One last question before I order my 10D

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677) and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.
Thank you all!!!
Danny

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the Tamron lens, but I have both the 17-40L, and the 28-135 IS, and they are both great lenses. Those two lenses together probably account for over 80% of my photos.

dixielandcandles said:

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.

Click to expand...

Take at a look at the 50mm f/1.8 (aka the plastic fantastic). For US$70, it's hard to go wrong. It is amazingly sharp for it's price.

The advantage of having the 50mm f/1.8 even though you have one of the zooms is speed. The 50mm f/1.8 is 1 stop faster than the Tamron, and 2 stops faster than the 28-135 IS.

--
...Mike
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Trying to work my way up to rank amateur
http://www.pbase.com/mikealex

u want to have good coverage from wide to short tele so walkabout lens ought to be 17-40mm , the others are not wide enough...this is my 'normal' lens, a must ...the lens has fixed length so no fear for dust while zooming

as to 50mm, there's no bad 50mm canon lens so take ur pick $$ permitting...i bought a 50mm 2.5 macro for both portraits and macros, a slow AF lens but tack sharp...i've had the 1.4 and 1.8 as well, they're both good...the 1.4 may have a shallow depth of field so focus w care

on a side note, canon lenses retain their value better in case u put them on ebay ;-))
have fun and join the club.
cheers

I agree fully with what Mike said.

Lee Jay

Mike Alexander said:

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the Tamron lens, but I have both the 17-40L, and
the 28-135 IS, and they are both great lenses. Those two lenses
together probably account for over 80% of my photos.

Mike Alexander said:

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.

Click to expand...

Take at a look at the 50mm f/1.8 (aka the plastic fantastic). For
US$70, it's hard to go wrong. It is amazingly sharp for it's price.

The advantage of having the 50mm f/1.8 even though you have one of
the zooms is speed. The 50mm f/1.8 is 1 stop faster than the
Tamron, and 2 stops faster than the 28-135 IS.

--
...Mike
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Trying to work my way up to rank amateur
http://www.pbase.com/mikealex

Click to expand...

Danny-

The main consideration I see with the Tamron vs the Canon 28-135 is low light ability vs greater zoom. Given that the 50mm/1.8 lens is great and cheap, my recomendation to you is get the Canon 28-135 for walkaround, the 50 for low light and portraits, and save up for a wide-angle later.

-Scott
http://www.spellmanphoto.com

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.
Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.
Thank you all!!!
Danny

Click to expand...

dixielandcandles said:

I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Click to expand...

I had a 28-135 IS, and while the IS feature is cool, it only controls for camera shake, not for subject movement. I ended up selling it and buying the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which I really like a lot. It's a very sharp lens, it's lightweight, focuses reasonably quickly and quietly, and is pretty well made. But what I like best vs. the 28-135 IS is the f/2.8 maximum aperture. Faster shutter speeds can make up for both camera shake and subject movement.

Of course, the 17-40L is a great lens (FedEx is supposed to deliver mine later today!), but it's much slower (f/4), and it's much more expensive than the Tamron or the 28-135 IS.

dixielandcandles said:

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.

Click to expand...

The other folks are right--the 50mm f/1.8 is kind of a no-brainer. It's a very good lens, and it's dirt cheap. On the other hand, with a 1.6x crop (as on the 10D), 50mm is equivalent to 80mm focal length on a 35mm film body. If you want a "normal" lens, you might want to consider the EF 35mm f/2, which doesn't cost too much, is relatively fast, and is another good lens.

--John

I'm just wondering if the 85mm has better color/detail. Maybe I'll just try the $70 50mm 1.8 and see if I am happy. If it does please me, then I would have only wasted the extra $300 for the 85mm.

Scott G Spellman said:

The main consideration I see with the Tamron vs the Canon 28-135 is
low light ability vs greater zoom. Given that the 50mm/1.8 lens is
great and cheap, my recomendation to you is get the Canon 28-135
for walkaround, the 50 for low light and portraits, and save up for
a wide-angle later.

-Scott
http://www.spellmanphoto.com

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.
Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.
Thank you all!!!
Danny

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The lense magnification doesn't change on the smaller sensor. A 50 still gives you the same "look" of a 50 whether on film or a smaller sensor. I use a 85mm for head and shoulder portraits and it is a very great lense for this. I wouldn't use anything wider for a close portrait, maybe a full body shot, but not for a close shot. I would stay with Canon glass. You never know the compatibility issues with 3rd party lenses and with Canon it will be compatible or they will recall/correct it. Just my view. John

Brosephotography.com

john schwab said:

dixielandcandles said:

I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Click to expand...

I had a 28-135 IS, and while the IS feature is cool, it only
controls for camera shake, not for subject movement. I ended up
selling it and buying the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which I really like a
lot. It's a very sharp lens, it's lightweight, focuses reasonably
quickly and quietly, and is pretty well made. But what I like best
vs. the 28-135 IS is the f/2.8 maximum aperture. Faster shutter
speeds can make up for both camera shake and subject movement.

Of course, the 17-40L is a great lens (FedEx is supposed to deliver
mine later today!), but it's much slower (f/4), and it's much more
expensive than the Tamron or the 28-135 IS.

john schwab said:

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.

Click to expand...

The other folks are right--the 50mm f/1.8 is kind of a no-brainer.
It's a very good lens, and it's dirt cheap. On the other hand, with
a 1.6x crop (as on the 10D), 50mm is equivalent to 80mm focal
length on a 35mm film body. If you want a "normal" lens, you might
want to consider the EF 35mm f/2, which doesn't cost too much, is
relatively fast, and is another good lens.

--John

Click to expand...

My 28-135is quite sharp,at similar f stops and focal lengths close to my 17-40 and 50/1.4 after post processing.It's still at f4.5 at a little over 70mm,3.5 up about 40mm.A little over 1 stop from the 2.8 after market lens over most of the 2.8's range.Plus you get IS(a miracle,particularly on semi-macro and in low light) and 135mm when its daylight.Hard to beat.

Jbrose said:

The lense magnification doesn't change on the smaller sensor. A 50
still gives you the same "look" of a 50 whether on film or a
smaller sensor.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this? What happen with the 1.6 crop factor?

What is for you the same «look»?. All that I readed on these forums since many times confirm that if you said is true, I really don't understand all my past reading...
Daniel

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The crop factor crops out the outside of the image giving you the field-of-view of an 80mm lens on a 35mm or full-frame camera. However, depth-of-field and perspective are still those of a 50mm lens. Imagine putting a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera and just using the center of the image - that's a 10D, D60 or D30. The image didn't change - just the field of view. This is why "crop factor" is an appropriate term while "focal length multiplier" isn't.

Lee Jay

daniel marleau said:

Jbrose said:

The lense magnification doesn't change on the smaller sensor. A 50
still gives you the same "look" of a 50 whether on film or a
smaller sensor.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this? What happen with the 1.6 crop factor?
What is for you the same «look»?. All that I readed on these forums
since many times confirm that if you said is true, I really don't
understand all my past reading...
Daniel

Click to expand...

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens.
Please advise.

Click to expand...

Hi Danny:

You will run into many "different" situations shooting sunsets and therefore I strongly advise you to get two lenses, the 17-40 and 28-135 (you won't be sorry).

dixielandcandles said:

Now, the prime lens.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what exactly what application you have in mind for the "prime lens". Okay, if you want to supplement your walk-around lenses for low illumination situations I would suggest a fast 35 mm lens (very expensive). If on the other hand you want a lens for portraits, the 28-135 is more than adequate. Or, if you want a portrait lens for low illumination situations then I can only suggest a fast 85 mm (again, very expensive).

Before you buy anything there is one thing you REALLY need to consider. Just because you are purchasing a body doesn't mean you need to get "all" your lenses at one time. If all you want to do is snap portraits and sunsets just get the 28-135. Then, over the five or six months determine exactly what your needs are. Believe me, your needs (read lust) will change every two to three months. Over the next six months will you find yourself yearning for a wider angle of coverage or will you switch gears and find yourself at the zoo every other weekend? Take your time Danny, there is no need to rush towards a final decision today.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

ljfinger said:

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The crop factor crops out the outside
of the image giving you the field-of-view of an 80mm lens on a 35mm
or full-frame camera. However, depth-of-field and perspective are
still those of a 50mm lens. Imagine putting a 50mm lens on a
full-frame camera and just using the center of the image - that's a
10D, D60 or D30. The image didn't change - just the field of view.
This is why "crop factor" is an appropriate term while "focal
length multiplier" isn't.

Lee Jay

Click to expand...

Thank's Lee for your explication.

I try to understand why sellers say that I got a 320mm lens if I bought a 200mm with my 10D... Is the 1.6x 200 is a false multiplication. Is the objet that I will shoot will appear more near with my 10D than with a full-frame? If no, why insist that a 200mm lens became a 320mm?
May be I must read «10D lens for the dummies».
Daniel

If I may be so bold, where are you getting a 10D for 1174.00$ If it's what I think, becareful of online deals, places that give great prices tend to send you imported stuff without anything that is supposed to come with the camera. I just checked B&H, Adorama, Adray, and Calumet and they were all at 1399.00$ Please keep in mind, you usually get what you pay for!!

dixielandcandles said:

Ok, the time has come, prices are $1174 or so for the 10D. I just
need to ask about lenses (one last time please). I am a hobbyist
and I do portraits and sunsets. First, the walk around lens. I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.
Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.
Thank you all!!!
Danny

Click to expand...

Jbrose said:

The lense magnification doesn't change on the smaller sensor. A 50
still gives you the same "look" of a 50 whether on film or a

Click to expand...

So, following that reasoning, the 50mm end of my A2, which is 200mm (135 equiv.) is a nice normal lense? Wrong. It's a decently long telephoto. It's all about magnification relative to the size of the sensor. Imagine a full frame head shot with a 100mm lens. The head fills the frame. Put that lens on a smaller sensor, and now the image spills off the sensor, so maybe I'm actually imaging his eyes to his nose. In order to get the head shot again, I must step back a bit. But now I have changed the perspective. I have the look of a longer lens.

Jbrose said:

smaller sensor. I use a 85mm for head and shoulder portraits and
it is a very great lense for this. I wouldn't use anything wider
for a close portrait, maybe a full body shot, but not for a close
shot. I would stay with Canon glass. You never know the
compatibility issues with 3rd party lenses and with Canon it will
be compatible or they will recall/correct it. Just my view. John

Brosephotography.com

john schwab said:

dixielandcandles said:

I read
outstanding reviews and spoke to people who own the Tamron SP AF
28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical and they say it's very sharp and
unbeatable at $339. The other considerations are the 17-40L ($677)
and 28-135IS USM ($399). Please advise.

Click to expand...

I had a 28-135 IS, and while the IS feature is cool, it only
controls for camera shake, not for subject movement. I ended up
selling it and buying the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which I really like a
lot. It's a very sharp lens, it's lightweight, focuses reasonably
quickly and quietly, and is pretty well made. But what I like best
vs. the 28-135 IS is the f/2.8 maximum aperture. Faster shutter
speeds can make up for both camera shake and subject movement.

Of course, the 17-40L is a great lens (FedEx is supposed to deliver
mine later today!), but it's much slower (f/4), and it's much more
expensive than the Tamron or the 28-135 IS.

Jbrose said:

Now, the prime lens. If I do go with the Tamron 28-75, would I
still have a use for a 50mm or 85mm prime? If so, isn't the 85mm
too much with the 1.6 crop? That's about 130mm. If the 80mm is a
better lens (quality, etc.) for portraits, I'll gladly buy it.

Click to expand...

The other folks are right--the 50mm f/1.8 is kind of a no-brainer.
It's a very good lens, and it's dirt cheap. On the other hand, with
a 1.6x crop (as on the 10D), 50mm is equivalent to 80mm focal
length on a 35mm film body. If you want a "normal" lens, you might
want to consider the EF 35mm f/2, which doesn't cost too much, is
relatively fast, and is another good lens.

--John

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

buydig.com has them listed for that price on their site. I have purchased from them in the past and must say that the service and shipping were first class. I would order from them again.

Ken.

A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens. On a 10D, the field of view of the image will be the same as if the camera were full-frame and you used a 320mm lens. However, that image (all other things being equal) would have less depth-of-field even though the field-of-view was the same.

Perspective is a difficult concept sometimes. Imagine standing 3 feet from a friend and taking a head-and shoulders shot with a 17mm lens with the moon in the background. Your friend will fill the frame and the moon will be a dot in the background. Now imagine backing way, way up and taking the same head and shoulders shot with a 600mm lens, again with the moon in the background. Your friend will again fill the frame but the moon will be HUGE! This perspective is what doesn't change because of a crop factor unless the crop factor forces you to move yourself to a different location to get the shot.

Field of view is the ONLY thing crop factor changes! In that way, yes, a distant object will appear closer because the frame is smaller.

Lee Jay

daniel marleau said:

ljfinger said:

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The crop factor crops out the outside
of the image giving you the field-of-view of an 80mm lens on a 35mm
or full-frame camera. However, depth-of-field and perspective are
still those of a 50mm lens. Imagine putting a 50mm lens on a
full-frame camera and just using the center of the image - that's a
10D, D60 or D30. The image didn't change - just the field of view.
This is why "crop factor" is an appropriate term while "focal
length multiplier" isn't.

Lee Jay

Click to expand...

Thank's Lee for your explication.
I try to understand why sellers say that I got a 320mm lens if I
bought a 200mm with my 10D... Is the 1.6x 200 is a false
multiplication. Is the objet that I will shoot will appear more
near with my 10D than with a full-frame? If no, why insist that a
200mm lens became a 320mm?
May be I must read «10D lens for the dummies».
Daniel

Click to expand...

fotog said:

Jbrose said:

The lense magnification doesn't change on the smaller sensor. A 50
still gives you the same "look" of a 50 whether on film or a

Click to expand...

So, following that reasoning, the 50mm end of my A2, which is 200mm
(135 equiv.) is a nice normal lense? Wrong. It's a decently long
telephoto. It's all about magnification relative to the size of the
sensor. Imagine a full frame head shot with a 100mm lens. The head
fills the frame. Put that lens on a smaller sensor, and now the
image spills off the sensor, so maybe I'm actually imaging his eyes
to his nose. In order to get the head shot again, I must step back
a bit. But now I have changed the perspective. I have the look of a
longer lens.

Click to expand...

Nope. By stepping back, you are changing the perspective, just as you said, but the resulting shot will be different from a shot from the same location with a longer lens with a bigger sensor. In this case, depth-of-field will change unless you change apature. A lens' focal length doesn't change because you change the size of the sensor. The sensor size only determines how much of the resulting image gets recorded. There's no way around this.

If you change sensor size and focal length to keep field-of-view constant, you change depth of field.

If you change sensor size and keep focal length the same, you change field-of-view.

If you change sensor size and keep focal length the same but change position to keep the same field-of-view, you change perspective.

Lee Jay

I have the 28-135mm and 50mm F1.4; I have to disagree with the using 28-135mm for critical portraits. The 28-135mm IS will deliver pleasing photos, but 50mm F1.4 will astonish you with its sharpness. Also the 50mm F1.4 delivers great bokeh - the 28-135mm IS doesn't even come close.

I do agree with "go slow". Buy one lens, use if for awhile and try to figure out what you're missing or would like to be able to do. The 28-135mm IS is a good starter lens and offers a good working range, but you'll never be happy with if for wide angle. With the 1.6 crop factor it's nowhere near "wide angle".

I would suggest 17-40L as your first lens; time and time again users state this as the preferred walk-around lens. Then instead of the 28-135mm and 50mm; maybe 100mm Macro F2.8. Great for close-up work, extremely sharp and good for portraits.

I mean, why not? You can't go wrong in my opinion.

Bill