Lenses to get..


Status
Not open for further replies.

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#1
Hey guys, I'm currently using Kits Lens on my 400D for street photography and slight landscape, and a sigma 70-300mm macro for telephoto and flower shots..

Looking to get a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM to replace my Kit lens for my street photography and slight landscape, is it advisable? or i should just stick to my kit lens?

Also comparing using my sigma for flowers to a tamron 90mm macro for flowers, the tamron will be able to blur out the background better due to it's nearer focus and larger aperture, am i right to say that? Will a closeup filter improve the situation for my sigma?


Thanks..
 

tunghk

New Member
Nov 12, 2004
179
0
0
Upp Bukit Timah
#3
although not a canon user. suggest you keep your kit lens and save for a L lens... You will get an immediate jump in terms of quality in every aspect (colour, contrast and sharpness).

My 2 cents
 

Nov 19, 2006
78
0
6
#4
I would say the 28-105mm is a good upgrade. it's very good value for money. If you need proof, pm me. I'll drop you some links to show you how good this lens is. :)
 

mysum

New Member
Apr 18, 2006
116
0
0
#5
Instead of replacing, I suggest you make an addition instead.

It'll be a all-rounded line-up this way:

18-55: Wide
28-105: Intermediate
70-300: Telephoto

Hope this helps.
 

photougenics

Senior Member
Dec 19, 2006
840
0
16
East Coast
#6
The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC MACRO is a good lens to consider, if u r willing to spend a bit more. Wide enough and good macro capabilities. Resolution is good.

Yr 70-300mm will cover the rest of the range.

Just my views.

Cheers!
 

midicity

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2006
695
0
16
#7
Although the 18-55 kit lens can give decent pictures in the right hands, if you want to take decent portraits etc, can consider getting the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the New Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro.

Both are very sharp lenses and have very good image quality.

If you have more money, can consider the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

F2.8 is very useful. Together with IS, you will be able to have more keeper shots.

If you are serious about macro, you should save money and go for a true macro lens. The Tamron 90mm Macro is quite recommended
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#8
although not a canon user. suggest you keep your kit lens and save for a L lens... You will get an immediate jump in terms of quality in every aspect (colour, contrast and sharpness).

My 2 cents
Hmm L lens would be way off my budget..

Although the 18-55 kit lens can give decent pictures in the right hands, if you want to take decent portraits etc, can consider getting the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the New Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro.

Both are very sharp lenses and have very good image quality.

If you have more money, can consider the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

F2.8 is very useful. Together with IS, you will be able to have more keeper shots.

If you are serious about macro, you should save money and go for a true macro lens. The Tamron 90mm Macro is quite recommended
hmm I mainly needed a lens to cover the 55-70mm range which i do not have, when walking around..


Thanks for all the suggestions, I would love to get a tamron90mm for my flowers shot but it's currently not in my budget and the macro at 200-300mm from my sigma seems quite fine to me at the moment.. The sigma 17-70mm seems like a good choice, but it's kinda out of my budget too..

Currently I have a budget of around $250 + the sales $$ from my kit lens..
Might consider keeping the kit lens like what mysum mentioned to cover wide angles..

Any idea how much will the sigma 17-70mm be selling in the 2nd hand market?
Besides the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM, how about Canon EF 35-135mm 1:4-5.6 USM, any comments on this lens over the 28-105?
and also whats the difference between a MK I and MK II for the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Thanks..
 

photougenics

Senior Member
Dec 19, 2006
840
0
16
East Coast
#9
Any idea how much will the sigma 17-70mm be selling in the 2nd hand market?
Saw one or two selling about $450-$500 with few mths warrenty left. But don seem to see anyone selling this lens in the BnS section these days.
 

noobie

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
313
0
0
#10
Saw one or two selling about $450-$500 with few mths warrenty left. But don seem to see anyone selling this lens in the BnS section these days.
In addition, I was looking for this lens one month ago. Can't find in BnS, so decided to buy new. Ask for quotes and only 2 stores have got stocks (Canon mount mostly no stock) and not many left. I then wondered is this lens really that hot. :)
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#11
Why don't you consider getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 instead? It'll cover your gaps, gives you a constant f/2.8 and the picture quality is excellent. Keep you kit lens for those wide angle shots.
 

gryphon

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2003
1,757
0
0
39
Dry cabinet!
Visit site
#14
Tamron 28-75 is excellent :thumbsup:
2nd hand is about $400-$500.

With your budget of $250, I will say the 28-105 is a good choice.

My advise is to go for a 2nd hand lens, you will be able to afford better lens and in future if you wanna upgrade, you don't lugi as much
 

Nov 23, 2004
92
0
0
singapore, east
#15
Maybe u can consider the 28-135mm IS USM as well? For me, its a relatively gd walkabt lens.
I use my 400D w this lens on it almost 95% of the time, not so ideal for landscape shots tho, but thats when i'll still use the kit lens. ;)
 

Nov 23, 2004
92
0
0
singapore, east
#16
Oppss..just realise that you hv a budget of $250.
Hmm...in that case the tamron or the canon 28-105 might do the trick for u.;)
 

midicity

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2006
695
0
16
#17
Why not just continue to use the kit lens and save up for a better lens? I think crops of pics taken with the kit lens won't do too badly
 

Nov 4, 2006
555
1
18
#18
I wouldn't recommand the sigma 70-300. It's not sharp (maybe I got a non sharp copy XD..) and the focusing is really slow. I highly recommand the 17-50 f/2.8 tamron. Working nicely for me. And the f/2.8 is great esp in low light situations and when shallow DOF is needed. This is something your nice old kit lens can't do. If you have money. Get L lens maybe. Or a 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma is cool too. However I still find the nikon's 18-200 best for a walkabout lens/holiday lens. Get a converter if you want. :cool: Have fun shooting.
 

uzume002

New Member
Jul 23, 2006
455
0
0
Jurong WesT
#19
Hey guys, I'm currently using Kits Lens on my 400D for street photography and slight landscape, and a sigma 70-300mm macro for telephoto and flower shots..

Looking to get a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM to replace my Kit lens for my street photography and slight landscape, is it advisable? or i should just stick to my kit lens?

Also comparing using my sigma for flowers to a tamron 90mm macro for flowers, the tamron will be able to blur out the background better due to it's nearer focus and larger aperture, am i right to say that? Will a closeup filter improve the situation for my sigma?


Thanks..

i using 400D too... i also have the kit lens and the 28-105mm , for me i feel that this 28-105 is not wide enough or long enough , 70% of my shot are taken from 18mm to 24mm, i take a lot of cityscape and macro(macro lens) .. only about 3% of my shot taken using this lens.. my suggestion is to stick to this lens or upgarde to a better one .. example tarmon 17-50 or 17-40L ...

18-55 is good enough for street shot for 1.6 crop..
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom