Lens Recommendation


Status
Not open for further replies.

chjing

New Member
Sep 11, 2006
671
0
0
#1
hi all,

I bought a Canon 350D with the kit lens a few weeks ago and i feel that the kit lens is not good enough for my coming holiday trip. Anyone can recommend me any good lens that is suitable for holiday shots? and must not be too expensive. Thanks.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#2
hi all,

I bought a Canon 350D with the kit lens a few weeks ago and i feel that the kit lens is not good enough for my coming holiday trip. Anyone can recommend me any good lens that is suitable for holiday shots? and must not be too expensive. Thanks.
Budget?
 

chjing

New Member
Sep 11, 2006
671
0
0
#3
preferably less than $400.
 

htthach

New Member
Feb 26, 2006
1,070
0
0
dover
#5
for travel i recommend something 17mm
can try the sigma 17-70
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#6
hi all,

I bought a Canon 350D with the kit lens a few weeks ago and i feel that the kit lens is not good enough for my coming holiday trip. Anyone can recommend me any good lens that is suitable for holiday shots? and must not be too expensive. Thanks.
it is almost impossible to advise what kind of lens to get you, if you dont know yourself what you want.

a 300mm can be suitable for holiday shots. so can a 70-200mm. so can a 18-200mm. or a 50mm prime. or a 35mm prime. or a 17-50. or a 24-70. or a 10-22.

so instead of buying a lens based on what WE think you should get, i suggest you shoot a bit more, and get an idea as to what kind of lens you think you want. if you cant decide before your holiday, then dont get a lens. really. the kit lens, is a perfectly adequate lens that covers a decent focal length range. its also light. which makes it a good travel lens. and its decently sharp, if you stop it down a little.

the LAST thing you want to do, is listen to hype, or your friends, or the people on this forum, and get a lens based on what they, or WE think is suitable, and then realise its completely not what you were lookig for. its just a waste of your money. frankly.

building up a good lens collection, is something that takes time, and not an inconsiderable amount of thought. so read up reviews of different lenses.. eg. www.fredmiranda.com

and just shoot more. its much easier for us to reply. if yo have a specific question e.g. im going on a wildlife trip, shall i get a 300 mm F4, or a 100-400L.

or im going on city holiday, which would be better, a 17-40L, or a 17-50mm tamron.. etc.
 

Jul 23, 2006
216
0
0
AMK
#7
Tamron 55-200 mm Di-II quite good,MS selling like $199 n still can get d canon 50mm f1.8 for $130 frm ORACLE.... Total damage done: $359 + 2 Hoya UV guard filter n all brand new : ) Btw jus a suggestion only aite.
 

Aug 9, 2006
267
0
0
#9
He already mentioned his budget $400. So those glass you mentioned are all already out of his consideration based on his budget.

$400 cannot buy you a Tamron 17-50, neither a 17-40 or Canon 28-135. One of the obvious choice will be EF24-85 or EF28-105 for its versatile semi wide to mid zoom for Holiday use.



it is almost impossible to advise what kind of lens to get you, if you dont know yourself what you want.

a 300mm can be suitable for holiday shots. so can a 70-200mm. so can a 18-200mm. or a 50mm prime. or a 35mm prime. or a 17-50. or a 24-70. or a 10-22.

so instead of buying a lens based on what WE think you should get, i suggest you shoot a bit more, and get an idea as to what kind of lens you think you want. if you cant decide before your holiday, then dont get a lens. really. the kit lens, is a perfectly adequate lens that covers a decent focal length range. its also light. which makes it a good travel lens. and its decently sharp, if you stop it down a little.

the LAST thing you want to do, is listen to hype, or your friends, or the people on this forum, and get a lens based on what they, or WE think is suitable, and then realise its completely not what you were lookig for. its just a waste of your money. frankly.

building up a good lens collection, is something that takes time, and not an inconsiderable amount of thought. so read up reviews of different lenses.. eg. www.fredmiranda.com

and just shoot more. its much easier for us to reply. if yo have a specific question e.g. im going on a wildlife trip, shall i get a 300 mm F4, or a 100-400L.

or im going on city holiday, which would be better, a 17-40L, or a 17-50mm tamron.. etc.
 

ianpaice

Deregistered
Apr 28, 2006
608
0
0
#11
I doubt anyone will prefer a 70-300 zoom for holiday use. Wont be very useful. Probably a middle range zoom lens will be better...something like Tamron 24-135 I think is less than $400 used?
 

Aug 9, 2006
267
0
0
#13
For those who knows, no lens will surpass the EF24-85mm for its price and performance ( Especially so for APS-C cameras)

If longer focal range is desired than wider angle at 24mm, go for the EF28-105mm.
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#14
He already mentioned his budget $400. So those glass you mentioned are all already out of his consideration based on his budget.

$400 cannot buy you a Tamron 17-50, neither a 17-40 or Canon 28-135. One of the obvious choice will be EF24-85 or EF28-105 for its versatile semi wide to mid zoom for Holiday use.

i know they are outside his budget. i was just making the pont, that if he doesnt know, he shouldnt buy.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#15
For those who knows, no lens will surpass the EF24-85mm for its price and performance ( Especially so for APS-C cameras)

If longer focal range is desired than wider angle at 24mm, go for the EF28-105mm.
I disagree. The Tamron 24-135 surpasses it greatly.

Keep the kit lens and add on a 24-135. Good hols combo.
 

Aug 9, 2006
267
0
0
#16
Have you owned and used these 2 lenses yourself before? I still own the 24-85 and have loaned the Tam 24-135 and have compared them (Had considered to buy the Tam initially but loaned first to compare)

The Tamron is sharp in the centre but very weak in the borders. CA is also a problem. The Canon is sharper than the tamron in most aspects which is evident in the MTF charts. Furthermore the Tam's focusing way too slow.

More technical info can be found:


http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_24135_3556/index.htm


http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2485_3545/index.htm


I disagree. The Tamron 24-135 surpasses it greatly.

Keep the kit lens and add on a 24-135. Good hols combo.
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#17
i would get the tamron 28-75 over the canon. now that, confirm, is better quality that the canon.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#18
Have you owned and used these 2 lenses yourself before? I still own the 24-85 and have loaned the Tam 24-135 and have compared them (Had considered to buy the Tam initially but loaned first to compare)

The Tamron is sharp in the centre but very weak in the borders. CA is also a problem. The Canon is sharper than the tamron in most aspects which is evident in the MTF charts. Furthermore the Tam's focusing way too slow.

More technical info can be found:


http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_24135_3556/index.htm


http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2485_3545/index.htm
Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I found that the 24-85 needs to be stopped down to f8 to get any decent results. The tamron just needs to be stopped down 1 stop. The colour of the Tamron is richer, as is the contrast. If the Tamron is very weak in the borders(I assume you're using a cropped sensor), then in that case on a FF camera it would suck terribly.

I used it on slides with no issues at all. Great resolution despite the range.

As for the AF, I've even used it for sports and other fast-moving events. Not an issue. Even with the current AF-D powered lens I use now for sports and other events, the AF never prevents me from getting a shot. It's practically instantaneous. If you're blaming AF it's likely a user problem. Sports pictures were made way before AF was invented.

As for CA, you just need to know how to avoid it. Point to note though, the 24-85 doesn't do too much better. Difference is marginal at best.
 

Aug 9, 2006
267
0
0
#20
You must have a lemon 24-85. I have owned altogether 3 copies of EF24-85 in the past (one of them was lemon, still own 1 copy now). It doesnt need to be stopped down to get decent results. Done comparisions (with 28-105, 28-135IS, Tam 28-75, Tam24-135) some time ago.

The MTF charts of both lenses already clearly shows the 24-85's advantage over the Tamron. The Tamron AF is also way too slow COMPARED to the EF24-85. If the Tamron's AF is considered "instantaneous", then the EF24-85 must be supersonic already. Both lenses are not exactly CA performers but is worse on the Tamron and doesnt reduce even when stopped down though


Jdredd,

Firstly the Tamron 28-75 is already over his budget at less than $400 so recommendation and discussion is really unecessary. BTW, I have owned the Tamron 28-75 too. A very sharp lens even wide open but the colors are not that nice in my opinion. AF is slow too. A good budget lens for those who need f2.8. (Sold my used copy for $520)




To all forumers:

Please do not mislead the TS if your findings and recommendation are not based on self experience or if you have not owned the said lenses before. I have owned most of the popular lenses and have pictures of my lenses to verified my ownership and thus the credibility of my opinions. I found many fourmers just shoot off recommendations and condemnation of products they have NEVER even owned before (which I find very strange).








Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I found that the 24-85 needs to be stopped down to f8 to get any decent results. The tamron just needs to be stopped down 1 stop. The colour of the Tamron is richer, as is the contrast. If the Tamron is very weak in the borders(I assume you're using a cropped sensor), then in that case on a FF camera it would suck terribly.

I used it on slides with no issues at all. Great resolution despite the range.

As for the AF, I've even used it for sports and other fast-moving events. Not an issue. Even with the current AF-D powered lens I use now for sports and other events, the AF never prevents me from getting a shot. It's practically instantaneous. If you're blaming AF it's likely a user problem. Sports pictures were made way before AF was invented.

As for CA, you just need to know how to avoid it. Point to note though, the 24-85 doesn't do too much better. Difference is marginal at best.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom