i'm planning to buy a walkaround lense, one that I could use for most pictures. My budget is around the $800 area. For the experts and experieced ones. Is there a particular lense I should lean towards? at the moment I have the kit lense 18-55 3.5 and 50mm 1.8 and in the market for a zoom lense.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Zoom lense XTi
- Thread starter bsidakr
- Start date
ZeroTX
Leading Member
I looked it up. Both "lens" and "lense" are correct spellings.
What level of "zoom" do you want? A 10-22mm is a zoom. Zoom describes the action of changing focal lengths on demand. I assume you probably mean telephoto zoom, in which case, again, what range?
What would I get for $800 or less? A Canon 70-200mm F4L. Closer to only $600, but by far the best telephoto zoom you can get for under $1,000.
-Michael
--
Canon Rebel XTi
http://duran.smugmug.com
sorry I forgot to put telephoto zoom lens is what i'm in the market for, there's just so many out there that I don't know which one to go for but just take advice from ones that have it already. i'll look into the lens you suggested.
If for zoom you mean ZOOM, I mean from 50mm to 200 or 300 mm or so, than I advice the Canon EF 70-300 IS which I have and it's very good, almost a L lens. And the IS sometimes is very useful...
If on the contrary you mean a walkaround lens, there is the cheap Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 wich is not bad (I've been using it since about six months) but not so sharp and not very fast (but for the price you can expect more) or, a little more expensive, the good Tamron 17-50 2.8 that is sharper than the sigma and 2.8 across the entire range (but the sigma is also a macro lens, and the tamron not...) or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which is also macro...
Last but not least the canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS seems, according to the reviews, very good, but also quite expensive (about 1000$ or so...) and a little too short (55mm) but it depends on which kind of photos you normally take
There is also the canon 17-85 IS but it's not fast at all (4-5.6) and, for the price, has, for me, too much problems (vignetting, not an very high sharpeness, strong chromatic abberration etc.). But some people say it's a good lens, so it's up to you
Anyway on the http://www.photozone.de there are good reviews...
Bye
CarloF
Canon 350D
Sigma 17-70
Canon EF-S 60mm macro
Canon EF 70-300 IS
If on the contrary you mean a walkaround lens, there is the cheap Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 wich is not bad (I've been using it since about six months) but not so sharp and not very fast (but for the price you can expect more
) or, a little more expensive, the good Tamron 17-50 2.8 that is sharper than the sigma and 2.8 across the entire range (but the sigma is also a macro lens, and the tamron not...) or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which is also macro...Last but not least the canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS seems, according to the reviews, very good, but also quite expensive (about 1000$ or so...) and a little too short (55mm) but it depends on which kind of photos you normally take
There is also the canon 17-85 IS but it's not fast at all (4-5.6) and, for the price, has, for me, too much problems (vignetting, not an very high sharpeness, strong chromatic abberration etc.). But some people say it's a good lens, so it's up to you
Anyway on the http://www.photozone.de there are good reviews...
Bye
CarloF
Canon 350D
Sigma 17-70
Canon EF-S 60mm macro
Canon EF 70-300 IS
thanks for the reply, by zoom meaning 70-200 or 300 area so that I don't have to be too close to my subjects. I would like to take pictures from across the room without them knowing or a cam in the face. Sorta candid in a way. I'm a newbee on dslr at the moment but have quickly fallen in love, I've always love art and I have been drawing and painting my entire life and feel that photography should be a path that I will follow. I would like to make my photography a bussiness in the future. I was looking into the canon 70-200 4l $579 at adorama but was wondering if I should save me money and get the 70-200 2.8l which is faster and capable of low light condidtions. I was just wondering if its work the extra 1K. It goes for $1670. but knowing that I will be in need of this lense in the future (wedding etc..) Should I just save up and wait for 2.8L or get the 4L and practice with that for the moment. The reasong i'm asking is because I don't want to buy a piece and them 2-3months down the road want something better. So for the ones that has been down this same path as me feel free to advise. thanks.
this might be my new walkaround lens. im kinda like you, i like being back away from my subjects a little. i havnt heard anything about this lens yet, but its excactly the lenghts like to use.....
http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGMA-LENS-50-150mm-F2-8-APO-EX-DC-HSM-NIKON-AF-D-CANON_W0QQitemZ280076484679QQihZ018QQcategoryZ30070QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGMA-LENS-50-150mm-F2-8-APO-EX-DC-HSM-NIKON-AF-D-CANON_W0QQitemZ280076484679QQihZ018QQcategoryZ30070QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
ZeroTX
Leading Member
For across the room candids, you would probably look at the one I mentioned. It's the one I want for the very same purpose. The 70-200mm f4L. The 70-300 IS is a good lens, too, but not "as" good. I've seen a lot of comments about it being wobbly and the 200-300mm part of the range being soft/fuzzy, so I figure why bother with that range if it's gonna be junk. The 70-200mm f4L is considered one of the sharpest lenses available. F4 isn't super fast, but it is very fast at 200mm when compared with the non-L competition.
-Michael
--
Canon Rebel XTi
http://duran.smugmug.com
yeah I think being far back and away, takes more of and inocent shot. they have two version for this lense 70-200 with and without IS. Is IS something to worry about with this lense? the 70-200 with IS is at 1K compared to non IS at less than $600. I guess my question is how important is IS?
steve maec
Leading Member
early production unit with "0" in the 3rd digit of the serial number. It is supposed to have the portrait problem, and I could see there is very little loss of resolution in potrait mode at 300mm, viewed at 100%.I had my 70-300 fix and its perfect now.My 2 main lenses are 24-105L and 70-300.
--
http://public.fotki.com/stevemaec/website/
--
http://public.fotki.com/stevemaec/website/
ZeroTX
Leading Member
They say you can gain about two "stops" with the IS. If you can afford it, I would ABSOLUTELY get it without any hesitation. If the $400 more is a problem money-wise, then you could do without by going up in ISO to make up the difference, with some grain/noise as the penalty.
Someone mentioned the 70-200mm f2.8L, which is awesome, but it is BIGGER and heavier (not as feasible for a "walkaround") and the cost is substantially more. Most people say the 70-200mm f4L is super light, easy to carry and very much "L" quality images.
-Michael
--
Canon Rebel XTi
http://duran.smugmug.com
http://www.fredmiranda.com/ A great place for used gear also KEH.com is another good place. I have never played with the 70-200 IS, but I do have the 75-300 IS and IS is nice.
Now I've seen the 70-200 2.8 L non IS go between 750-900, the IS veriosn go for arounbd $1300. Sigma makes a 70-200 2.9 lens and I've seen them go for as low as $600 used and as high as $750.
I buy most of my lens used. I figure if I get a tried and tested lens I have a better shot of getting a sharp copy. My 70-200 f4/L took me 3 copies to get it right and it was sending it back to B&H twice at my cost to get it that way.
Good Luck, Robb
Now I've seen the 70-200 2.8 L non IS go between 750-900, the IS veriosn go for arounbd $1300. Sigma makes a 70-200 2.9 lens and I've seen them go for as low as $600 used and as high as $750.
I buy most of my lens used. I figure if I get a tried and tested lens I have a better shot of getting a sharp copy. My 70-200 f4/L took me 3 copies to get it right and it was sending it back to B&H twice at my cost to get it that way.
Good Luck, Robb
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum