Lost a girlfriend/need a lens

[richard_lyman1]

<p> I have a 5D and a 50D, with a 70-200 2.8L, 50mm 1.8, and a 17-40 f4 L. Obviously I need the middle focal range and if I had the loot I'd be at B&H right now getting the 24-70 f2.8 L. However, I spent so much money on camera gear this year it literally ended a 5 year realationship with my now x girlfriend. But to hell with her, I need a lens for that middle focal range and even I can't justify another grand for L glass. Any suggestions on a cheaper alternative in a roughly equivalent focal range to the 24-70? I'm looking for a sharp lens with with a constant 2.8. or something of the sort. Sorry for another which friggin lens should I buy post.....</p>

[steve_10170]

<p>...or use one the online dating sites and specifically look to date a woman with the lens you need in your kit? <grin></p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Tamron 28-75 F2.8. $420</p><p><br></p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>Forget the woman, lens is cheaper!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>24-105 f4 IS</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Don't feel bad I once skipped a marriage proposal in Hawaii, because I used the money to by some photo equipment. I'm not sure, but I hear Tamron got an excellent lens in the 24-70mm range. </p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p> Bob, never owned a Tamron or Sigma, but have put them on my camera in stores, they seem well made and at $420 if it's even near comparable IQ (I hate that term sorry) that would be the answer.</p>

<p>Mike, damn straight doesn't nag either!</p>

<p>Scott, yeah but the 24-105 is still a grand unless I've missed something and I hear it's not that great at the wide end. Why the hell won't Canon make a 24-70 ish 2.8 with IS in the L series? Why Canon, why?</p>

<p>Steve, now there's an angle I hadn't considered. But what if she wanted to borrow my 70-200 in return?</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>Well, since the girlfriend issue is part of the thread title I will entertain that. So what broke the camel's back? Her being a girlfriend and not your wife, you are naturally expected to pay at least half of all your activities unless she has the somewhat antiquated notion that you are to pay for every shared activity, even the ones she proposes to do. I'm assuming this much. Did she try to have some sort of financial say in how you spent your money on yourself? Assuming you took care of the boyfriend financial duties, she was not your wife and you weren't financially bound.</p>

<p>I'd sell the 50D, get a 5DII and walk around with the 70-200 on the 5D and the 17-40 on the 5DII.</p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p> Paul, exactly, I more than paid for my half and in fact had loaned her money several times to the tune of nearly a thousand dollars. That was irrelevant though because being female she assumed she was right and I'm an idiot on whatever topic was under discussion. She actually accused me once of neglecting our relationship and being grossly irresponsible because I left I light on. I was threatening the financial stability of the kids we don't have, the marriage that didn't exist, for a college fund for them that..... my god I can't even discuss it. Needless to say she was not quite right in the head and I'm better off with just my camera.</p>

<p>Well this is the Canon forum so to bring it back on topic, yeah I'd love that 5DII, but everything I mentioned I purchased this year, I started out with a 450D and a kit lens, perhaps she has a point! At any rate I'm happy with my bodies for now, but that gap in my focal range bugs me and I'm barely surviving after taking a massive paycut a few weeks back. A 5DII at $2700 is out of the question right now. I really need to fill that gap in the middle of my focal range, but I don't want to put a s*** lens on my 5D as the 50D is serving backup and telephoto use for now.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>Get a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T* Manual focus with focus confirmation and electronic diaphragm. Built like a Swiss watch. About $660 at B&H.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>hmmmm.....how about a new girlfriend that will financially support your hobby. And when you find her......ask her if she has any 50 something friends.....I need the same LOL</p>

[g.c._speed]

<p>

 

<p>Hard to explain no engagement ring after five years with new photo gear showing up all the time, huh? Just kidding. The sacrifice we make for our art! You kind of have that range already on your 50d with the 17 40 but I guess the f4.0 is the problem. Id save for the 24 70 or 17 55 and use your 50 1.8 and switch lenses in the meanwhile. Either of those lenses would complete your kit, help to head of any future lens lust and hopefully save you from losing more girlfriends for your art.</p>

 

</p>

[peter_popp1]

<p>I don't know of any lenses that will keep you warm in bed at night, though.<br>

If the 24-105 is too expensive for you, I think you'll have a hard time finding something affordable at f/2.8.<br>

Since nobody else has asked, are you really missing shots with the 17-40, 50, and 70-200?</p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p>Ed, you know I was researching those a few months ago and couldn't find them in stock anywhere, are they easier to find now?</p>

<p>Thomas, heh heh, I do live in SW Florida the natural habitat of the cougar! Unfortunately I don't drive a convertable Corvette, or Mercedes which seems to be the required bait.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>You could pick up a used 28-70 f/2.8 (Canon) for about $800 USD - maybe less. Otherwise, the Tamron 28-75 as stated above has quite a following.<br>

To compare the sizes and builds of the Tamron, two of the Sigma mid-range zooms and the 24-70 go here:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-28-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-28-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I would hold off until you can afford a 24-105 or 24-70. Do you really need a lens in the middle anyway? I guess it depends on what you do with the camera but you can mount the 17-40 and 70-200 on either of your 2 bodies and cover a lot of ground. </p>

 

[zigzag]

<p>Obviously you need one with a good body and a nice quiet action, you want one that will respond well in low light situations and that feels good in the hand - one that's not going to let you down but that doesn't make a big hole in your pocket or that will become a major pain to carry around on vacation. <br>

You have quite a few options - some have black bodies, some have white bodies, some come already fitted with a ring and guaranteed overdraft whereas others are unreliable, have a lot of barrel distortion and generally their figures leave a lot to be desired. You're right, the midrange ones are the ones that can often be best to walk around with and if you have a particularly wide one or a particularly lengthy one you can be easily caught out, not least if you have one that is continually back focussed or that has some aberratively skewed outlook on things. These are the ones to avoid and asking around your friends or online forums is a good way to avoid them. If you're going for pre-owned then it can be best to avoid those who've had to many owners, those that may have some fungus and those obtained from unreputable sources - if it seems too good to be true it probably is.<br>

So, that's the next girlfriend sorted - as for the lens - save for a 24-70 f/2.8 - if you're going to commit it may as well leave you destitute and be for the long term.</p>

<p> </p>

[r_smith2]

<p>I have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 as a backup to my Canon 24-105mm f4 IS. It is not a bad lens and I picked it up off ebay for under $300. Canon makes a 28-105mm f3.4-4.5 lens that is very nice and can be bought brand new for $200. Even if you buy a 24-70 or 24-105 in the future you may want to keep it as a backup or travel lens. I owned a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 for about a month and can say from experience they are not very sharp (stay away).</p>

[hernan_enriquez]

<p>I bought a very nice Sigma 28-105 on EBay for under 40 dls. Not the speed you want but I like it for street photography! Good luck!</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>"I spent so much money on camera gear this year it literally ended a 5 year relationship"</p>

<p>...Perhaps you should have spent the money on a therapist?... For both of you.</p>

<p>You probably made the safest choice.... but chose the easy way out. Buy all you can now (without going into debt)... once your married, you'll be on a "budget", for sure. (Unless, you make your living with photography, then, buy away)</p>

[spencer_birnbaum]

<p>Is it possible to TRADE IN women for lenses?<br>

I wish. Oh how I dream of the 70-200 2.8L IS USM ....</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I would aim for the 24-70 or 24-105, even though it may entail a wait.<br>

If you have a polo club in your area, the camera is a very good way of meeting (high maintenance) females.</p>

[robert_edelman1]

<p>I'll vouch for the Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8. I have owned one and liked it a lot. It is relatively small and light, and rugged. I would try a particular lens out first, as this model (when it first came out) had a reputation for variability amongst individual samples of the lens. They also come with a shade and a 6 year warranty.</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>I agree with Peter Popp - I myself have a 5DII 17-35 2.8, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8.</p>

<p>I cover 17-200mm with at least a 2.8 - the only other thing I would need would be a second body so I wouldn't have to swap lenses. (any maybe upgrade the wide lens to a 16-35 II)</p>

[kari v]

<p>Try Tamron 28-75/2.8. It's not weather sealed L but then again it's well built, optically sound and $1000 cheaper.</p>