Reading mode: Light Dark

Lens help for a beginner

Go to last post
S

suttle4vols

Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am currently using a Rebel XT and love the camera. It is my first D-SLR. I have 2 lenses, they are a Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 77 (I love this lens) and a Sigma 70=300 4-5.6 APO DG (hate this lens). I like the range of the second one but it seems to give me worse pictures than the first and I have trouble holding it steady. Most of what I shoot is hand held. I shoot about 50/50 indoors and out. I often find that I would like a bit more range when using the first lens but other than that I love it. I am currently in the market for an IS lens. My budget is about $500 or so. I have narrowed my choices down to 4 and was hoping that I could get some advice or opinions about them. Here they are in the order I am considering them.

1) Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC
3) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (scared not long enough)
4) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (scared not wide enough)

What are you guys thoughts? Which would be right for a beginner? is one of these lenses substantually better (clearer lens, sharper) than the others? Should I save and get the 2 Canon's? I would prefer an all in one like the first 2 but how is their quality?

Thanks,
Dale
 
Good choice to hang onto the XT and focus on upgrading lenses. The XT can produce some fine quality photographs.

One thing that catches my attention regarding your lens choices is the lack of anything wider than 24mm. That is not very wide at all on a crop sensor body.

I wonder if it might even be worth considering the positively reviewed new Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens. It has image stabilization and reports are the the image quality is surprisingly very good - and the cost is only about $200 list.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
 
Dale - do you have any galleries on the web that we could look at to get a feel for your tastes in subjects? "50/50 indoors/outdoors" if helpful to only a limited extent.

What kind of shots have you not been able to take because of a lens limitation?

Other than money and subject matter, are there any other considerations tied to your lens criteria?

With a little more info on your shooting habits, we can make better recommendations.
 
suttle4vols said:
1) Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC
3) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (scared not long enough)
4) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (scared not wide enough)
Click to expand...
I prefer to use 2 lenses instead of 1 super zoom, so choices 1 & 2 would be out for me. You said that you are satisfied with your current Sigma 24-135, so I don't see the sense in replacing it with another lens in the same focal range. The Canon 28-135 might perform better than the Sigma, but you need to concentrate on replacing the lens you don't like.

The Canon 70-300 IS is the best lens in this range. I would replace the Sigma 70-300 APO with this one. I chose the Canon 70-200 f/4L when I made my decision, but I have seen excellent pictures from the 70-300. The IS on this lens would help you at longer focal lengths. Remember that a lens hood is not included with the 70-300, so that will cost you a good bit extra.

--
Mark-B
http://www.msbphoto.com/
 
What are you using the longer zoom range for? I have the Sigma 100-300 F4 and it's pretty good for outdoor sports.
 
If you are satisfied with your Sigma 24-135 then keep it (for the time being)

If I was in your place I would replace the long zoom with a canon 70-300. I would usually be tempted to recommend you to look at the 70-200 L f/4 instead of the 70-300 as the 70-200 is a lens as good as it gets with zoom lenses at a bargain price but from what you write you will be glad to have the benefit of IS and the IS version of the 70-200 will be over your budget.

Sharif
suttle4vols said:
I am currently using a Rebel XT and love the camera. It is my first
D-SLR. I have 2 lenses, they are a Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 77 (I love
this lens) and a Sigma 70=300 4-5.6 APO DG (hate this lens). I like
the range of the second one but it seems to give me worse pictures
than the first and I have trouble holding it steady. Most of what I
shoot is hand held. I shoot about 50/50 indoors and out. I often find
that I would like a bit more range when using the first lens but
other than that I love it. I am currently in the market for an IS
lens. My budget is about $500 or so. I have narrowed my choices down
to 4 and was hoping that I could get some advice or opinions about
them. Here they are in the order I am considering them.

1) Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
2) Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC
3) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (scared not long enough)
4) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (scared not wide enough)

What are you guys thoughts? Which would be right for a beginner? is
one of these lenses substantually better (clearer lens, sharper) than
the others? Should I save and get the 2 Canon's? I would prefer an
all in one like the first 2 but how is their quality?

Thanks,
Dale
Click to expand...
--
Sharif El-Hamalawi
http://www.el-hamalawi.net
http://www.pbase.com/sharif
 
If you're happy with your wider angle lens (although, as another poster has said, 24 mm isn't too wide on a cropped camera), then I'd also suggest you go for the Canon 70-300. Excellent lens.
 
Thanks for all the help. I'm really tempted to go with the 18-200 Sigma but I'll probably end up with the Canon 70-300. Thanks again for all the info and advice.

Dale
 
Tele
Sigma 200-700 constant 2.8 (with macro) - much less expensive than Canon's L
but just as good as reported elsewhere and in my experience:

I would definitely not go for a less than 2.8 - this lets you focus very fast - for action shots this is critical - also lets you shoot with hi speed exposure



Wide angle
Either the Canon 17-40 or 10-22, even the relatively inexpensive Tamron 19-35
or Sigma 10-22

The 17-40 is very well rated, which I ended up keeping unfortunately doesnt open that wide ( 4.0 ) so not so good in low light situations. Hmm actually I see that for wide angle shots I actually have shot more often my inexpensive (!) Sony R1 .. 24-120 equivalent range, costs less than my 17-40 and actually opens at 2.8 at the wide angle setting ...durn .. maybe I should sell that 17-40 ;-)



That was shot at high ISO too .. that R1 is really sharp by the way



But I digress ..

Walk around all purpose

Have been very happy with the legendary 24-70L, except for the price. So sharp you can actually mimic a macro by enlarging as in this shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56627043@N00/1390633705

--
nycandre on Flickr
 
I agree with Mark-B, if you have a lens you like, why replace it? Instead of the Canon 28-135, consider adding a prime or two.

I'll also cast another vote for the 70-300 IS. For the price, it's tough to beat. I have one on a 30D & my copy is excellent through 200 and pretty darn good 250. It is a bit softer at full reach, but still quite usable. I find the IS very useful. Sharpness is good wide open, but color & contrast really improve when stopped down. If you have the bucks, the 70-200 f4 IS & 1.4x TC will deliver a bit higher IQ, but at a heavy cost. My only gripe with the 70-300 is AF performance & lack of FTM.

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...
 
One more vote for the 70-300IS.

It sounds like you're happy with the first lens. If you get an 18-200, it would sort of be like a replacement for both, but it wouldn't be ideal. A superzoom is really an all around compromise, and I feel that the main reason to get an SLR is to not compromise, meaning you get the lens you need for the shots you want. If you shoot wide angle, you have a wide angle lens, low light, a low light lens, etc. By trying to get a single lens that does it all, you sacrifice in a lot of areas, and, in my personal opinion, you'd be better off going with a superzoom slr instead of buying an 18-200 lens.

Just my 2 cents. Oh, and while I'm on my soapbox, get a 50 1.8, it's cheap and great for fast li'l kids.

-Kones
--

 
I could not recommend the kit 18-55. It took terrible pictures. I got rid of it after 2 weeks back when I had it.

I'd save the money and go for 17-85IS which was available as a kit on 20D and 40D I believe. You should be able to find these on ebay fairly reasonably priced.
 
My opinion is to buy 1 of the 2 Canon lenses. I have both and love them. The Is comes in handy. Remember that having IS can help compensate on indoors when the lens is not fast enough. It is particularly handy at 200-300mm range since that is when you can get questionable focus if not using a tri-pod.

If you are using a flash while indoors, having a faster lens may not necesssarily be the best thing. The quality of the glass is more important.

Good luck!
 
Alot of great advice and thanks to all for it. I'm all but sold on the Canon 70-300 IS. I have seen a couple of things about a 55-250 IS, has anyone used it or know where to get one? Is it even close to the 70-300?

Thanks,
Dale
 
These are good sites for lens reviews. Don't know which 55-250 you are referring to.

Photozone agrees on cost performance and quality of that 70-300

"So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens"

Good luck shootin'

--
nycandre on Flickr
 
The new 55-250 IS gets great reviews and in your shoes that's the one I would go for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top