Lense comparison

[barry_kleinberg]

I am looking to upgrade my lenses. I currently have the two "kit"

lenses for the Eos 300 (rebel 2000) i.e. 28 - 90 and 75 - 300 USM.

 

Does anyone have any idea whether the Tamron 28-300mm XR Ultra Zoom

f3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical MACRO would be an improvement. My initial

thought is that even the kit lenses are not that great, at the 300mm

end they are a bit quicker (i.e. 5.6 rather than 6.3). Although

slightly faster at the 28m end...

 

I have just bought the Sigma 15 - 30mm which is really fun!

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Barry

[jespdj]

Barry, have a look at this article about choosing a lens for your Canon EOS system:

<p><a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html</a>

<p>I'm sorry I can't really answer your question about if the Tamron 28-300 lens is better than the two Canon lenses you have, but usually "superzoom" lenses like that Tamron 28-300 are not really great lenses in terms of optical quality.

<p>regards

[citizensmith1664875108]

I've no personal experience of the Tamron lens, or the 28-90, but going by the general sort of feedback those lenses get, the only advantage you'd get is one less lens to carry. Both your current lenses are pretty good stopped down to around f/8. Ultra zooms tend to get a bad rep no matter who makes them. I may be wrong, but I'd not expect to see ANY optical improvement with the Tamron, and you may lose some ground mechanically (focus speed, build quality).

 

If you are after a better general purpose lens, I'd suggest the highly regarded 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, or a touch better optically, with better range, and IS (but you'll pay for all that) the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

 

Even better go get a prime lens like the 50 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.8 and play with those. Then you'll really see what good glass can be like.

[catman5]

Hi Barry -- I have a 28 - 300 XR and have never bothered with the Canon kit lenses. When I've seen them at swap meets they seem to be pretty cheaply made and others here have said that they are not all that good. I'm very happy with the XR. I'm sure there are better lenses out there; many here like the expensive Canon lenses and recommend the high end product, but the price/performance point is much better for me than the very expensive, and heavy, Canon (L?) lenses. Quality of the photo is also very good. Prior to this I had a Tamron 28-200 Super, which I gave to my son who has the Rebel 2000, and was quite happy with it as well. My advice is to rent one and try it to see if you like it. Hands on with finished product to judge from is the only way to be sure. All of the reviews in the world are just words; see if you like it. I travel extensively and it is perfet for it. Good quality, light, affordable, non-huge filters, great range, etc.

[josh_thornton]

Here's my suggestion...why buy another lens that covers the same ranges with similar speed to what you already have? Why not get a fast prime lens instead? I used to shoot a kit zoom originally when i first bought my camera, but don't even look at it anymore. Now all i shoot is my 20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2...i have a 75-300 IS that occasionally comes out, but the 28-80 hasn't seen daylight in over 2 years, and I'll shoot at least a roll per week, sometimes up to 10 rolls in a week. Get a high quality prime so that you can start dealing with depth of field, reducing background distractions, etc. You'd be amazed how much your photography improves when you can't zoom in and out, you'll think a lot more about how to make the image the best it can be...out of all the photos i took with my zoom I only have 2 that i'm proud of...I have probably 200+ images that i'm extremely proud of with my primes. What type of photography do you do? That might make a difference as well...but why not get a canon, why the sigma macro-superzoom? the effects on what you take the photos of change so much depending on the zoom that you might end up just worrying about the framing of a photo instead of the effects of shooting the photo at 28mm vs 100mm.

 

Josh

 

Josh

[david_kieltyka]

Just to note, as someone who seldom uses zoom lenses...you can use a zoom in essentially the same way you'd use a "prime" lens. It just requires a bit of discipline in your approach. I recently bought a used Canon 70�210mm f/3.5�4.5 as a travel lens. After testing it out a bit I realized I'd get along with it just fine if I pretended the zoom ring had only three settings: 70, 135 & 210mm. So rather than fiddling with the ring to find the "right" composition--which I find to be distracting rather than useful--I just set the lens to long, longer or longest and then move myself, as though I'm using a single focal length lens, until I like what I see through the camera's finder. Voila! Versatility without trombone-itis. :-)

 

-Dave-

[melvin_bressler]

Barry: I'm sorry, but I think the Canon 28 -90 is a great paper weight. Canon makes great lenses, but that ain't one of them. I bought a Tamron 24-200 XRT zoom latest version, for vacations and the like, so I would only have one lens. I did not expect much except convenience. It blew me away. I use it for everything. but, I've heard form others that the 28- 300 is not as good. I have no personal experience with that lens.

[whayne_padden]

Barry the 28-90 is plastic crap. Optically the 75-300 is ok but not special. IMHO I would get the following Canon lenses

 

either 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 or 28-135 f/4.5-5.6 IS + 100-300 f/3.5-5.6.

The 100-300 is a better lens than the 75-300 for sure. Another

 

If you want to use third party lenses then there are some good alternatives but I would tend to steer away from super zooms. A possible combo might be Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di XR + 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD Macro. Sigma and Tokina have similar offerings too.

 

Basically a two lens combo chosen wisely will easily outperform a all-in-one super zoom. It costs more but after a while you will appreciate it.

 

In fact if you have the money I would get as starter kit

 

Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 + Canon 70-200 f/4L + Canon 1.4x TC. The 70-200 is an L series lens that while not cheap is still a bargain at $540 and is optically superb, plus it works wonderfully with the 1.4x TC.

[yakim_peled1]

<P>Kit lenses and hyperzooms are generally considered at the bottom of the food chain. The general advice is - Avoid them.</P>

 

<P> For the short end I'd recommend a 3 set primes (28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/2.8) or the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS. The primes will be much better and much lighter. If you think you have the discipline to restrict yourself to primes you will be rewarded with better knowledge of photography and, most probably, better pictures.</P>

 

<P> The 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM + 70-200/4 USM L is also a very good set. Another good telezoom is the discontinued 100-300/5.6 L. </P>

 

<P> See <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html</a> , <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200">http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200</a> and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos</a>. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[barry_kleinberg]

Thank you all so much for the responses. I will probably shock most of you by saying that I traded my 50mm 1.8 and 24m 2.8 in for the sigma 15 - 30 so that I would have less kit to carry round. Having said that the 15 - 30 is a big piece of glass! But I now have 3 lenses covering 15 - 300mm. I also have a 2x teleconveter. I am getting great images (some already published by AP here in the UK).

 

As I carry my kit almost everywhere I do crave less kit but I am beginning to see that I need to chose my kit very carefully and start working up to the primes - but they can be SOOOOO expensive.

 

I like to shoot a combination of landscapes, architecture and wildlife. I think the 15 - 30mm will be good for the first two, all I need now is the 400mm f2.8 - Well we can all have a dream.

 

Thank you all again.

 

Barry

[josh_cadwising]

i've been on a tear with my rebel xs(now A1 since my rebel crapped out) and tamron 28-105 f/2.8 for about two years now. i rarely find myself needing anything outside of that lens for my shots.