Posted by Jamie Botdorf on November 15, 2006 at 12:23 PM
I'm thinking about a new addition to the family - but could use some recommendations.
I have a Canon digital Rebel with the kit lense (18-55) and a 75-300 zoom. I'm considering ways to cover the gap.
I'd love any suggestions on pros/cons for choosing another zoom lense (like the 28-105) vs. using a converter (? not sure if that is the right term - something to extend the range of the 18-55 lense).
Christmas is coming! Any feedback is helpful.
Thanks!
Posted by Paul Martin on November 15, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Jamie,
Generally speaking, teleconverters work best with telephoto prime lenses and pro-level zooms. In fact the Canon TC's won't even work with the two lenses you listed -- a 3rd party TC might, but irregardless the image quality would likely be unsatifactory. As far as covering the gap, you'd be better served using another lens. If you want to spend a little more $, you could buy the Canon 17-85 IS lens and cover the gap and get a better lens than the 18-55 you have. I used to have the 28-105 (keep in mind there are 2 versions of this lens) and it was pretty decent, in your case the 17-85 would be worth the upgrade -- at least in my opinion
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 15, 2006 at 4:49 PM
I'd add that its not that big of a deal to have gaps in lens coverage. Especially if you don't use the range. I also don't think its a bad thing to have big overlaps in focal lengths. This reduces the number of times that you would need to change lenses and reduces the number of missed shots.
What are you finding that you don't have the right lens for? Do you really need a wider lens like the 10-22? Do you need a faster lens to stop motion or for indoor photography? Is 55 just not a long enough focal length for your main lens and you need a bit more reach? Or do you need to close the gap in focal lengths because you are constantly stuck needing something between 55 and 75?
Another thing to think about is how the field of view works. On the wide end, 1mm of focal length makes a big difference in the field of view. On the telephoto end, 1mm is not even noticable. Also, on the wide end, the relationship is somewhat exponentional. In the middle or "normal" range its a fairly linear relationship between focal length and field of view. Alot of people prefer to "zoom with their feet", which works fairly well with normal prime lenses (35-85mm).
Like Paul said, a teleconverter is probably not the best solution for you. I think the 17-85 is a very good option for you. Now it is down to $499, so I think it is a pretty good deal. It should have much better image quality than what you are using right now. There are 2 Canon 28-105 models and you should be very careful in which you buy. One is much better than the other. The one you would want is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM(II). It retails for a little under $250 at B&H. It is supposed to have better image quality than the Canon 28-135 IS (~$400), but not as good as the 24-105 f4L IS (~$1100). There is a less expensive kit level 28-105 f4-5.6 USM which you should avoid. The image quality is reported to be poor. There are also several good 3rd party options to fill the gap for $500 or less.
1) Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (not really a gap filler, but good replacement for the kit lens)
2) Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
3) Tamron 28-75 f2.8
4) Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6
5) Tokina 50-135 f2.8 (should be available very soon)
6) Sigma 50-150 f2.8
Best of luck in your lens purchase Jamie.
Posted by Jamie Botdorf on November 15, 2006 at 5:53 PM
Thanks Paul and Mel! Excellent info. I really appreciate the feedback.
I'm looking to fill the gap because I find that I often _do_ want to frame a shot between 55 and 75. Someday going wider would be nice, too, but that hasn't been too much of an issue so far.
The 28-105 would be a nice choice - even though it overlaps the others, I think I would get a lot of use out it (and not have to change lenses so often). The 17-85 sounds like a great replacement for the kit lens. Of course, when I grow up I'd love to move up to the "L" lenses...someday!
Christmas visions dancing in my head! (Now - just need to make sure Santa knows exactly what I'm looking for! Oh - the list could be sooooo long!)
Posted by Momo Vuyisich on November 15, 2006 at 7:53 PM
I second the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. When stopped down, that lens is amazing (at least my copy was).
Posted by Chuck Peacock on November 15, 2006 at 8:49 PM
If you settle for the 75-300 stay away from the the extreme 300 end - it stinks at that FL but is decent at others. Kind of negates why you would get that long of a zoom though. If you shoot a lot at the 300 FL this is NOT the lens to get.
Posted by Les Barstow on November 19, 2006 at 1:53 AM
With the magnification factor of the Rebel, you might feel more comfortable not switching lenses with the 17-85mm recommended above (if you can afford to go that route).
That will get you from wide angle through near telephoto (27mm-136mm in 35mm terms), which will cover you in most everyday circumstances. If you don't shoot much wide angle, then the 28-105 is good to carry around for the extra bit of telephoto - just realize your widest angle with that lens will be a 35mm-equivalent 45mm, which isn't really wide angle at all.
I personally miss carrying around a lens with decent wide angle capability; my 28-105, now on my D2X, has become a 42-157mm effective lens, and I find it is now on my camera less frequently than it used to be for that reason.
Discussion
6 repliesI have a Canon digital Rebel with the kit lense (18-55) and a 75-300 zoom. I'm considering ways to cover the gap.
I'd love any suggestions on pros/cons for choosing another zoom lense (like the 28-105) vs. using a converter (? not sure if that is the right term - something to extend the range of the 18-55 lense).
Christmas is coming! Any feedback is helpful.
Thanks!
Generally speaking, teleconverters work best with telephoto prime lenses and pro-level zooms. In fact the Canon TC's won't even work with the two lenses you listed -- a 3rd party TC might, but irregardless the image quality would likely be unsatifactory. As far as covering the gap, you'd be better served using another lens. If you want to spend a little more $, you could buy the Canon 17-85 IS lens and cover the gap and get a better lens than the 18-55 you have. I used to have the 28-105 (keep in mind there are 2 versions of this lens) and it was pretty decent, in your case the 17-85 would be worth the upgrade -- at least in my opinion
What are you finding that you don't have the right lens for? Do you really need a wider lens like the 10-22? Do you need a faster lens to stop motion or for indoor photography? Is 55 just not a long enough focal length for your main lens and you need a bit more reach? Or do you need to close the gap in focal lengths because you are constantly stuck needing something between 55 and 75?
Another thing to think about is how the field of view works. On the wide end, 1mm of focal length makes a big difference in the field of view. On the telephoto end, 1mm is not even noticable. Also, on the wide end, the relationship is somewhat exponentional. In the middle or "normal" range its a fairly linear relationship between focal length and field of view. Alot of people prefer to "zoom with their feet", which works fairly well with normal prime lenses (35-85mm).
Like Paul said, a teleconverter is probably not the best solution for you. I think the 17-85 is a very good option for you. Now it is down to $499, so I think it is a pretty good deal. It should have much better image quality than what you are using right now. There are 2 Canon 28-105 models and you should be very careful in which you buy. One is much better than the other. The one you would want is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM(II). It retails for a little under $250 at B&H. It is supposed to have better image quality than the Canon 28-135 IS (~$400), but not as good as the 24-105 f4L IS (~$1100). There is a less expensive kit level 28-105 f4-5.6 USM which you should avoid. The image quality is reported to be poor. There are also several good 3rd party options to fill the gap for $500 or less.
1) Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (not really a gap filler, but good replacement for the kit lens)
2) Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
3) Tamron 28-75 f2.8
4) Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6
5) Tokina 50-135 f2.8 (should be available very soon)
6) Sigma 50-150 f2.8
Best of luck in your lens purchase Jamie.
I'm looking to fill the gap because I find that I often _do_ want to frame a shot between 55 and 75. Someday going wider would be nice, too, but that hasn't been too much of an issue so far.
The 28-105 would be a nice choice - even though it overlaps the others, I think I would get a lot of use out it (and not have to change lenses so often). The 17-85 sounds like a great replacement for the kit lens. Of course, when I grow up I'd love to move up to the "L" lenses...someday!
Christmas visions dancing in my head! (Now - just need to make sure Santa knows exactly what I'm looking for! Oh - the list could be sooooo long!)
That will get you from wide angle through near telephoto (27mm-136mm in 35mm terms), which will cover you in most everyday circumstances. If you don't shoot much wide angle, then the 28-105 is good to carry around for the extra bit of telephoto - just realize your widest angle with that lens will be a 35mm-equivalent 45mm, which isn't really wide angle at all.
I personally miss carrying around a lens with decent wide angle capability; my 28-105, now on my D2X, has become a 42-157mm effective lens, and I find it is now on my camera less frequently than it used to be for that reason.