$1200 for lenses, just want some opinions

[Hooker]

ok i am finnally goin to have some $ to spend on lenses and its a fairly good amount too : D. I currently have an EOS-10D with a Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6. so i thought that i should get the canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens for approx 400$ and the EF 17-40 f/4L USM for approx $700. I think these are good choices for now cause it will cover all focal lengs between 17 and 300 wich is pretty good, and they we suit me fine till i can get $to start getting good primes. waht do u peeps think of my thought?

[Mr_Bucket]

screw the 75-300 IS, its slow and has tons of ca and isnt very sharp


get a 70-200mm f/4.0L lens instead, much better lens, as the 75-300 really takes a crap past 200mm


its a constant aperture and its an L lens so its better quality and has better optics


IS isnt really necessary, but it is nice to have once in awhile


the 17-40 is an excellent choice



those 2 lenses together from canoga would be $1250 and would be a much better combo

[Hooker]

ok ic what u mean. i would like to get something that goes to 300mm but i guess that will have to wait till i get more $ and mebe get some prime down at the super telephoto end. mebe ill have to make do with renting seeing they are 6000$ : D thanks for the insight bucket. waht about those who have the 75 - 300? waht u think?

[[TQ]]

Personally i'd get this lens: http://shop.pcconnection.com/web/Shopping/Product.htm?MSCSProfile=&NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fweb%2fshopping%2fproduct%2ehtm%3fproduct_id %3d424181%26SourceID%3dk22350&SourceID=k22350&product_id=424181&NRNODEGUID=%7bC03E868D-1CEF-4F98-8F00-45BF12FCEA4E%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

Or the 50-500mm Sigma (which i intend on getting soon, but i'd love to get the canon eventually too)

I can assure you, you'll regret being a cheapskate on your lenses, no point in having a $1500 camera paired with crappy lenses really...

[Mr_Bucket]

Originally posted by Hooker
ok ic what u mean. i would like to get something that goes to 300mm but i guess that will have to wait till i get more $ and mebe get some prime down at the super telephoto end. mebe ill have to make do with renting seeing they are 6000$ : D thanks for the insight bucket. waht about those who have the 75 - 300? waht u think?


i have the 75-300 IS


those are from my observations

[Hooker]

k thanks bucket, have u had experience with the 70-200? and btw tq i wanna get a wider angle lens and the 17-40 is better cause that helps with the 10D's 1.6x fov crop, plus if i get that lens i can still get a telephoto which i also need. but TOTALLY understand what you are saying about pairing a crappy lens with a good camera, for example my current lens, the tamron 28-80. man that thing... :[ i certainly will need to replace that lens next, and seeing ill have botha 17-40 and possibly the 70-200, i think a 50mm prime would be the ideal replacement i think.

[[TQ]]

With that said

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=ShowProduct&index=Y&kw=CA50182EF&Q=&O=&sku=12142

As for the 75-300, i've seen some pictures taken with it, simply fantastic.

[Neb]

the 75-300 seems to be a decent lens, above 200 it's a bit iffy, but still decent, nowhere as bad as Mr. Bucket makes it out to be.

You may want to check out the sigma 70-300 apo, it's pretty comparable to the 75-300, although without IS. If you don't mind lugging a big heavy lens around, the bigma 50-500mm is the absolute best lens you can get for your money, bar none, especially with it's quality. it should run you about $800 or so. On the flip side, that would leave you with only 400 left in your budget. :(

[Hooker]

the 50-500mm doesnt leave me enought $ to get the 17-40mm and the 17-40 is higher priority than the telephoto zoom, i am for shure goin to get that lens. but the 70-200mm is the f/4 not the f/2.8. the f/4 one is only 500$ or so. so im looking at taht lens, ill check out those sigma lenses, personally the IS isnt that important really, that would just be an added bonus that is all :D. thank you everyone for your suggestions. they ahve been very helpful : D i appreciate it greatly.

[[TQ]]

Hooker turn on PM's i've got something i want to send ya.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Hooker
the 50-500mm doesnt leave me enought $ to get the 17-40mm and the 17-40 is higher priority than the telephoto zoom, i am for shure goin to get that lens. but the 70-200mm is the f/4 not the f/2.8. the f/4 one is only 500$ or so. so im looking at taht lens, ill check out those sigma lenses, personally the IS isnt that important really, that would just be an added bonus that is all :D. thank you everyone for your suggestions. they ahve been very helpful : D i appreciate it greatly.

I see, the f/4 would be pretty good at that price point :) the 18-55 lens was one of the reasons I got the kit version of the 300D, really a damn good value at $100 :) Though in the future I'll end up getting the 17-40 anyways :o

[Hooker]

Originally posted by [TQ]
Hooker turn on PM's i've got something i want to send ya. i just checked my options, apprently my pm is activated

[[TQ]]

odd...maybe your inbox is full?

Well, shoot me a PM then.

[Hooker]

it says i dont have access, and i cant access any that i may have recieved in my user cp, it give me the you are not allowed to do this type of message, one u get if u try to delete a post or something without being an admin. to contact me privately u can im me in aim, my sn is RCP120Hooker, or msn messenger, my contact is jon@alienzap.com, and my email is HookerPFD@hotmail.com

[royjr]

If you wanna save yourself about $250, you can go for the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 over the 17-40mm. I believe BHPhoto still has it for <$450. I've got one and it's a magnificant lens.

[Atreus]

If you want a good carry around lens, why not look at the 28-135 IS? It's a pretty good all in one lens if you don't want to carry too much equipment around.

[Hooker]

ya but i already ahve a 28-80 right now and i wanna cover as much focal lenth as possible before i start to retread over the same ground so to speak.

[wolfio]

agreed with bucket on 17-40mm being an excellent lens.
on the 70-200mm I bought the F2.8 w/o IS instead of F4.0 and it's great to use with 1.4xTC.

[Sean]

Get the 17-40 L lens for sure. Its a really good lens for the money, and 40mm is so close to true sight, that you don't need the 50mm 1.8 (unless you want the extra stop).

The 75-300 IS was my first choice, until I tested it out. Now I will save my money and get the 70-200 f/4L USM lens. Now getting it in Canada is going to be a hard thing to do for me. I have to get it from Vistek. Henrys doesn't sell it, and blacks cant get L lenses. So I will end up making a trip to Toronto.

Plus with the f/4 lens its constent, and I just need to add a 2X tele converter to get 400mm.

I am getting a cheap EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM in the mean time and using a tripod for it, unless I am out in bright sun. I am taking pictures of birds around Ottawa, and I can get pretty close to them, so I can really open the apature up say around f/8 or f/11 so the 'soft' look can be avoided even at 300mm. its $300 Canadian, and will tide me over until I can produce the 1K for the f/4L.

If you need to get a super-telephoto zoom like 300mm or so, go cheap to begin with, and use a tripod. You have to take it one step at a time. Remember hand holding sucks at under 1/60th of a second, and if you are really good you can push that to 1/45th or 1/30th. I have hand held my 28-105 USM III at 1/8 and my pictures were not blured (thank my shooting for steady hands).

Cheers,

[Hooker]

eihtball thanks for the iput, thanks all of you. you have all provided me with great insight that will help me decide for my purchase.

[Hooker]

well i recently got the 70-200 f/4L and i love it. i am goin to go ahead and get the 17-40 f/4L as well this weekend i hope.

[Mr_Bucket]

Originally posted by Atreus
If you want a good carry around lens, why not look at the 28-135 IS? It's a pretty good all in one lens if you don't want to carry too much equipment around. but it isnt good

[-expl0de-]

Originally posted by Mr_Bucket
but it isnt good
just because its not L glass doesnt mean its bad.

[Hooker]

bucket, its ok he was just making a suggestion, and its a better lens than the tamron 28-80 that i have. but that right there is exactly why i dont want that lens yet or at all, i had said this before. besides, im shure the 28-135 is at least halfway decent, plus its more of a "budget" lens, and it has IS for that price. i mean if u had the $ you would prolly be much more better off getting a 24-70 f/2.8L USM, but that is like 1200$, compared to 400$, so i mean its all what u can afford and are willing and able to buy. bucket it would also be a lot better if mebe u can say why "it isnt good", it would make u look quite so bad : D. mebe if u gave reasons, people would be like, ok at least hes not just being an ass and can give facts. now u ahve my interest anyhow, just why is the 28-135 not good? (sry for the harshness but i am too tired to make it sound better, i really dont mean to be mean bucket, i am trying to help u)

[Mr_Bucket]

Originally posted by -expl0de-
just because its not L glass doesnt mean its bad.


well its fairly slow, and IS cant do every thing, sure it helps for longer exposures but it doesnt stop action any better.

and its a decent lens, but sharpness isnt that great

[Sean]

I love lenses I have a LONG (well not that long) list of lenses that I want in my bag.

These are the L's

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro
EF 14mm f/2.8L
EF 400mm f/2.8L
EF 1.4x II

These are the Non-L's

EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus
T-SE 45mm f/2.8
EF 28-135 IS

So in Canadian Dollars thats
$2779.99+$2179.99+2039.99+2199.99+3049.99+11499.99+489.99+59 9.99+619.99+1799.99+719.99=$27359.90 Canadian or in USD $20600.07

Bodies don't even get me started, well actually Im bored, so

Canon 1Ds 11999.99
Canon 1D Mark II 5999.99 (Guess)
Canon 10D Backup 2199.99
Canon 1v HS 3299.99
Total=$23499.96 in USD $17695.29

Grand Total=$50859.86 or USD $38297.08

Lotto Prize purchases ^^

Cheers,