As many of you know, I recently got myself the Canon 30d along with the 18-55 kit lens and the Tamron 70-300.
As you may have guessed I am already wanting to upgrade my kit lens. I want something that will work as a general purpose lens and was leaning heavily toward the Canon IS series lens. I had a couple in mind, but I thought I would just get some opinions in case there is something else out there I should consider.
I am looking to spend $300-$700 right now,,,or should I wait and spend more money on a lens later on, that will be worth the upgrade.
Unlike a lot of people I feel it's not all that critical. It's more about composition and light. The 18-55 can take some excellent photos.
I'm currently using a Sigma 17-70mm lens for my general purpose walkaround lens and I think it's great. If I was buying again and I had your price range I'd probably just get a Canon 17-40L for around $500.00 used.
I am sorta in the same boat. I just bought a rebel XTI, and bought a lot of extra's for it allready ( vertical grip, flash, filters etc,) But the thing I want is to get some really good lenses for it. I don't know If I should just wait and learn to use the camera better or what. I remember reading that you bought the XTI and then returned it for the 30D. Do you see much diference between the two cameras. I like the XTI, but I see what you were saying about the small body size, and large hands. I have the vertical grip orderedfor it and I hope the extra mass will help. I love that there are so many people into photography on here.
Yeah besides the feel I did notice that pictures I take with a higher ISO seem less grainy, also the spot metering has been fun learning with.
Lens wise I am struggling with the same thing. Glen recommended a couple lenses and I am leaning toward this one: Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
I like the idea of having The IS feature,,,especially being a newb.
Love to see some pics Chef
one thing i'd like to state again is that when lens shopping you REALLY need to consider intended use. The perfect lens is useless if it can't get the shot.
also since some of you have zooms play around with them in a fixed prime position. ie. tape them at 35mm and walkaround and learn to do more than zoom in/out.
yes there are photos that you cannot capture with the cheaper kit zooms, but for the most part our cameras are limited by the us, not the lenses (especially in the first year or so owning a dSLR).
i'd be thinking first about focus point selection, ISO, aperature, development in Lightroom of the RAW files... glen
Actually, I've been toying about with the idea of getting another lens also. I've been wanting something wider than my 24-105 L IS, was looking at the 16-25L, but, that 8mm difference, isn't alot when you actually look through the lens.
17-40L is a smarter buy (and as sharp as the 16-35L) and i told the Distant to look at that, but he wants an "all in one superzoom" which the 17-55 and 17-40 are not... glen
I'm not opposed to that lens, just seemed like the 28-135 was a better value. I am happy with 18-55 as a walkaround, just wondered if it was worth getting the IS feature or a lens capable of sharper images.
Maybe I will just stick with what I have and work on the stuff you mentioned.
ie: focus point selection, ISO, aperature, development in Lightroom
with the 5D f/2.8 vs f/4 is irrelevant in respect to low light. neither is a fast prime and the 5D can do 3200 nicely. plus the 17-40 has more reach is lighter and almost a steal for the $... glen
I do remember actually you saying that you like your f2.8 lenses and that the f4 was way too slow for you. I don't know maybe you discovered that it's a small difference in speed terms. But in low light, it's a few stops, so could make all the difference in some of the circumstances I'm faced with, along with experimenting with the greater AF accuracy that is enabled with a f2.8 lens.
Oh yeah I know 16-35 isn't walk about. I want it for specific purposes. But even the difference between that and 17-40, well, 1mm at the bottom and 5 at the top. Many may be hard pressed to notice the difference.
As Glen said, the perfect lens will be useless if you are not using it or it doesn't work with your shots. i wound up selling a few lenses after realizing this. for my main lens i'm using a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Razor sharp and sees pretty well in very low light. i use this lens on my 40D while keeping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS on my 30D for when i need to get up close. i have a couple prime lenses, but the main one i use is a 30mm f1.4 by sigma, which i may be selling just to get a prime Canon lens. nice shots by the way.
Rotti, I just spent a couple hours looking on the site you posted with pics of the sigma 17-70 lens. There are some great pics on there, yours are just as good as the best ones on there. very nice shots. The seagull is one of my favs of yours. I was very happy to see there were a few people with the rebel XTI on there, I was a little afraid it wouldn't hold up against some of the more pro cameras, but there are some great pics there. I think the sigma will be my next purchace. chef21
Thanks Chef21
I wouldn't worry about the xti. It's an excellent camera and if I didn't have aspirations of doing some pro work in the future it would probably be my next camera purchase.
Yeah the Sigma is just a fun lens. The macro ability is cool. You can take a photo of an object when it is almost touching the lens. Thats how close you can get. Plus the extra reach out to 70mm makes it versatile. It's very sharp too.
Check out this photoshoot. It was done with the 17-70mm.
XTi has essentially the 40D sensor with Digic-II... very good. The knocks it gets is crippled features & controls but mostly the size... very small on the hands to most.
You guys need to remember for many types shots the lenses will NOT be a limiting factor. Nor would be the body. With some peoples style of shooting lenses are irrelevant. Outdoor with good light will not be a problem with any lens unless you really want to kick it up a notch.
Also if you want FTM (full time manual focus ability) teh sigmas and some canons (ie kit lens) do not allow that. to most the wouldn't realize the limitation anyways... glen
No way, you start out with a great photo and improve it. This is the kind of stuff that inspires me. I wouldn't bother with photography at all if there wasn't stuff like this to aspire to. Anyway I bet there is less "photoshoping" in his photos than you think.
I could email him and ask.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ibanez JEM Forum
1.3M posts
69.6K members
Since 2000
A forum community dedicated to Ibanez JEM guitar owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!