need lens advice

I'm thinking of getting a 7D or 5D and would like a series of lenses to cover a wide focal length range. Looking at the Minolta lenses, I see several at around $200 and others at around $500 to $1000. I guess it's obvious the more expensive lenses are better and maybe it's equally obvious that whether they're worth it or not is up to one's requirements. Still, I value any advice I can get.

Some ideas -
11-18 F4.5 - ca. $600 - I really want a wide angle

18-200 f3.5 - ca. $500 - these two would bring the 35mm equivalent range from 16.5mm to 300mm.
100-400 f4.5 - ca. $800 - 35mm equivalent 150-600mm

The 18-200 would overlap the 100-400. There is a 18-70 for $190. Also a 24-105 for ca. $400 but this would leave a wide angle gap. Then there are the non-Minolta lenses. How do these compare?

I am currently using only a Sigma 28 to 200 [42 to 300 35mm equiv]. I was figureing the 1.5 mag factor when I bought.....this had been my standard lens for ages in film shooting....

My suggestions are the Sigma 10 to 20 (15 to 30 mm - 35 equiv),the 18 to 200 (28 to 300 35mm equiv) and for nature a 50 to 500 (75 to 750 35mm equiv)....

This again really depends on what you truly want to use the camera for...you could save a little by getting a 2xTC and forgot the 50 to 500.

Hope this has been a help.

My personal favorites are:

KM 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 (compatible with ADI flash and super sharp) Availble sometimes on Ebay for less than new.

Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 ATX Pro (the older all metal version) available on Ebay (my walking around lens) / or the KM 28-70 f/2.8

KM 70-210 f/4.0 (One stop slower than the f/2.8s, but ultra sharp, and inexpensive on ebay.)

Sigma 50-500mm

or if you have the money, Minolta 300 f/2.8 G with a 1.4 TC.

Wait another month until PMA in Florida. KM will probalby announce an upgraded 7D with a 10.3 mpixel sensor.

I recently picked up a 7D myself. For my first lens, I opted for Tokina's AT-X 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom. So far, I've found this to be a very nice walk-around lens. I'm also looking at Tokina's AT-X II 80-400mm, or KM's 100-400 APO (possibly wait on this for the upcoming new version) to cover the extra telephoto range I'll need. I'll also get a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.7 for low-light and indoor stuff. Down the road I want a good macro lens, and was thinking about KM's 100mm f/2 or Sigma's 105mm macro. And for extra wide angle, Sigma's 15-30mm looks pretty good.

With the exception of the KM zooms, the other lenses are very reasonably priced and perform well. There are lots of lens options out there, and it really all depends on what you can afford. Good luck!
--
Ron
Torrance, CA

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 approx USD 450,- that will save you some money
--
Best regards

Iggy

Iggy1965 said:

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 approx USD 450,- that will save you some money
--
Best regards

Iggy

Click to expand...

FRom which retailer???

What do you use now? Do you understand how wide that lens is? For a while, my widest lens was the 28-75 2.8. I got along fine. Just recently, I purchased the 17-35 2.8-4, which is fast and sharp. It is very wide. Each "mm" of focal length becomes a larger and larger difference as you get wider. I honestly think that the 10-15mm range is rediculously wide. It is a personal thing, no doubt. I just think the view you get that wide is strange. I would suggest using any of these lenses before you purchase them, unless of course you know what you are getting into.
My personal suggestion would be this:
17-35 2.8-4 (fast for indoor stuff, and wide enough IMHO)

28-75 2.8 (great walk-around lens, top performer, only about $300 new right now, really no excuse not to own it)
for the tele end, there are several good ways to go:
70-210 4 (only get it used, but relatively cheap, and relatively fast)
100-300 APO (pretty good performer, little spendy, decent speed)

IMHO, you also need to realize what a 400mm lens does...with a 600mm FOV, it is nearly impossible to hand-hold while standing freely. I just cannot see clearly what is in the viewfinder. Now, put it on a monopod, and 400mm lens is a great tool.

I guess we have no idea of what you use now, so it is hard to suggest what you will need in the future. I personally wouldn't spend $500 on a 18-200 zoom. The quality might be acceptable, but it won't be stellar. It will be relatively slow (which means more use of flash, which I dislike). I would rather spend $300 on the 28-75, ok maybe more like $400 ca, and $120 on the 70-210 f4. The glass is faster, of higher quality, and will be more pleasureable to use IMO.

Fill us in with more details about yourself and your photography wants/needs, and we will be able to provide you with better advice.
--
-Matt
Life is good.
http://www.pbase.com/ph0t0man
http://www.ouatphotography.com

ph0t0man said:

What do you use now?

Click to expand...

I have an old 35mm film Canon with zooms from 35 to 300 but I want to go digital. I have a Minolta Xi which is a bit limited but fits nicely in a shirt pocket and produces OK pictures. I also have a new Kodak P850 with the 0.7X wide angle adapter. It's a nice vacation camera, light and versatile (25 to 432mm range [35mm equivalent]) but now I'm looking for a DSLR for some more serious photography.

Do you understand how wide that lens is? For

ph0t0man said:

a while, my widest lens was the 28-75 2.8. I got along fine. Just
recently, I purchased the 17-35 2.8-4, which is fast and sharp. It
is very wide. Each "mm" of focal length becomes a larger and
larger difference as you get wider. I honestly think that the
10-15mm range is rediculously wide. It is a personal thing, no
doubt. I just think the view you get that wide is strange. I
would suggest using any of these lenses before you purchase them,
unless of course you know what you are getting into.

Click to expand...

My main reason for a wide angle is the frustration I experienced on a recent trip to France where my 37mm (on the Minolta) was just not wide enough to encompass the wonderful rooms and exhibits in the various museums, palaces, opera houses, etc. I hope the 25mm on the Kodak will suffice for my upcoming retrip in a few months. The 17-35 lens would give a 35mm equivalent of ca. 25 to 52mm which is a nice range (and also fast at f2.8). My interest in the 11-18 is two-fold. First, it's possible the 25mm is still not wide enough for the situations I described above (of course, it's possible it may be) but second, I am interested in "strange" perspectives, something I've long admired but have been unable to explore and as you say, that wide is strange.

ph0t0man said:

My personal suggestion would be this:
17-35 2.8-4 (fast for indoor stuff, and wide enough IMHO)
28-75 2.8 (great walk-around lens, top performer, only about $300
new right now, really no excuse not to own it)
for the tele end, there are several good ways to go:
70-210 4 (only get it used, but relatively cheap, and relatively fast)
100-300 APO (pretty good performer, little spendy, decent speed)
IMHO, you also need to realize what a 400mm lens does...with a
600mm FOV, it is nearly impossible to hand-hold while standing
freely. I just cannot see clearly what is in the viewfinder. Now,
put it on a monopod, and 400mm lens is a great tool.

Click to expand...

I take it then that the image stabilization is not enough to hand-hold a 600mm? My interest in something that large stems from a recent experience with the Kodak. I thought it's 432mm would really be quite a dramatic change from the 300mm of the old Canon but pictures at the zoo recently were disappointing - just not enough to get really good closeups. I ws taking pictures standing along side several other photographrers, all with monopods and longer lenses and I already envy their pics without even seeing them.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your feedback.

I went with the kit to get an inexpensive wide angle, picked up a new 28-75 f2.8 for $320 (delivered), and an "excellent" 70-210 f3.5-4.5 at keh for under $100. I felt this covered the range I needed with pretty good quality at a very reasonable price. The 70-210 f4 gets better press than the 3.5-4.5, but the 3.5-4.5 reviews well and is much smaller and lighter...and it was available.

And then I got a little out of control on ebay and picked up a new Tamron 28-200 XR for $60 delivered...not a great lens, but for the price and convenient range I figured what the heck.

The long lens is fine to hand-hold, if you can hold it steady enough to see in the viewfinder. Unlike Canon and Nikons IS and VR, AS doesn't show its effects in the viewfinder. It works fine for stablizing the image that is captured, but doesn't do anything for helping you frame the shot. If I am in a supported position (sitting, resting elbows on fence etc.), I can use it hand-held no problem. If I am standing with no support...I'm not so good at framing properly. I just picked up a monopod recently, and I must say, it makes using long lenses a pleasure. Sooooo much easier to frame, and the shots are nice and sharp too.

For small rooms where you want to capture the ambiance, the ultra-wides may be your ticket. 37mm on film isn't very wide...17mm on 7D/5D is much wider. It still may not be wide enough...but I would hold off on the purchase until you try them out, or at least try out the 17-35 to see if it is wide enough.

My advice is to start with the essentials, and decide later what you would like more. 17-35 and 28-75 is a great combo, and is nicely supplimented by the 100-300 APO. I sort of wish I had the 100-300 myself, but I have the focal lengths covered by the 70-210 f4 and Tokina 400 f5.6.

Just remember, 4-5 lenses starts to add up when it comes to weight/size...it won't be like carrying around your Kodak with a converter.
Good luck with your decision making
--
-Matt
Life is good.
http://www.pbase.com/ph0t0man
http://www.ouatphotography.com

ph0t0man said:

Just remember, 4-5 lenses starts to add up when it comes to
weight/size...it won't be like carrying around your Kodak with a
converter.

Click to expand...

Exaxctly. I can't see carrying a DSLR and lenses all over Europe. The 100-400 weighs about 2 lbs and the Sigma 50-500 monster about 4 lbs. Perhaps someday we'll see a small lightweight system with DSLR capabilities.

ph0t0man said:

The long lens is fine to hand-hold, if you can hold it steady
enough to see in the viewfinder. Unlike Canon and Nikons IS and
VR, AS doesn't show its effects in the viewfinder. It works fine
for stablizing the image that is captured, but doesn't do anything
for helping you frame the shot. If I am in a supported position
(sitting, resting elbows on fence etc.), I can use it hand-held no
problem. If I am standing with no support...I'm not so good at
framing properly. I just picked up a monopod recently, and I must
say, it makes using long lenses a pleasure. Sooooo much easier to
frame, and the shots are nice and sharp too.

Click to expand...

Just had a thought. I have a shoulder thing for my videocam. The camera screws onto a tripod screw and the thingy rests against my shoulder. I wonder if this would be good enough. I've always had trouble getting a camera to move easily to different positions attached to a monopod.

My advise to u:

1- If u have a big budget, u should go for Minolta AF70-200mm APO G SSM f/2.8.
2- Otherwise SIGMA AF70-200mm APO DG f/2.8.
3- If you want something lighter, Minolta AF28-75mm f2.8.

Nezar

Hi,

I didn´t read the answers of the other replys so my advice has been given by another person but you are able to join a fine and much less expensive setup of lenses considering second hand ones. I would go for lenses sold via e-bay or other internet based stores but in a normal store where you can check the lens, put it on the camera and take some test shots it´s fine for me. In addition you can check out via Internet comments concerning the lens to find out how it is rated by other users. My lenses setup counts with a Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6, a Minolta 28-80/3.5-4.5 (recently substitued by a second hand Minolta 24-85/3.5-4) and a Minolta 75-300/4.5-5.6. Considering the 1,5x crop factor this setup covers a range from 27-450mm which is quite fine for my needs - and not all that heavy. Nothing against very fine APO lenses but such stuff doesn´t fit with my economical situation and I´m not so sure if having them I´d like to carry around all that weight.

Happy shooting
Michael Fritzen

Correction:

I would NOT go for lenses sold via e-bay or other internet based stores but in a normal store....