[1967cutlass]

I didn't have something specific in mind, I just want a sharper picture than the kit lens provides. 17 or 18 to whatever... 50 and up? works for me. The 1.8 was impressive, I guess if I could have that but slightly better color and a more versatile range I'd be set. Even the cheap sigma telephoto I had destroyed the stock lens, so I figure there's gotta be something out there for cheap...

Here is the cheap sigma, anything in this range of sharpness is fine.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yea, I've noticed having to switch to MF on my 50/1.8 sometimes, it seems to like hunting. Is the AF on the 1.4 that much better?

If you get a good 1.8 then you're set. It's made out of plastic and the build tolerances are so-so. Here's a good review on the 1.2 as well as some comparisons to others in the same range.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens Review

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You need more than $200 to get a better lens. $200 is close to kit lens price already. That Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is nice but it's closer to $400. I would recommend saving more money. Do you know what range you'd be interested in?

Ian's right. Save your money, do some research and spend more money to get a good lens. Good lenses are where it's at.

Another good one...

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review

 

[1967cutlass]

I'm not spending 900 on a lens right now. $400 is pushing it. Do any of you actually have experience with the tamron 18-200? It's a bit slow but being as I can get one for $170 I would also buy a 1.8/50 for low light. Good budget combo?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not spending 900 on a lens right now. $400 is pushing it. Do any of you actually have experience with the tamron 18-200? It's a bit slow but being as I can get one for $170 I would also buy a 1.8/50 for low light. Good budget combo?

If you want better results it will cost you either (1) money or (2) versitility!
If you are limiting yourself to 200$, you can't have the best of both worlds.
Pick which is most important to you, and that will determine what lens to buy.

 

[1967cutlass]

No offense but you guys have been less than helpful. I've heard the "you need to spend n (your budget) x2 for a better [insert electronic/car/cycling item here] or it's not worth it" line on every fourm on the internet. Well this is reality, and despite me being a fairly experienced amateur photographer, I have far more important things to spend money on. The kit lens is awful and nobody seems to have any suggestions, much less personal experience with the better cheap lenses out there.

Also the thing about the 1.8 not focusing is BS unless yours is defective.

That being said, after some research, I just bought the tamron 18-200mm for $140 (new, non refurb). I'm sure it will be a significant improvement over the kit lens, and I'll post more about it once it arrives. The negative reviews usually involve the lens being compared to L glass (funny).

 

[raymondlin]

I am not sure the Tamron 18-200 is a great improvement over the kit lens, the Tamron 17-50 is however, in every respect. Sharper and faster. the 18-200 is not a constant 2.8 and at its longest end it's slow.

 

[raptor84]

Quote:

Originally Posted by onform /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ive been debating wether to buy a 50D too! My other choice would be the D300 a bit controversial i know...lol It would be great if you could post some pics to look at the Q. Where on earth do you rent a brand new camera for the wknd?????

Over here in SG there are quite a few rental services. The one I rent form bought the 50D and d90's on launch and I had a small shoot at the shelter so I couldnt resist

AS for samples here are some.. at ISO 3200 taken with the monochrome pic style , contrast +3 sharpness 4 Low NR, 85/1.8@2.8

100% crop

You can download to view it with the full exif in DPP or photoshop.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also the thing about the 1.8 not focusing is BS unless yours is defective.

I've seen quite a few people who've not had stellar experience with the 1.8. I suggest with your limited research you do some reading on the Canon website. There's tons of people that have good 1.8s just like there tons who have bad. What do you expect for a lens that cost $50?

Once you get into L lens territory you see a significant jump.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard the "you need to spend n (your budget) x2 for a better [insert electronic/car/cycling item here] or it's not worth it" line on every fourm on the internet.

Most people upgrade for either more performance or more convenience. That usually means f/2.8 zooms, primes, or more range like the 18-200 but usually with IS/VR. In all of these cases they are usually $300-600 with the exception of the 50 1.8.

The IS/VR 18-200ish lenses are usually better than their non stabilized versions since most of them are newer. The non stabilized Tamron 18-250 in reviews looks better than the older 18-200. But once again it's about $500.

The range might not be perfect for crop cameras but I think the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great lens. You can find them under $280 used. You get good sharpness, nice colors, and f/2.8.

 

[onform]

Does anyone know if there is a cannon, or third party of similar Q, L glass with IS lens that will give me an equivilant of the 70-200 2.8L IS with a crop sensor??

Does that make sense??

 

[lan]

Nobody makes IS in pro glass besides Canon. In terms of non-IS and being crop only, there is Sigma 50-150 2.8 and Tokina 50-135 2.8.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

So I'm usually not one to ask for advice when it comes to my camera gear but I've debated and debated with myself and I just can't figure out what I want.

The facts:
1. I'm a poor college student, so I like to get the most bang for my buck. I have about an $800 budget at this point.
2. On the flip side, whatever I buy I intend to use for a long time, so I don't really want to buy some lens that will just get my by for now. I like to make the right decision the first time if at all possible.
3. As of now I have a Canon 30D, 100mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, and 28-105 3.5-4.5, all Canon gear.
4. In May of '09 I will be upgrading to the 5D mk II.
5. I do a lot of landscape and portrait photography
6. I have a "strobist" like set up and may start doing some sessions (seniors, engagement pictures, etc) for some money on the side.

The Questions:
1. One one hand I'd really like a wide angle lens like the Tokina 12-24. But at the same time for portrait work a longer lens like the Canon 70-200 f4 does a very admirable job. Getting both these lenses would be around $900, which is a little outside the budget at this point.
2. Regardless of what lens I buy the 28-105 will be sold. It's a decent lens for beginners, but I've outgrown it. I only keep it now because I have such large gaps with my primes.
3. Another option is getting the Canon 24-105L which would make for an awesome walk around lens, but it's missing a bit from both the long and wide ends.
4. I considered the Canon 10-22, but I can't justify the price since it will be useless when I get the 5D and need to be sold. I've also considered the Canon 17-40L but it's not very wide and while the quality will be a bit better, the Tokina is probably the better buy for me at this point, right?

Anyway, debate at will and give me suggestions. Living in semi-rural MS I have no opportunity to try these lenses out, and renting doesn't work for me given the lack of funds. So your opinions/suggestions will be highly valued. Thanks guys

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've also considered the Canon 17-40L but it's not very wide

The 17-40L is a very wide lens, you just need to have the right camera.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 17-40L is a very wide lens, you just need to have the right camera.

Yes, I have no doubts about the wideness once I pick up the 5D but that purchase is another 7 months away. On the 30D it would be 27-64, which isn't quite as wide as I was looking for. It's still a fantastic lens, however..

Decisions...