Which Canon lens/es?
Hi group,
This comes up from time to time, in fact I've just caught the tail end of a similar thread, so apologies for any duplication, but... I have a 10D and have been using a Tamron 28-300 zoom for just over a year. It's not been bad, but I've had some iffy experiences with the lens (focusing / clarity problems). Then I tried a friend's Canon 28-135 IS lens and thought the IS was *great*. So I started thinking about replacing the Tamron with something altogether higher quality. I've also found the 28-300 is a bit limiting on a APS-C sized sensor such as the one in the 10D because it's not wide enough for some of what I want to do. I mainly do travelogue & candid portrait (ie, non-studio) photography; also some landscape, but nothing the 28-300 hasn't been able to cope with. I already have a Sigma 17-35 and Canon 50mm F/1.8, but neither of these see a huge amount of use compared to the long zoom. (Needless to say, I never have the 17-35 with me when I need a wide angle shot.) I tend not to have a tripod with me most of the time, hence the appeal of IS. I'm currently considering 2 possibilities: 1) Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS 2) Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L plus Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS with extender Neither of these options is remotely cheap, so I really want to make sure I get this right first time! I also don't want to be buying lenses again in 3 years or so when the 10D is old hat and I'm looking at a 16mp digital slr for $1500 :) On the one hand, I like the idea of a single lens, as I don't like changing lenses all the time (dust, extra weight, possibility of dropping one). This puts the 28-300 in a good light. But, it's a darn heavy lens to lug around *all* the time (for example, I'm doing candid shots at a wedding in December). And 3.5-5.6 isn't a particularly spectacular aperture in the scheme of things, although the IS gives you a couple of extra stops. On the other hand, the second option appeals because of the large aperture throughout the range - it'd give me 24-200 at F/2.8 and 140-400 at F/5.6 with a 2x extender. But then I'd have to change lenses when I wanted to move up and down the range. And would I always have the right lens with me? I also like the fact that both these lenses are rated very highly for optical quality by people who use them, and the 70-200 seems less prone to dust because of the rotational zoom action. The 24-70 would also give me a little extra space at the wide angle, but at the same time, it doesn't have the IS which I find so appealing. Finally, with things like weddings, I wouldn't have to lug the bulk of the longer lens around unless I thought I was going to need it. Does anybody have any comments on this decision, based on previous experience with any or all of the above kit? There is an option 3) Canon 24-70 L plus Canon 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 DO IS, more limited but a lot cheaper, if anybody has comments on the 70-300 lens. Thanks, David. |
In article david.french-09E645.16312630112004@no-dns-yet-
212-23-3-119.zen.co.uk, David French writes Hi group, This comes up from time to time, in fact I've just caught the tail end of a similar thread, so apologies for any duplication, but... I have a 10D Speaking here from the UK - the Canon 28-2 Ultrasonic is a damn good lens -- Min I blame the jelly |
1) Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS
2) Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L plus Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS with extender Neither of these options is remotely cheap, so I really want to make sure I get this right first time! I also don't want to be buying lenses again in 3 years or so when the 10D is old hat and I'm looking at a 16mp digital slr for $1500 :) On the one hand, I like the idea of a single lens, as I don't like changing lenses all the time (dust, extra weight, possibility of dropping one). This puts the 28-300 in a good light. But, it's a darn heavy lens to lug around *all* the time (for example, I'm doing candid shots at a wedding in December). And 3.5-5.6 isn't a particularly spectacular aperture in the scheme of things, although the IS gives you a couple of extra stops. On the other hand, the second option appeals because of the large aperture throughout the range - it'd give me 24-200 at F/2.8 and 140-400 at F/5.6 with a 2x extender. But then I'd have to change lenses when I wanted to move up and down the range. And would I always have the right lens with me? I also like the fact that both these lenses are rated very highly for optical quality by people who use them, and the 70-200 seems less prone to dust because of the rotational zoom action. The 24-70 would also give me a little extra space at the wide angle, but at the same time, it doesn't have the IS which I find so appealing. Finally, with things like weddings, I wouldn't have to lug the bulk of the longer lens around unless I thought I was going to need it. Does anybody have any comments on this decision, based on previous experience with any or all of the above kit? There is an option 3) Canon 24-70 L plus Canon 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 DO IS, more limited but a lot cheaper, if anybody has comments on the 70-300 lens. I have the lenses in option 3 and to me this is the best combination. The 70-200 f2,8 L IS (I have the non IS version) is a bear to lug around and I find it a bit short even with the crop factor. I also find that the f2,8 is somewhat wasted because the depth of field is so shallow when wide open and at close range. Since the 10D is so good at 400, 800 and even 1600, a lens does not have to be that fast so you end up paying too much for what you may not use that often. The 70-300 DO IS is a very nice lens, not so long, not so heavy and the focussing is fast (not as fast as the 70-200, but much faster than the 75-300). I have just bought a Kenko 2X teleconverter, the jury is still out on that purchase. So far it does not allow focussing on my 70-300 because there is too much light loss. Using it on the 24-70 is a waste, I would rather switch lenses. I have made some test shots on the 70-300 in manual focussing mode and at 300 x 2 with the IS turned on, it seems to work rather well. If you really want a teleconverter, don't get anything over 1.4X. I am not a wide angle nut so I can live with 24mm on the wide end most of the time, If I need wider, I still have the 18-55 from my Drebel which I modified to fit on my 10D. Jean |
"David French" wrote in message ... Hi group, This comes up from time to time, in fact I've just caught the tail end of a similar thread, so apologies for any duplication, but... I have a 10D and have been using a Tamron 28-300 zoom for just over a year. It's not been bad, but I've had some iffy experiences with the lens (focusing / clarity problems). Then I tried a friend's Canon 28-135 IS lens and thought the IS was *great*. So I started thinking about replacing the Tamron with something altogether higher quality. I've also found the 28-300 is a bit limiting on a APS-C sized sensor such as the one in the 10D because it's not wide enough for some of what I want to do. I mainly do travelogue & candid portrait (ie, non-studio) photography; also some landscape, but nothing the 28-300 hasn't been able to cope with. I already have a Sigma 17-35 and Canon 50mm F/1.8, but neither of these see a huge amount of use compared to the long zoom. (Needless to say, I never have the 17-35 with me when I need a wide angle shot.) I tend not to have a tripod with me most of the time, hence the appeal of IS. I'm currently considering 2 possibilities: 1) Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS This is not a walk-around lens you take on holiday. It's a big beast and will draw a lot of attention. This is a photojournalist lens. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com