So many lenses..

[HE15MAN]

I am new to photography, so I dont exactly know my niche. But I do know I enjoy taking: birding/wildlife photos, nature photos, and just other random pictures during vacations and such of buildings, scenery etc. I do not plan on taking any/many portraits etc

I am looking to buy three lenses..

A carry around lens..A mid range zoom, and a telephoto. I would like quality lenses, but I am not a millionaire and dont want to spend 3k each.

What is the difference between the

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]

Would they both be good, high quality, carry around lenses? Would I be able to do panoramic photos with them? And with these, is there any need for the Nifty Fifty?

Also, how practical would a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens be for mid range shots?

For the long distance, I was planning on going with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

 

[sepafe]

Please see reviews of that lenses, its the best.

I have a
-- canon 24-70 2.8 Excellent lens
-- sigma 10-20 Very good lens
-- sigma 150 apo Very nice lens for macros
I use all the time de 24-70.

 

[HE15MAN]

Please see reviews of that lenses, its the best.

I have a
-- canon 24-70 2.8 Excellent lens
-- sigma 10-20 Very good lens
-- sigma 150 apo Very nice lens for macros
I use all the time de 24-70.

I guess. But all the reviews sound the same when you read them.

"OMFG this lens is awesome"

I guess what I would like is to be able to tell what makes one lens better or worse than another, and what the best bang for the buck lenses are?

 

[sepafe]

I guess. But all the reviews sound the same when you read them.

"OMFG this lens is awesome"

I guess what I would like is to be able to tell what makes one lens better or worse than another, and what the best bang for the buck lenses are?

Buy these, you will not regreat
- canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
- canon 70-200mm IS f/4L USM Lens

 

[HBOC]

both tammys you listed are AMAZING lenses. You cannot go wrong with the 70-200 f/4L. For birding and such, 200 is TOO short. Can you rent lenses where you live? IF you can, try out either the 300 F/4 IS, the 100-400L or the 400mm f/5.6L.

If i could have three lenses, this is what i would get (this is based on a crop sensor camera):

10-22mm (or some UWA lens)
24-105L (possibly the 24-70 2.8)
70-200 2.8

If i needed something longer, i would rent it. For your needs, would stick with a long tele (100-400), a 70-200 and the 24-70.

 

[compuwar]

I guess what I would like is to be able to tell what makes one lens better or worse than another, and what the best bang for the buck lenses are?

Learn to read MTF charts.

Paul

 

[Razeus]

See my sig.

Then see my Flickr.

 

[HBOC]

^
you don't list any info on what was used for each image.

 

[Designer Dale]

Both the Tamron's are very good lenses. The main difference is simply that the 28-75 is 25mm longer and the 17-50 is 11mm shorter. I have the 28-75 and like it a lot even though I haven't had a great deal of time to shoot with it.

I did a lot of research before buying it. Lens Rental.com had good things to say about the Tamrons.

Lens Rental

Tamron 17-50 2.8

Tamron 28-75 2.8

This is a typical birder. No joke. Something like $8,000 on that thing.

EXIF Summary: 1/400s f/5.6 ISO100 Tamron 28-75 2.8@75mm

 

[jampat]

Would they both be good, high quality, carry around lenses? Would I be able to do panoramic photos with them? And with these, is there any need for the Nifty Fifty?

Also, how practical would a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens be for mid range shots?

For the long distance, I was planning on going with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

Nifty fifty gives you a another 1 1/3 stops of light over the 2.8 lenses listed. It is also cheap and light, so it's a good lens to let someone use if they borrow the camera.

Personally I don't like the 100-400, other people do. I went with a 70-200 2.8 IS and 2x for the times I really need 400 (not that often). I agree with the others, normally if you are shooting wildlife, the light sucks and you want even more light, 5.6 is not where you want to be, renting is a good option. Personally I am very happy with the 70-200 and use it a lot. It does draw a lot of attention and it is really heavy though.

28 mm is pretty long on a crop body. Personally if I was going for 3 lenses, I would go 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 for each range you could substitute ie 11-16,17-40,50,70-200 leaves a hole in the middle, but I know people that shoot almost exclusively with the 17-40 and love it. The 10-22 is fun to use, but definitely takes some practice (and some people hate it).

Buy one lens at a time, get used to it, find out what you like or dislike and use that to influence the next purchase (ie you may find that f4 is not enough light for you and you really need 2.8 where you shoot). Also, as you get to the longer lenses, tripods become more important (and more expensive).

 

[toxic]

What is the difference between the

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]

Would they both be good, high quality, carry around lenses? Would I be able to do panoramic photos with them? And with these, is there any need for the Nifty Fifty?

the 17-50 is the 28-75, just redesigned for APS (~15x22.5mm) sensors. zooms and primes have different uses, so there would still be a use for a fast prime.

I suggest you look at the Canon 15-85 IS and Sigma 17-70 OS as well. the extra range may be more useful to you than f/2.8, and it might let you skip the 70-200 and just get a 100-400.

Also, how practical would a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens be for mid range shots?

it would work fine, but it depends on your shooting technique and how fast an aperture you may (or may not) need. you might want IS at this focal length, and that entails getting a 55-250 IS, 70-300 IS, or saving for a 70-200/4 IS or Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS (which is not yet released but will probably be around $1100).

For the long distance, I was planning on going with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

that would also work fine. you should also consider Sigma supertele zooms, like the 150-500 OS, 100-300/4, or the 50-500 (or recently announced OS version).

 

[compuwar]

For the long distance, I was planning on going with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

I'd suggest looking at the Luminous Landscape's 100-400IS vs 400/5.6 test prior to jumping into that boat.

Paul

 

[HE15MAN]

I guess I am no closer to a decesion, but have narrowed down a bit more what i want.

I want a lens that can do everyday shots, have a decent zoom, and low f stop, and give me the ability to do panoramic shots.

A mid range zoom that is easy to carry around, and get the shots my first lens cannot do. Maybe the EF 70-300?

Then a special zoom for birds and wildlife. Most likely the 100-400

 

[Epicurus]

If you want a walking around, everyday, good at the spur-of-the-moment lens, then something in the range of 24-70 f/2.8 is my number one lens. Aperture is wide enough for indoor work, field of view runs a decent range for indoor and outdoor shots. 24mm, depending on your FOVCF, can be pushed into landscape duty when called upon. Sharp, wonderful images all around.

For birds, 300mm plus is necessary (realistically) and that is beyond "easy to carry around" in terms of weight. Depending on ambient lighting, the 70-200 with a 1.4x extension on a 1.6x FOVCF body might get you someplace interesting. Then again, if you really only want the lens for birds, then the 100-400 might be smarter. I went for the 70-200 myself since I work mostly in the 100-200 range at wide aperture.

For real panoramic, there are the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lenses that really do some great work, as does the 17-40mm f/4L. You'd really want to get a feel for each one before buying, since they overlap in a number of areas.

 

[toxic]

I guess I am no closer to a decesion, but have narrowed down a bit more what i want.

I want a lens that can do everyday shots, have a decent zoom, and low f stop, and give me the ability to do panoramic shots.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or f/2.8 VC
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM (not yet released)

panaromas can be done with any lens, though they are usually done with a standard focal length (~30mm) or longer and then stitched together.

A mid range zoom that is easy to carry around, and get the shots my first lens cannot do. Maybe the EF 70-300?

a 55-250 costs less with about the same quality optics, though the construction is much cheaper. if you can deal with the construction, it's a better deal.

alternatives are the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or a used Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (it's discontinued).

 

[Razeus]

^
you don't list any info on what was used for each image.

Forgot I turned that off. On now.

Anyways, on topic, I'm actually going to sel my 24-105 L and get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I like more speed, more light, and more wideness and the optical quality is awesome, and the price is awesomer. Plus with the extra money, I can get me a 1.4x TC, which I need for my Zootography.

 

[gnd]

Anyways, on topic, I'm actually going to sel my 24-105 L and get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I like more speed, more light, and more wideness and the optical quality is awesome, and the price is awesomer. Plus with the extra money, I can get me a 1.4x TC, which I need for my Zootography.

I just got my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC (don't need it since I have stabilization in the body) a few weeks ago. I'm on vacation in CA now and I've shot a few thousand images so far and I'm loving it. It's sharp even wide open, there is some vignetting (i've been using it with a CPL almost all the time) but it goes away once you zoom in a few mm or stop the lens down. From all the reviews I read it's optically better than the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8. It's also a third of the price, the Pentax one is weather sealed though. Still, I decided to get the Tamron and so far I have no regrets.