What Lenses?

(airwarrior04) · (airwarrior04) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 08-12-2006, 8:52 PM

Hey wakeworlders,

I was contemplating getting a new body but decided with the help of others that i need to upgrade my lenses. I like the L lenses i have played with and i would like to get L lenses. Here are the lenses I have so far.

1. Canon 75-300 cheap $100 lens.
2. Canon 18-55 kit lens.
3. Canon 50mm F/1.8 lens.
4. Quantaray 28-135 lens from ritz camera.

I would like to upgrade numbers 1 and 4.

What are some lenses you would recommend and by the way i have a rebel XT.

-Zach

(ladythump) · (ladythump) **Join Date: Jul 2004** 08-12-2006, 10:25 PM

Check out the reviews and forums of this page...

www.fredmiranda.com

(dcervenka) · (dcervenka) **Join Date: Sep 2002** 08-12-2006, 10:51 PM

Sell 1 & 4 and put it towards the 70-200 f4 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(ridn9high) · (ridn9high) **Join Date: Feb 2004** 08-13-2006, 12:33 AM

look at dpreviews.com. This site will help out a lot on photography.

(dcervenka) · (dcervenka) **Join Date: Sep 2002** 08-13-2006, 11:13 AM

oh yeah... www.photo.net is very good as well!

(ak4life) · (ak4life) **Join Date: Nov 2003** 08-14-2006, 8:56 PM

I haven't been able to find any reviews of that Quantaray; I'd get this instead:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Not an L lens, but great quality still and a great focal length range too, not to mention that it's got image stabilization, which is great for general use and low light conditions.

(swami) · (swami) **Join Date: Apr 2006** 10-04-2006, 3:09 PM

I shoot with a Canon 20D and use the 70-200 f2.8 with IS. This lens is the shizz! (Cost $1650 street) The f4 version is just fine too, and a LOT cheaper. It would be a great upgrade for you.

(basically what Kung Fu said)

If low light is your goal, you might need to pay the piper and pay for the F2.8 version. If you do any commercial photography, the lens will pay for itself.

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 10-04-2006, 4:51 PM

Zach,

What are You shooting ? If Your looking for a lens to shoot wakeboarding and outdoors stuff the 70-200L f/4 is all You really need and you can get one for about 600.00 out the door.

(airwarrior04) · (airwarrior04) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 10-04-2006, 5:31 PM

It sounds like the f/4 is what i need. I also want the 17-40 but i am not so sure if it is going to be long enough since its only 17-40 not 18-100 or something

-Zach

(ladythump) · (ladythump) **Join Date: Jul 2004** 10-04-2006, 6:07 PM

Zach,
With the exception of #4, I have those three exact lenses. I've done some research and if you're interested in the 17-40L lens, check out the Tamron 17-50. Apparently the quality is just as good for a much cheaper price.

(airwarrior04) · (airwarrior04) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 10-04-2006, 7:40 PM

I am borrowing my friends Tamron 17-75 and it is as slow as a mother. I couldn't get it to focus well at all. So i resulted to MF

-Zach

(Message edited by Air-warrior04 on October 04, 2006)

(ladythump) · (ladythump) **Join Date: Jul 2004** 10-04-2006, 8:46 PM

interesting.... read the reviews on FredMiranda about the 17-50 II though.

(swami) · (swami) **Join Date: Apr 2006** 10-05-2006, 2:49 PM

my typical lenses are the Canon 10-22mm and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. Those are the two lenses I put in my bag. (I also have the kit lens in my bag as well when I go on wakeboarding trips.. for fun shots.

(dafevans) · (dafevans) **Join Date: Oct 2006** 10-19-2006, 2:08 PM

Also check out the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. If you look closely at the MTF charts it shoots really sharp, has Image Stabilization and a better zoom range. Compare it to the L series 24-105 and you can't go wrong at saving that kind of money. The 10-22 mentioned by Swami is a fun lens too and good for those end of day sunset shots.

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 10-19-2006, 2:34 PM

I have a 24-105L right now and owned the 28-135 previously. I have to say here is no comparison as far as IQ goes. The 28-135 is a great lens for the money but it doesn't provide L class images nor is the IS as effective (being the older generation). One of the things you're paying for with the 24-105 is f4 across the whole zoom range. There is a big difference between having f4 and f5.6 on the long end. The 24-105 is my alltime favorite L lens and I've owned most of them, well worth the big price tag IMHO.

One last comment 28mm is not very wide on a 20/30D you'll end up wanting a 17-40 at least as well. I'd go 17-40 or 17-85 IS and 70-200 f4 if budget allows on the 20/30D. You can always pickup a 50 f1.8 for indoor low light portrait type stuff to balance the spread.

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 10-19-2006, 3:15 PM

Rich,

Any idea how much the new 50 MM is going for ?

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 10-19-2006, 3:59 PM

The f1.8 is under $100 most places. Focus is slow but stopped down to f2 or f2.8 it's really got amazing IQ for what you have to pay. I had the f1.4 for a while but sold it, it's a much better lens.

It's not worth selling the f1.8 even if you don't use it much.

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 10-19-2006, 4:03 PM

I have the 1.8 but was wondering if the new 50L was much better.

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 10-19-2006, 7:48 PM

The new f1.2? Well that should be really good given the price. The original f1.0 (world's fastest lens) used were selling for $2500 and up and apparently were OK but nothing like the 8f f1.2 or 35 f1.4. I had the 35 f1.4 and the images have an almost magical look.

Here is a 100% crop taken with the 35 on a 20D.

Upload

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 10-19-2006, 7:49 PM

Unfortunately compressing the above to get under the limit kind wipes it out!