Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> What lens to buy?

What lens to buy?

.proachsgirl
05/04/08 9:23 AM GMT
Hi!

I have the Canon EOS 400D and the kit lens is fine but the macro and zoom just isn't strong enough for me. I wanted to invest in a new lens that isn't too pricy but still had a very decent zoom, macro and wide angle function. I was looking at the Sigma 70-300mm for the Canon, is this lens a good performer for what I need? or is there anything more suitable? Thanks!
0∈ [?]
'Show me lonely and Show me openings To lead me closer to you..'

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
.MiLo_Anderson
05/05/08 4:28 AM GMT
If you are looking for a lens that has all three of those abilities you are going to have a tough time. I can't think of any that have a macro function, and are both telephoto and wide. You can get combinations of the two. I'm not sure what is all available on a canon mount, but i believe there is a sigma 18-200mm that would give you your zoom, and wide angle, but the macro wouldn't be ideal. There probably is a few other options that are similar to that as well.

The one you mentioned sounds more what you are looking for though. It gives you the telephoto you want, and the macro switch makes macro's possible. For wide stuff you will still have your kit lens. Maybe not as nice as having one lens that can cover your full range, but your macros are going to come out better. Also its not the fastest lens. At f4-5.6 you will be limited a bit when it comes to indoor stuff. But that is similar to how your kit lens is anyways. i would say the time you would notice that the most is when trying to take pictures of sports and other actions things inside. This is what made me consider a dedicated macro lens when i bought my second lens.

The other option would be to go for a dedicated macro lens in the 100mm range. (this is the route i went for my second lens when i was in a similar position). A dedicated lens is going to give you the best macros, but it isn't as flexible when it comes to everything else. 100mm is fairly "zoomed" in, but obviously not as good as 300mm. It is also fixed so you can't zoom in and out. Another difference is that the focus mechanism is designed for subjects very close to the lens. That means when taking pictures of things that are father away you are in the infinity focus range a lot sooner than with a normal telephoto lens. This makes isolating subjects with depth of field a bit tougher and what not. An advantage here is that most of these lenses are f2.8 so they are nicer inside.

From what you have said it sounds to me like the 70-300 route is probably the way i would suggest you go however. Let us know if you have any questions.
0∈ [?]
No one wanted to pay to say something in my sig, so i will have to try and think of something creative now...
=ppigeon
05/05/08 7:24 AM GMT
The first question is "what type of photography do you like?"
Landscapes? Family? Flowers? Cities? Formula 1? Birds? Portraits? ...
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
.proachsgirl
05/05/08 9:06 AM GMT
Thanks for that info..give me a lot to think about. I shoot mainly landscape shots, which is why I'd love a decent wide angle lens and zoom function, perhaps an additional lens for macro would be more suitable then finding a lens with all three.
0∈ [?]
'Show me lonely and Show me openings To lead me closer to you..'
=ppigeon
05/05/08 11:01 AM GMT
I take many landscapes. You definitely need at least a zoom beginning at 18 mm. The Sigma 18-200 OS is really nice. 'OS' means 'Optical Stabilization'. It gives the ability to shot at 1/15 sec.
The macro is really different and needs a specific lens.
I bought the Sigma 150 mm macro and I'm very happy with it.
One of our best photographers on the site is working with that lens (see Kodo34's gallery).
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
+regmar
05/07/08 2:55 PM GMT
When I outgrew my kit lenses in my Olympus E300 kit, I looked for the same thing. My goal was to save money while still getting the features I wanted. What I found was that in less-expensive (less than $300) lenses the lens quality drops off. I went ahead and bought just the long zoom lens. The higher quality glass really changed the way I look at photography. Before that I'd always wondered how other artists managed to get such beautiful backgrounds for their images. Suddenly my images were coming out with the same backgrounds. The textures in my subjects all seemed more visually interesting.

The reason I say all this is that I'm very glad that I decided to sacrifice macros for the ability to get high-quality optics at long ranges. It allowed me to learn about long-range photography with a lens that rewarded me for doing so. Meanwhile I made do with the kit lens for macros. Later after I'd saved up again I bought that macro lens with ED glass, and got to do the same with macros.

Although I understand the limitations of budget, I eschewed the Sigma lenses, because they didn't have the low f-stops when zoomed in at 150mm and beyond. It's heartbreaking when shooting photos of wildlife to realize that you have an animal right there, but you can't get it, because you bought a lens that doesn't let in enough light, and the beast won't hold still for 1/10 second. A lens that won't go down far enough will also produce less-crisp photos of landscapes too, because the f-stop limitation will cause you to have to leave the shutter open longer resulting in minor movements in tree branches, grass, etc., and this will prevent you from getting really sharp photos.

I recommend buying dedicated lenses that are very good at a limited number of things. I have never regretted it.
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж
.MiLo_Anderson
05/08/08 4:11 AM GMT
For you to go the dedicated macro route, macro's really need to be your main priority. It sounds to me that you would be better off with a telephoto. These other two have some pretty sound advice.
0∈ [?]
No one wanted to pay to say something in my sig, so i will have to try and think of something creative now...
::Skynet5
05/19/08 1:34 AM GMT
Our good friend eggray uses the Vanpn 70-200 f/4.0 L lens. It is the cheapest L Canon you will get but his bird photos speak for its quality. The-digital-picture.com has a wealth of knowledgable reviews on almost all Canon and third party glass. I recommend that site to see the merits of anything you are looking for. They also link to a photo supply site with very good prices.
0∈ [?]
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
::egggray
05/19/08 1:51 AM GMT
It is a Canon 70mm-200mm f/4 "L" series lens. I don't what a Vanpn means.
0∈ [?]
Please visit my website if you wish to purchase prints of my photos...www.redbubble.com/people/ziggy7
::Skynet5
05/19/08 5:01 AM GMT
I misspelled canon, that's all
0∈ [?]
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
::100k_xle
05/23/08 1:43 AM GMT
If you haven't purchased yet then check out the New Tamron 28-300 VC. I just bought one for my Nikon D300. It has it ALL. Wide Angle, Zoom, Macro, Vibration Compenstion. They also have the Canon Mount. 6 year warranty. Check out some reviews and Compare. Got mine for $550.
Good Luck on choosing a New lense.

E J
0∈ [?]
=ppigeon
05/23/08 7:54 AM GMT
28-300 ?!?
But with the size of D300's sensor, it gives a 42-450 mm in the 35 mm format. Not really a wide angle IMO
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
::mailsparky
05/24/08 9:23 AM GMT
Don't discount the Tamron 28-250 DiII Macro. I've been using one as a walk about lens on my 30D for a couple of month now and it does produce excellent results at a reasonable price. I will always take my Sigma 150mm Macro for close-up work though. The Tamron lens is a great all rounder though I give it 9/10.

John...
0∈ [?]
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." --Socrates--
=ppigeon
05/25/08 11:47 AM GMT
I think it's a 18-250, not a 28-250 IMO
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
::mailsparky
05/26/08 7:51 AM GMT
Thanks '=ppigeon' Yep it is the 18-250mm I'm talking about.
0∈ [?]
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." --Socrates--
.cynlee
05/28/08 2:36 PM GMT
I have the Sigma 70-300mm lens with macro and it does a fine job and has wonderful ratings (not as good as the Canon 70-200mm), but only $200. At Bob Atkins site you can see that it is a recommended lens for Canons. You will see a list of all his recommended lenses for Canon cameras there too.
0∈ [?]
You may lose the rights to your own art. Read MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Or watch the VIDEO
::Skynet5
05/29/08 2:33 AM GMT
check you local craigslist for deals too. If I had the cash right now, here in San Diego is the Csnon 70-200 L with lens hood and tripod ring for $485. That is a ridiculously good price and I am sure there are some where you are. I just got into the Canon 28-135 IS and am very happy. The AF is very fast and the optics are great. My latest posts are with that lens if you'd like to take a gander. I hope all my babbling was some help. I looked around for quite sometime before I decided on the lens I bought.
0∈ [?]
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
.alan1250
06/05/08 5:35 AM GMT
If you do mostly landscapes, then you don't need an expensive wide angle. Just lock your exposure and shoot a panorama using about three/four overlapping shots. There are lots of stitching programs out there to put them together. I refer to photozone.com for lens tests. The new 18-55 IS (that comes with a 450D) has some very nice sharpness at about 5.6. I got one on Craig's List for $140. Whatever you do, learn which f-stop is the sharpest for each lens and use a tripod, (and cable release or self timer). I was able to rent a 70-200 2.8 IS for a weekend and decided it let me get shots that I couldn't get with a slower lens. Goog luck.
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: