even with the "hassle" of
possibly having to send it in for calibration (which many don't
need to do), it's still worth it. I have been MORE than satisfied
with sharpness, edge to edge, and wide open. No use it having fast
lenses if they are too soft to use at their widest aperture.

Another bonus -- Tamron lenses have a 6 year warranty, standard.





Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Click to expand...

Point out your color problems with my examples... the lighthouse I bumped up contrast in post, but other than that it's pretty close to life... and the little boy is spot-on.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

You realize you can turn the soft focus effect off, right? This lens has been on my list for a while because it's long, fast, high quality, and very cheap. My 100/2.8 mitigated the need for it for the most part, but if I found one for cheap I'd still jump on it today.

Peru_Photog said:

One can always soften a photo....I don't think this was a good
choice. For film, yes, of course. For digital? Nope!

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN
matter.

Click to expand...

Peru_Photog said:

My 24-70L is very sharp wide-open, and the color and contrast is
better then the Tam. Better to save up, build slowly, and get the
best. Lenses in one's kit should be thought of as long, long term.
Lenses are like brain surgeons, accountants, and lawyers....better
if one doesn't go cheap...go for quality first.

Click to expand...

Maybe yours is just like my Tamron is... but lots of people have posted here and complained the 24-70 isn't sharp wide-open. Someone in another thread was just arguing that the 24-70 is known to have "issues".

Color and contrast is subjective. I LOVE the colors of the Tamron... it's slightly warmer than the Canons (in general). I have no problem with color accuracy overall, no more so than any other lens.

And I DID think long-term on my lenses. Just because I don't spend 3 times as much doesn't mean quality didn't matter to me. Things like good build quality, good image quality and a 6 year warranty were why I bought the Tamron. It doesn't get more long-term than that.

Some of the best doctors, accountants and lawyers are not ALWAYS the most expensive. Ever hear of Patch Adams? Doctors without Borders? My very-good long-term attorney doesn't charge me $500 an hour for every call I make to him (and no, he's not a friend). Yes, price can indicate quality SOMETIMES, but not EVERY time. With all the QC problems people complain about with the 24-70L, it's proof of that point.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

I'm curious, what are you thinking to buy next, if anything?

The Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and Tmaron 11-18 have finally arrived. Are you interested in UWA? (I absolutely love my 12-24... I often use it as my walkaround lens.)

What about primes? Have you experimented with the 50/1.8? Careful, it might trigger a rash of lens-buying like it did for me. I ended up with a Sigma 20/1.8 and Canon 100/2.8 in the end, and might still buy a 28/2.8 or 35/2.

ChrisKrueger said:

I'm curious, what are you thinking to buy next, if anything?

Click to expand...

60mm f/2.8 Macro is probably #1 right now because I really want a 1:1 Macro lens, and one I do NOT need a tripod for.

ChrisKrueger said:

The Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and Tmaron 11-18 have finally
arrived. Are you interested in UWA? (I absolutely love my
12-24... I often use it as my walkaround lens.)

Click to expand...

UWA doesn't interest me all that much. Would be fun to have and I'd enjoy it, but it's low on the priority list. I'd have to read reviews and stuff, but I'd probably go Tamron if lots of people like it, and I like the examples I see.

ChrisKrueger said:

What about primes? Have you experimented with the 50/1.8?
Careful, it might trigger a rash of lens-buying like it did for me.
I ended up with a Sigma 20/1.8 and Canon 100/2.8 in the end, and
might still buy a 28/2.8 or 35/2.

Click to expand...

I do have some primes -- and love them all. 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2.8 SF are all great lenses, and they ARE addicting. I'd like a longer prime, maybe a 300mm. And I'd probably be more apt to buy a ultra wide in a prime. It's possible that I'll give up the 70-200 f/2.8 for a 200mm prime if I find I'm just not carrying the beast often enough.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Any lens is "great" if you like it and if it delivers the quality you desire. If you get such a lens at 1/3 the price of the "other" lens, so much the better. On the other hand, if you enjoy your photography more using a very expensive lens and you have the discretionary funds that will enable you to purchase it, that is great also.

What is not great is when you purchase a lens that doesn't meet YOUR requirements, NOT THE RQUIREMENTS OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS. Or when you purchase the less expensive lens and always think, "my pictures would be better if I had the more expensive lens."

The qualities you require are totally subjective parameters. My mother-in-law is perfectly happy using the throw away cameras you purchase at the supermarket check out stands. Show her a picture of her latest granddaughter that is fuzzy, and badly exposed and which has just about every other fault a photo can muster - she will be happy with it if she can just recognize her grandaughter. On the other hand, show her a beautiful, wonderfully composed and technically excellent landscape and she has no interest in it. She would much prefer the fuzzygraph of her granddaughter.

Your need for a lens depends entirely to what uses you will put the image. You certainly don't need a 20D with an "L" lens to print 4x6 photos or to send a picture of the dog to Aunt Tillie. However, you do need an excellent body and a great lens if you are contemplating large prints for display.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate - 30 years service. Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director and Naval Aircrewman. I have done considerable comercial photography including weddings. I have paraphrased equipment names so forum searches will not hit on my equipment. Bodies: Canon Three-Fifty-D and CanonTen-D DSLR. Zoom-Lenses: 17-40 Millimeter f/4L; 28 to 135 millimeter IS; 70 to 200 millimeter f/4L Prime Lenses Tok-ina, twenty-eight mm Sigma f/1.8; fifty mm f/1.8 MK-I; 400 Millimeter f/5.6 ATX SD. Also Canon 1.4 x teleconverter and 420 ex flash.