Discussion
Hi all
decided to buy a second lens for my 400D. Only really take shots of either cars out and about or playing with the kids etc. What i'm looking for is one with more zoom so when I'm 100yds away i can get a car to fill a frame rather than just be a small part of it. should also mean i can stop chasing my kids to be close enough to get them to fill the frame.
camera came with 18-55mm and I've found that range great 7/10 times so i'm thinking i don't want to change too far from this. also worried if i move the bottom of the range up for more zoom i'll lose more flexibility than i gain. Does IS make a difference I should worry about?
as examples
Canon EF 28-105mm
CANON EF-S 17-85mm IS
Or radical option for my brain; should i forget lens and learn how to use photoshop, understand could probably zoom and crop images to deal with this anyway?
Any ideas great
decided to buy a second lens for my 400D. Only really take shots of either cars out and about or playing with the kids etc. What i'm looking for is one with more zoom so when I'm 100yds away i can get a car to fill a frame rather than just be a small part of it. should also mean i can stop chasing my kids to be close enough to get them to fill the frame.
camera came with 18-55mm and I've found that range great 7/10 times so i'm thinking i don't want to change too far from this. also worried if i move the bottom of the range up for more zoom i'll lose more flexibility than i gain. Does IS make a difference I should worry about?
as examples
Canon EF 28-105mm
CANON EF-S 17-85mm IS
Or radical option for my brain; should i forget lens and learn how to use photoshop, understand could probably zoom and crop images to deal with this anyway?
Any ideas great
Wider than 18mm on a crop will be expensive. The 17-85 is not bad but exhibits distortion at both ends of the scale. 10-20/22 options are quite specialised (expensive with limited range). Above 50mm You have lots of options for zooms without needing to spend silly money. A good basic rule is you get what you pay for and another is theat the greater the range the more you are compromising.
IS can be an advantage but it depends on how you use it and what you are shooting. About say 1/350 it will do very little for you. The cheaper models can destinguish between shake and panning movement and try to fight the panning which makes the shot worst. It works best in lower light conditions with static subjects.
IS can be an advantage but it depends on how you use it and what you are shooting. About say 1/350 it will do very little for you. The cheaper models can destinguish between shake and panning movement and try to fight the panning which makes the shot worst. It works best in lower light conditions with static subjects.
daddyov8 said:
Only really take shots of either cars out and about or playing with the kids etc. What i'm looking for is one with more zoom so when I'm 100yds away i can get a car to fill a frame rather than just be a small part of it. should also mean i can stop chasing my kids to be close enough to get them to fill the frame.
You could add something like a 55-250 though for the car requirement (and the kids probably) a 70-300 would make sense. A 70-300 would leave you with a gap between the 55 and the 70 ranges - but I doubt that would be a big concern based on what you have described as you requirements. It's the longer end that offers the greatest benefit. The 400D's resolution is not unlimited when approached with an editor program.Edited by LongQ on Saturday 3rd July 11:50
daddyov8 said:
cheers, is there any difference in quality to canon lenses and other makes I should worry about?
It depends on what would worry you and where in the lens range markets (whether camera manufacturer or independent lens manufacturer) your budget takes you.Engineering quality or optical quality worries?
Everyone (practically) makes lenses that fit into a target budget area for that size of lens. The more you pay, usually, the more you get though sometimes the inependent lens manufacturers can come out with a great product at a lower price for certain optical ranges.
In Canon terms they offer different versions of some popular lens products to cover the regualr consumer end through to the the Professional "L" spec lenses which offer, typically, both optical benefits and engineering benefits such as improved materials, engineering quality and weatherproofing. Whether any or all of these benefits are important enough to you and you picture taking to justify the price differential only you can decide, of course.
Generally one can make similar observations about the independent lens manufacturers as well.
That having been said there can be some surprises from time to time where, optically at least, a cheaper lens seems to perform well beyond what might be expected or an expensive lens perhaps disappoints, relative to its cost.
There are so many factors here - not the least being what results you are expecting and how much you are prepared to spend - that your sensibly open ended questions may need to be refined with additional detail for replies to be useful to you. But the general answer is probably NO - you don't need to be too concerned per se about the difference between a camera manufacturer's lens and equivalents made by independent lens manufacturers. HOWEVER once you get into the detail for a specific lens or set of lens options there may well be more obvious differences in the subset of possible choices that would guide your selection.
I should perhaps qualify even that a little and say that I am thinking of recognised lens manufacturers here. There are a number of 'other' names that crop up from time to time, especially on eBay where there are US or Chinese connections, that are less well known in the UK and perhaps offer product that might not be all that it could be.
rottie102 said:
Get yourself a sigma 18-200 IS. Can be found SH on ebay for £200. That will cover all your needs and the IQ is good enough for amateur snapping.
I'm thinking of getting this lense too, can be had for £280 new. Currently got a Sigma 70-300mm on a Canon 400D, along with the kit lense. Would be nice to have something like the 18-200mm to keep on the camera for everyday use.Edited by rottie102 on Saturday 3rd July 20:00
I was in a similar situation a few months ago and ended up with the Canon 28-135 IS USM. I find hand holding at more than 180mm or so makes it very difficult to get a reasonable shot so I wanted IS, not much more than 160mm and much better quality than my 17-55.
The 28-135 was £200 all in from MBP, very nice to use and on a 450d gives a good zoom range. Image quality is also much better than the stock 18-55 IS.
The 28-135 was £200 all in from MBP, very nice to use and on a 450d gives a good zoom range. Image quality is also much better than the stock 18-55 IS.
thesyn said:
I have a 400d with a 24-105 and a 70-300.
I find that I use the 70-300 most.
I am debating getting a 10-22.
Lenses do not seem to lose much value as long as they are looked after so buy what you think you will need and if not you will be able to recoup most of your cash.
I got a Tokina 11-16. Great lens and definitely recommended. Gets very good reviews. Although it's not 22 at the top end, I easily get over that problem by stepping closer to the subject I find that I use the 70-300 most.
I am debating getting a 10-22.
Lenses do not seem to lose much value as long as they are looked after so buy what you think you will need and if not you will be able to recoup most of your cash.
To be honest, all the 10-20s get good reviews, not a minger in them. But what turned me to the Tokina was the f2.8. I like fast a lens generally.
What stands out on the Tokina though is the build quality. Far better than the standard Canon stuff. The zoom twist is just about perfect and makes the some of the Canon gear feel like a badly lubricated ratchet.
You don't say whether the 18-55 lens you have is the later IS version or not. If you have the earlier non-IS version then upgrading to the IS version is a worthwhile upgrade - it's optically better, much sharper and better colours.
I have the Sigma 17-70 on my 400d and I've had a bit of a love/hate relationship with it. Nice range and f2.8 at the wide end is great and I've certainly taken some good pictures with it, but I find my camera doesn't meter particularly well with it - about half my shots being underexposed - a bit of +ve exposure comp helps but I'm not entirely confident in it. I swap back and forth between the 18-55 IS and can't make up my mind what I prefer.
Had a cheap Tamron 70-300 which I was never happy with - replaced it with the Canon EF 70-300 IS which I'm delighted with. I read that the EF-S 55-250 IS is optically just as good for half the price albeit at the expense of cheaper build quality.
I have the Sigma 17-70 on my 400d and I've had a bit of a love/hate relationship with it. Nice range and f2.8 at the wide end is great and I've certainly taken some good pictures with it, but I find my camera doesn't meter particularly well with it - about half my shots being underexposed - a bit of +ve exposure comp helps but I'm not entirely confident in it. I swap back and forth between the 18-55 IS and can't make up my mind what I prefer.
Had a cheap Tamron 70-300 which I was never happy with - replaced it with the Canon EF 70-300 IS which I'm delighted with. I read that the EF-S 55-250 IS is optically just as good for half the price albeit at the expense of cheaper build quality.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff