next lens purchase

[ron_reed1]

Ok, yesterday my elan 7n and 50mm 1.8 came in the mail, i am

allready planning my next lens purchase. I'm really not sure what i

should get though. I want a wide lens ( the 28 2.8 ) but i also

really want a lens for taking potraits(something like the 85 1.8 .

The problems is that i obviously won't have the money to get both. I

was considering getting the 28-105 usm becuse it fits under my

budget ( around $250 ). Do you think the zoom is worth it, or should

i just hold out till i have more money?

 

-ron

[citizensmith]

As consumer zooms go the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is near the top of the pile. However its not a great portrait lens (not fast enough) and will distort more than the 28 prime. Sure you can get good portraits and wide angle shots, just the primes are better. The 28-105 was my goto lens for years on my Elan 7e.

 

And having said that if the only lens in my bag was the 50 f/1.8 I'd still be buying a 28-105 without hesitation.

[ron_reed1]

right now i am leaning towards getting the 28 2.8. I should be getting my income tax back in a few weeks, and i have a few other purchases i would also like to make.( a film scanner, new printer, some filters.)

[wgpinc]

Take some time and shoot with just the 50. It'll make you a better photographer. You'll be amazed at what you can do with just the 50, your feet and some imagination. Lenses can get in the way of learning and specially zoom lenses. I found the 35 2.0 to be sharper than the 28 2.8 for me. Steve McCurry has said that he could probably get by with just a 50 if he had to and seldom uses anything other than the 35, 50 & 85. He's a pretty good photographer even though he uses Nikon. I personally use 20, 35, 50 macro, 85 and 70-200 with film and digital. With digital 1.6 factor this translates to 32, 56, 80, 136 and 112-320 equiv. Don't buy any more lenses for a while. Buy some discipline and patience to develop some technique. You'll have better, sharper pictures. Good luck.

[ron_reed1]

i'm not new to photography. This is just my first slr that i have owned.

[bens]

consider tamron 28-75 (about 350); otherwise, stick with primes for awhile - you will get MUCH better shots than with most consumer zooms. i have the 24/2.8; 35/2; 85/1.8 and the tamron. all very good, with the tamron not quite as sharp, but plenty sharp, as the others when wide open. i've had a few other consumer zooms, including the canon 28-135 and an old canon 70-210/f.4 -- did not come close to the primes in sharpness of image.

[everheul]

Ron, only you can answer if it's better to get a wide or an 85mm lens. It comes down to which one do you think you will use the most. If you are just starting off, it might be a good idea to get the zoom. This allows you to assess which focal length you do most of your shooting. Then save up for the prime of your choice. FWIW the 85mm f1.8 is my favorite portrait lens (film camera)

 

With all due respect to gil, I don't buy into the idea of just using one lens (focal length) to make you learn better. Just my humble opinion.

[grant_.]

dont get sucked into the notion that a portrait lens has to be telephoto....many many superb photographs are taken with very wide lenses up close....concentrate on figuring out what you wanna do with photography, then decide how to get there...

[darklights]

Ditto on Gils' 35mm 2.0 comment. I'll also be picking up the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD IF. I don't find it to be soft at either end, It's sharp and contrasty, and it's tailored towards Digital, but can be used on film too of course. Right now it's the same price at both B&H and Ritz, so I'll use the Ritz link here to kick a little to photo.net and be able to pick it up at my local store. It's a win-win thing.

 

 

Geeze, I think I sounded a little too much like a commercial there :)

[christopher_bibbs]

I'd go for a zoom. Once you're stopped down to f/8, the wide-angle on the zoom will be sharp enough, so you only have to deal with the mild distortion and flare. That's a fair trade in my book.

 

I don't shoot normal portraits so I can't really comment on the value of the 85mm.

[andre_reinders]

I was in a similar boat. Last summer I purchased an elan 7n, but I got the 28-105mm f3.5-f4.5 USM as my first lens. I just bought the 50mm f1.8 last weekend. I really like the 28-105 lens for all around shooting, but I picked up the 50mm lens for taking photos indoors without a flash, because the 28-105 is not fast enough for that.

My previous camera had a 135mm lens which I loved for unobtrisice candid type portrait shots, so when I got the 28-105 I found it a little short. I know Canon has the 28-135 IS (I believe) but the IS made it out of my price range.

The 28-105 is a good consumer zoom, and I think the build quality is good. I would not hesitate to suggest this lens, for the price range you are talking about.

my 2 cents....

[christopher_bibbs]

I'd disagree with the comment that this lens is sharp or offers good contrast.

 

Looking at shots from it and my Canon 24-85mm gave the Canon a decided advantage. If you want a mega-zoom, that's fine, but it is a compromise, not a holy grail.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Ok, yesterday my elan 7n and 50mm 1.8 came in the mail, i am

allready planning my next lens purchase.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Stop. <p>

 

Shoot. Learn your camera. Learn all the knobs and buttons so you can use it

blindfolded. Learn the focal length you have, and then shoot some more and learn its

limitations. Then shoot some more.

[darklights]

Never said it was a grail of any sort :-) Seems to me though that maybe you just saw some not-so-top-notch pictures. Then again, it's like all the rest...we each have our favorites and this one doesn't happen to be one of yours; It's always a judgement call so I don't try and disuade others, just give them more options to think over.

[madwand]

The 50 1.8 is much better than the Tamron 28-300 at well, 50mm. But that's a pretty useful focal length, and can do some portraits, even on a film camera.

 

So -- use the 50 a lot, and then see what focal length you're tending towards.

 

I'd pass on the 28 myself, and I did -- the 17-40 f/4 L is much better, useful, and worth saving the money you would have spent on the 28 towards.

 

The Tamron 90 macro can also double as a sharp portrait lens. It is of course a dedicated macro lens, which means that it works well in that application.

[jason_reed2]

My father's name is Ron Reed! :)

[terry_smith2]

The 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM is a nice lens, but get the model II. Also, there are a lot of older non-USM lenses out there that have metal mounts and give above average optical performance. The 28-70/3.5-4.5 is awesome and the 35-105/3.5-4.5 is better at the long end than the 28-105 USM. THere's also a 50-200/3.5-4.5 in both regular and L versions, but not easy to find. The 35-135/3.5-4.5 is very sharp in the center and very soft at the edges, great for portraits or anytime you want to isolate the subject from the background. Another advantage to these old lenses is they tend to be cheap. Most people don't know they are better in most respects than the newer versions.

[fj5]

Hey Ron! I say if you like primes, then why settle for a zoom? You probably won't be too pleased with the max aperture of 3.5 and it's usual that a zoom wide open doesn't really perform as well as it should. If you want to work on landscapes, get the wider prime. If you want to work with portraits more, get the 85. Personally, I love wide and will work with my 50mm f/1.8 on my Elan 7e for portraiture. The 1.8 rocks!

 

If you have a budget of just $250... how do you expect to buy any lens along with a film scanner, printer, and filters? The film scanner (a good one) will cost you more than $250 by itself!

[fj5]

For the record... I used to own the 28-90, then the 28-105 (the good one), now the 28-135. Zooms are useful!

[ron_reed1]

my budget for the lense right now is $250 I have more money then that but i subtracted the cost of the film scanner and a couple other accersories. I really prefer primes over zooms. I get larger apetures, generally sharper optics, and i don't have overlapping focal lengths. I was using a pentax k-1000 for a while( i borrowed it from a freind) and my favorite lense was her 28mm 2.8. That focal length works greats for the shots i ususally take. I'll prolly buy the 28 now and then get a longer prime in the future. Btw don't both suggesting any "L" lenses, they are way out of my price range.