 Renaee Dimond |
Searching for 2 lenses to cover most focal lengths I'm hoping to get some guidance on lens choice...I have a Digital Rebel and am looking to up-date the kit lenses. I don't have a huge amount of money to spend but I need a wide angle and a telephoto lens and really want only two lenses to cover most focal lengths. I was checking out the Canon 17-40 f/4 L or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for the wide angle (mostly for landscapes) I'm leaning more toward the Tamron for the extra 10mm and the 2.8. I'm leaning toward the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS for the zoom. I'm sure the 2.8 would be great but I need to walk around with this lens and I hear the 2.8 is a bit of a monster (not to mention the price!!!!). Are these wise choices?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Who Me? |
24-105mm & 100mm -400mm
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlotte K. Lowrie |
Renaee, I haven't used the 17-40, but I do have the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and it is a stunner! Amazing sharpness, stunning contrast. It may not have the coverage you want given the focal length multiplier on the Rebel, but I thought that I would throw it out as an idea. Also, several friends bought the 70-22 f/4L IS, and they have only the highest praise for the lens -- and the significant weight savings over the venerable 70-200mm f/2.8L that I lug around. It is h*e*a*v*y, but I do love it. ;) Best wishes, Charlotte
|
|
|
|
||
|
Renaee Dimond |
Thank you Derek & Charlotte. Charlotte...I was considering the 17-40 because I thought the focal length would be more usable for landscape photography. What lens to you use for landscapes? Also, the 70-200 2.8 sounds fantastic but I do lots of hiking and don't fancy lugging that monster around :) Is the image quality of the f/4 on par with the f/2.8?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlotte K. Lowrie |
That's what I suspected, Renaee regarding the 17-40. I have the 16-35, f/2.8L and like the sharpness. But, alas, Canon has a version II that was announced a couple of weeks ago. I won't upgrade b/c I don't shoot wide-angle enough to justify the cost. The 24-70 is what I pull out for landscape shooting. It's just one of those lenses you fall in love with. You will NOT appreciate the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 on hikes. I use it for weddings, and my hands are worn out at the end of six or eight hours, especially when I use it on the 1Ds Mark II. It doesn't seem like as much of a monster on the XTi and 5D bodies. The images that I've seen from the f/4 IS are beautiful. People who have it really love the quality and light-weight.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 The image quality is on par with the Canon and much more affordable.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Renaee Dimond |
I'm glad you said that Mike....I really wanted to avoid paying $1,100AU for the 17-40 Canon....the Tamron is a much cheaper alternative and if the image quality is close then I will be more than happy to buy it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Tamron 17-50 equivalent to 28-80 mm traditional. I don't understand comments on the 24-70 since 24 is equavalent to 38 mm, not really wide angle. You might consider the Tamron 17-200; you'll get the equivalent of 28-320 in one piece of glass.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
I hear those get soft in tele.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
I agree with W.Smith, They are even softer than a consumer grade 70-300
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jill Schreiner |
Renaee, I also have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens. I haven't used it much, but hope to more once it's nicer outside. I also want to get the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS for the same reasons as you, plus it has the same filter size as the Tamron 17-50, which I think is very convenient. I just have to work up the nerve to spend the $$$ on it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Renaee Dimond |
The 17mm is really what I'm after for wide angle and I really want to up-grade to a better quality of lens that the kit 75-300 so I'm not really fond of the idea of one lens to cover the whole lot. I'm sure the image quality has got to suffer. I think I'm heading the same direction as Jill...I like the idea that the filters are the same size on the Tamron as on the Canon 70-200. One very distant day, if I ever have the funds, I would also love to buy the Canon 100-400 but for the time being I think I'll go for the Tamron 17-50 & the Canon 70-200. Jill could you please let me know how the images turn out that you take with the Tamron? Thanks everyone for your suggestions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jill Schreiner |
Renaee, I added a couple of pictures in my gallery taken with the Tamron lens. The lack of sharpness is the result of me using a slow shutter speed and no tripod. It still shows good detail though. Overall I'm very happy with the lens. I won't be taking any landscape pictures until it starts greening up outside though, it's so dreary here this time of year. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||