 Enrique R. Cerda |
What lens do you recommend? I currenlty own a Canon 18-55 kit lens, a 75-300mm Canon lens, and a Tamron 28-300mm lens. I like to capture different types of images and am considering buying either a Sigma 50-500mm lens or a Tamron 200-500mm lens. I like the flexibility that the Sigma sounds like it has but am wondering about the sharpness or one over the other. If anyone could give me some advise I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Josh Anon |
Hi Enrique, Be wary of super-range lenses, like the Sigma 50-500, as they often aren't as sharp as the shorter range lenses. It sounds like you have a pretty good variety of lenses already, and a lot of overlap! What type of "different images" are you looking to take? If you want shots of things really far away, consider getting a 400 or 500mm prime lens as it'll be sharper than one of the zooms you listed. If you want ultra-wide shots, consider an ultra-wide zoom lens or a fisheye. Another option would be a good macro lens. In my class, we actually talk about how lens choice affects an image, but what lens to buy is often a personal choice! Good luck! Josh
|
|
|
|
||
|
Enrique R. Cerda |
Josh, Thanks for the input! One of my subjects will be baseball players, I have season tickets to the Padres about 20 rows in on the first base side. On the other side of the spectrum, I recently participated as the sole photographer for a tree calendar for a company in New Orleans. Thanks again. I'll be posting some of my New Orleans photos in my gallery in the next couple of days. -e
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
Check out this link below. I set it up to compare the Canon 100-400mm IS vs. the Sigma 50-500mm. There is a little arrow in the middle to toggle back and forth the difference between the 2 lenses. You can see the difference in sharpness. I just sold my Sigma 50-500mm after recently purchasing a Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS lens. I miss the reach and am saving up for the 100-400mm. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Sigma, but I just didn't have the number of keepers. Some images were very sharp, but a larger amount were not. All in technique. With more practice I am sure I could have raised the keepers, but out of the box I rarely 'throw' anything away now. The Canon also has a filter size of 77mm which makes filters a whole lot more affordable. They are still expensive, but a lot more readily available as well. Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Because you indicate you have a Canon kit lens, 18-55 mm, I assume you have a Canon Rebel XT, XTi or 20D. You camera has a 1.6 lens factor and, therefore, for all of your listed lenses, you can multiply to get the effective focal lengths [for comparison with traditional film lens focal length.] Taking your Tamron 28-300 mm zoom, you're looking at an effective 44-640 mm zoom. In my limited experience, I've aske myself the question, how much zoom do I really need? And, I'd ask you the same question. Without sacrificing too much quality, you could buy a teleconverter. You'd lose about two stops of exposure but by increasing your ISO, there'd not be a lot of harm done. My point - you have lenses you've had - presumably you're happy with them. Why scrap the for a new lenses that may not, necessarily fill the bill. In all cases, you should be using a tripod, but that Tamron gives you a chance at hand holding. If I were you, and I really want a lens with the specs you've listed, I look to the closest match in the Canon image stabilized family. Before I got my Canon 30D I took pictures at Yankee Spring Training at Legends Field in Tampa with my Canon EOS 3, fitted with both my Tamron 28-200 mm zoom and my 200-400 mm zoom. In both case, I found it necessary to crop the pictures to create the image I wanted. More than 400 mm may not really be needed with digital capabilities.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Enrique R. Cerda |
Suzanne & John, Thank you both for such insightful and informative responses. I looked at the website that Suzanne recommended and found it to be an eye opening experience. As I expressed earlier I did a calendar shoot in New Orleans and now have room in my budget to purchase the Canon IS 100-400. I believe it to be a better lens for my application. Thank you guys so much for all of your help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
Glad the info helped. I know that one site stopped me from a couple of purchases. Please let me know how the Canon 100-400mm performs for you. I am saving up right now. Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||