 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Which lens to replace kit lens (350D)? please help
I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. Thanks >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. > > Thanks Any lens is better... What do you have today? Pepe > >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pepe Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM. >> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit >> >lens. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM. You will get more for the money with this one. And faster shutter with low light. Quality are about the same. <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=2 83384&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation> There will be left over for a good filter. Pepe >>> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit >>> >lens. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pepe Are you actually saying the quality of the 28-135 IS is similar to that of the 18-55 kit lens??? Or are you guessing that he means the 17-85 IS kit lens? If it's the former, then that's way off base, I have both, and, while the 18-55 is acceptable for snapshots, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28-135 for image quality.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit >>>> >lens. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > while the 18-55 is acceptable for snapshots, it doesn't hold a candle to > the 28-135 for image quality. I think he will get most for the money. And there will be money left ower for a tripod also. IS is not worth the money. It will just give hope for better pictures. I don´t think you go for that cheap lenses with your business anyway. If he had a bigger money i could suggest better things. Pepe >>>>> Any lens is better... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Pepe I'm sorry, I misread your post, and the link wouldn't open when I tried it the first time. Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops, f3.5 is only 1 stop slower, as is f5.6 at the long end. For $50, I'd go with the Canon. As far as "any lens is better," there are a couple of Canon lenses that aren't as good, like the 28-90 f4.5-5.6, not to mention several aftermarket lenses, like Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar and some of the bottom feeding Sigmas...but overall, you are right. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who > used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but > it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops, ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2 might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass. SignatureStacey Skip M wrote: > Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who > used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but > it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops, ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2 might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass. SignatureStacey Tell them Stacey. IS is for whose who can't hold they camera's steady. fast lens are for whose who know's how to. Vince.... > Skip M wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If I had a choice between IS and a faster lens at the same price, I'd > always go for the faster glass. That is one of the most sanctimonious answers I've seen on this forum, and, trust me, it's known for that. IS is for situations where traditional methods of holding "they camera's" steady are ineffective or unavailable. If you've ever shot a night from a bridge, or other unstable surfaces, or tried to line a shot up in the field where terrain is too uneven for a tripod, and there's nothing to brace yourself against, you'd know what I'm talking about. With more than 40 years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > With more than 40 > years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to. I'd think with that much experience you'd understand color management as well... SignatureStacey >> With more than 40 >> years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to. > > I'd think with that much experience you'd understand color management as > well... 40 years in photography, 3 years doing digital. Don't have much experience, but it hasn't affected the overall pitch of things, much. And what does this have to do with 350D lenses? Thread drift? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2 >might be. The way I look at it is that IS gives about 1-stop for tack-sharpness; 2 for acceptable sharpness, and 3-4 for "a little blurry instead of very blurry". IS counteracts lower spatial frequencies, mostly. So, if you're printing small, or downsizing for the web, IS helps more than if you were to try to make a sharp poster. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who >> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a > faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass. Ah, but what if you could get both, like the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM? Faster is good, that is why I have the 24-70 f2.8, but I also use the 28-135 IS. Sometimes you need the depth of field at low light with a stationary subject. And, Stacey, please avoid making statements on subjects about which you have little or no knowledge. Canon advertises a two stop advantage for the 28-135, and I have regularly gotten three stops, and sometimes more, with mine. As low as 1/4 sec at 50mm. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who >> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a >faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass. There are benefits to going that way, but there are also drawbacks; when using telephoto lenses, and you want significant DOF, wider apertures can't replace IS. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. I replaced my kit lens with this lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 49629&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation It has become my every day lens and I've very happy with it. If you can manage more than $400 then I'd look at some L series glass from Canon. -- Rob >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. EF 28-135 or EFS 17-85 are both worth looking at. What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens and never used the IS feature to shoot photos not once. I only did when I got the lens to be sure it works. I feel great to know I can just hold my camera with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS OFF. The images from the 17-85mm lens is GREAT GREAT GREAT... Vince.... >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. EF 28-135 or EFS 17-85 are both worth looking at. > What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the > camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS > OFF. Good for you, Vince. I am 64 and a bit shaky and like coffee and like IS. >> What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the >> camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Good for you, Vince. I am 64 and a bit shaky and like coffee and like IS. I'm not 64 and can hold the camera steady and I still prefer my IS lenses especially in low light situations. Oh and I like coffee too. ;) -- Rob > >> What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the > >> camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Oh and I like coffee too. ;) I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-) As it was said, if the subject is not moving, IS can save a shot in low light. On the longer lenses, it is a wise investment. Jean >I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-) ANyone know how guarana compares to coffee, in terms of the jitter-to-pep ratio? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-) > > ANyone know how guarana compares to coffee, in terms of the > jitter-to-pep ratio? That stuff is packed with caffeine. It's pretty popular with nerds. See: Bawls. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird The list is long, starting with the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, which is about $220 at B&H, through the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 if you need a little more width, though the lens may not be quite as good as the 28-105, it is nice. Then there's the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, at $410, which I have, and love, the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS, which is good, and gives more width at the expense of reach, and runs right out of your budget, at about $600. Tamron makes a nice 28-75 f2.8 that's in that same under $400 ballpark, gives you more depth of field flexibility. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. > > Thanks > I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. > > Thanks I have a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 lens for Canon + 2 Filters on aution in ebay. Send me an email and I will send you the link. Or you can look up croatoan6. It's a very good lens. Signaturehttp://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/ > I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. I picked up a Sigma 18-200mm in June and have found it to be a wonderful lens for the money. It stays on my camera 90% of the time. It turns my 300D into an 11X super zoom. The convenience of the range is very addictive. It also takes very decent pictures, especially in good light. It is not a lens to buy and expect "L" glass quality but other than the Tamron 18-200 there isn't a lens in Canon's lineup that can cover as many situations as this lens. Even if I had a bag full of L lenses I still would have plenty of opportunities to use the Sigma 18-200mm. IMO, it is currently the ultimate budget walk-around lens. It has great range, very good build quality, is very light weight and it has very good optics considering its range and price. If Sigma would have made it 2.8-5.6 aperture it would be an absolute killer lens. Personally, I don't recommend the Canon 28-135 IS. I have one and have found its performance to be mediocre. The IS has not proved to be that much of a benefit and it suffers from terrible CA. If you are shooting a moving subject the IS is next to worthless. It has taught me that I would much prefer a faster lens over IS for anything less than 150-200mm. I can see it being very useful on long range telephoto lenses though. > I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. > > Thanks Wait a minute, are you saying that you can change lenses on a D-SLR, and that you don't have to use the kit lens exclusively forever? You might want to tell this to Stacey and Tony! Seriously though, look at the 28-135 IS. It's $410 for the U.S. version, $395 for the import version. See: "http://tinylink.com/?C42zDydwcl" Free shipping too. >> I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that you don't have to use the kit lens exclusively forever? You might > want to tell this to Stacey and Tony! WOW and to think I still use my kit lens even though I have some more expencive glass! I got to spend my money on a wide lens and a tele rather that -replacing- a lens I already paid for. Imagine that the camera actually comes with a lens you'd want to continue to use? SignatureStacey Why not just buy the "body" only and buy whatever lens you want? Or sell the kit lens on ebay? Lots of choices. Paul >>>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that -replacing- a lens I already paid for. Imagine that the camera > actually comes with a lens you'd want to continue to use? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.