Printable View
True, for verstility my Tamron 18-200 and 28-300's are excellent. Its just that the pic quality isn't there, especially with a lot of zoom being used. The L glass is miles faster, especially at max zoom. I'm not sure what the Nikon gear is like, but it sounds better than at least the Tamron gear that I have. For starting out gear, these Tamrons are good and flexible.
On my D200 I usually shoot with the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 G lens. The equivalent in Canon is (I believe) the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.
If it's even half as good as the Nikon equivalent then this is a great general purpose lens. Not good for wildlife but great for landscapes and portrait. But it is around $2,000. The only real downside is a lens like this isn't really made for the lightweight body of a EOS 450D/500D.
Have you considered the EOS 50D? This is a slightly better build than the 450/500 bodies.
ok on a serial note what lens should i get??
Minime has gotten quite good with our cannon P&S, but i think i need a different sort of lens.
for example we went swimming today but all the pics are misted over and i cant see any thing. now although it took not to much to teach minime to use the camera it would be nice to be able to see the results.
now that he understands to wait until mum is in the shower before he grabs the camera and runs around the women's changing rooms taking pics.
Hi Mark,
I have the EOS350D and when I bought it I got an 18-55 EFS (kit lens) and 55-200 f4.5-5.6. The 18-55 started giving errors after a couple of years but it did take ok photos while I used it. Since then I have bought a 90mm f2.8 Tamron Macro Lens, a Canon 50mm f1.8, a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (similar to the L quality lenses), a 2x Sigma teleconverter and then most recently a Canon 24-105 F4 L.
Most of the time now the 24-105 stays on the camera and I carry them around in a small bag with a spare battery. Carrying everything I have requires a backpack and is not light. Also the 70-200 Sigma lens is very good but is too heavy for a general carry around. The quality of the photos from any of the good lenses is far above anything the kit lens is capable of and to me the 24-105 lens is not too big for the body. The only thing I am now looking for is something for the wide end as this lens does miss out slightly there so something like the Canon 10-22. We have other cameras in the family that take good photos (point and shoot types) but we have taken quite a few photos where both cameras took an almost identical shot and when you put them side by side you can really see why the good lens is worth it. The other problem with these lenses and cameras is that while they are comfortable in my hand my wife finds them too heavy and prefers the point and shoot.
I think it would be a good lens with the 500D as it would provide enough optical data for the sensor. I have not needed a faster lens for a while but I do have the others if I need them. Only problem is that the value of the lenses I have far exceeds the value of the body. I am trying to find some really convincing reason to upgrade to the 500D but this one keeps taking good photos with the L lens.
So my advice would be to buy the best quality of lens that you can afford, go and talk to someone like Photo Continental and tell them the price you can buy things for online and they may bring their price down near it. CR Kennedy who import the Sigma gear used to have a promise on their web site that they would match the prices of any grey importer if you could produce proof of the price and they came very close for me on the 70-200 through Photo Continental.
Also if you want to have a play with the big lenses give me a call and come and try them out.
TimJ.
Price match is still there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timj
Price match
Martyn
I recently upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which is a good improvement over my Sony kit lens. It is a little larger & heavier, but what do you expect for a 2.8? It is still fine for carrying around all day.
I don't have a good answer for the longer end. I am thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but as TimJ notes they are a bit heavy to carry around. My existing 75-300 is a decent quality lens (as kit lenses go), but a little slow.
I need another wildlife holiday to justify an upgrade :)
Cheers, Steve
Not much more to say on this really...
I would agree that its better to invest in Good Lenses. Canon L series lenses just makes everything else look ordinary. I now have the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS. Prior to that Ive have various other non 'L' glass and now I wouldnt consider anything else if theres an L equivelant.
Im currently looking for something wide that will fit on a full frame and also a 350D, so the EF-S are out, otherwise Id be going for the 10-22 mentioned earlier. I am seriously considering the 16-35 L, though not the f2.8 as I dont think I can justify the extra $$.
To try and put it in perspective... Id rather buy a used 350D and perhaps the 24-105 L glass rather than a new 500D with an average lens. For the most part the older body and L glass will give better pictures.
Derek was right with the comment he made about the lens / body weight though... For example I know that the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is too heavy for a 350D body to be nicely balanced - still works with excellent results though.
Hope that helps.
Jon
It's not the balance, rather the weight of the lens and the forces it places on the mounting ring and the body of the camera. The higher end SLR's have always had much stronger mounts and now days the low end DSLR's are a very light weight body and so you need to be careful. Best thing is if you use a heavy lens on a low end body is to only pick everything up by the lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire_Jon
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the new Canon EF-S 15-85. Nice focal range. Image quality kinda sits between the kit lens and an L series. No good for a full frame body thou if your thinking an upgrade may be on the cards down the track. For info: I tested a 500D with 18-55 kit lens versus a 20D against a professional USAF resolution chart. The 20D (8MP) resolved down to the 4 line pairs per mm element, the 500D (18MP) down to 4.49. ie about 10% better. That suggests to me that the 500D is crying out for better glass.Then again you might be pushing the friendship with diffraction limitations.
The mounting issue is very true and its wise advice to pick up with the lens. However, forewarned is forearmed and whilst not great I still maintain its better to go for the better lenses and cheaper body. If your careful the mount isnt too much of an issue - the out of balance though is a more noticable - perhaps not so much because of the weight, perhaps because the lower end bodies tend to be physically smaller than the high end's and the better lenses bigger!?!? Maybe its just me!Quote:
Originally Posted by dm_td5
24-70 f2.8L on a 5D MkII - thats the way to go... Just expect a month's silent treatment from the boss for spending the $$$$!!