naturetrek

<p>I've had this lens for about a year. I was very pleased with the results, and only upgraded because I needed more reach. Here's two of my photos taken with this lens:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7632221<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7929278&size=lg</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another vote for the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8<br>

The only issue is that 28mm is not wide enough for landscapes. You should consider the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 as well. If she'd be OK with just a prime, the Canon 60mm F2.8 does excellent portraits and great macro.</p>

 

<p>I have the Canon 17-85mm and the Tamron 28-75mm. The only issues I have with this Canon lens are the purple fringing and softness at the corners. In the center, it's as sharp as the Tamron. The IS works great, however.</p>

<p>I got this lens as part of the 50D kit, so it was well worth the money. On the other hand, I would probably go for the Tamron 17-50mm if I were to choose now.</p>

<p>Although not a dSLR, the SX10 is a really nice camera to start with since it has a lot of features. As everyone else suggested, start experimenting with manual settings, take a lot of pictures, and then review them and learn from your mistakes.</p>

<p>I remember back when I was using my Powershot G5, there was an excellent book I used to read (written by Dennis P. Curtin). It looks like it is available for your camera also and I strongly suggest you read it (<a href="http://www.shortcourses.com/store/canon-sx10is.html">check this link</a> ).<br>

<br /> Also a great way of learning is by maintaining a portfolio here on photo.net and actively request critiques and comments.</p>

<p>Good luck and have fun ! :)</p>

<p>This topic has been discussed many times before, and some people will swear by the 2X mounted on 70-200 f2.8 (as being optically very good).</p>

<p>I do not have the 70-200 F2.8, but I do have the 2X (which I use with the 300mm F2.8 prime), and the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is an excellent lens, very sharp. The 2X however degrades the image quite a bit, especially when the light is not perfect. I only use it when there is enough light and the conditions are perfect. Otherwise the photos taken with the 100-400mm (cropped accordingly) are much better.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 70-300mm IS. If it's outside your budget, the 55-250mm IS will do just fine. The image quality you get with those lenses is much better than the one you get with any of the "10X" zooms.</p>

<p>About changing lenses: get a nice Lowepro Sligshot bag and it's not going to be such an inconvenience anymore.</p>

<p>Strictly for headshots/portraits, I would also get the 85mm f/1.8. But having only $600 to spend, I would get the <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">60mm F2.8 macro</a> lens, which not only works great for portraits, but it's also an amazing macro lens (browsing through your Flickr portfolio, it looks like you like that kind of stuff).<br>

Just my 2 cents :)</p>

<p>What Matthijs said, although I think the relative small price difference between the two is worth spending to get the micro-adjust and such a high quality LCD screen on the 50D.</p>

<p>You say "portraits and live music". Did you consider the original 5D ?</p>

<p>Bite the bullet and get the 70-300mm IS (do not confuse this with the 75-300mm btw, which is utter junk). I had that lens for a while and loved it. If you're into macro, get the Canon 500D with it, and it becomes a high quality macro lens as well.</p>

<p>+1 for the 100-400mm</p>

<p>Yes, the fist one I've tried was back on the original Digital Rebel, when there were a number of nice features added (e.g. mirror lockup, iso 3200 and more) which were only available on the 10D. That hack worked fine on the 300D.</p>

<p>The combo works well (IQ-wise), but you might end up not using it much. The extra reach is insignificant compared to what you'll lose (fast focusing in lower light, sharper results etc).</p>

<p>Kari: sorry, I should have been clearer in my post. I bought a <em>different </em> Opteka lens a while ago, not this particular one. It was pretty much useless, and I also paid a lot for it. The store did not give money back, only in-store credit. This lens in particular is rebranded, so I guess it's a different story.</p>

<p>I would pass on that ... A while ago I bought some Opteka cheapest-finest lens (from the same ebay store). Don't let those sample photos mislead you, they are resized. The photos taken lack sharpness even in the center, and at the edges you will notice severe color fringing and an overall out-of-focus blurry mess.</p>

<p>As Gil said, better wait until March then. Adorama takes pre-orders for the T2i, body + kit 18-55mm for $899.99</p>

<p>I think you should first ask yourself what features are important to you, and why do you feel the need to upgrade from the XS. What improvements are you after ?</p>

<p>Personally, I would get into the xxD series because of the faster shutter speeds and better body construction (ergonomics). I've had Rebels before, and only the 50D felt like a "real upgrade" to me (other than upgrading the lenses, of course :)</p>

<p>Keith: start by stating what does "publishable" means to you.</p>

<p>Do you think a better background does not make a picture better (expecially those safari shots when you don't need that distracting background vegetation in a lion portrait for example) ? Or do you think the 100-400mm delivers the same bokeh when compared to the 300mm F2.8 or 500mm F4 (e.g. at the longest end / widest aperture) ?</p>

<p>I have both the Canon 17-85mm and Tamron 28-75mm. The Tamron lens is superior in every way (except noisy AF), but it's lacking IS and 28mm is a bit long. I agree with Buffdr about the Canon 17-55mm 2.8is, but another one to consider is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 if money is an issue.</p>

<p>Strictly for portraiture, the 50mm F1.8 is the best bang for the buck.</p>

<p>I would also vote for getting new/better glass instead of upgrading to one of the latest bodies.</p>

<p>This is what I would do if I were you:<br>

- sell one of the 40D and get a used 1DmkIII or 1DmkIIn (they will get cheaper soon)<br>

- sell the 70-300IS, and get the 70-200 F2.8 (either IS or non-IS). I found that the 70-300 holds it value pretty well (not a bad lens, but not 2.8)<br>

- the 100-400mm is great, but many times not long enough, and you won't get the great background blur that makes a photo much more "publishable". Get a fast and long prime (e.g. 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4) plus extenders</p>

<p>Have fun</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gerhard, great website!</p>

<p>How do you find 7D when compared to 50D ? I think ISO800 on a 50D is pretty much the same as ISO400 on my XT/XTi. How would you rate ISO1600 on 7D compared to 50D ?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>@Kevin:</p>

<p>There is nothing I dislike about my Canon 60mm F2.8. At 60mm, there is not much bokeh difference between f2 and f2.8. What can the Tamron do that Cannon can't ?</p>

<p>http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm</p>

<p>24mm is not very wide on a crop body, and since you like landscapes it would make sense to go full frame.<br>

The portraits taken with a full frame look better also, with better background blur.</p>

<p>I would get an original 5D, and get another lens (e.g. 200mm F2.8). If video is important, I would get the 5D mk2.</p>

<p>I don't have the 17-50mm, but on my 28-75mm the focusing is pretty loud compared to my USM Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Mine sounds like this:<br>

<p>Is yours like this one ?<br>

<p>It's probably the lens, and the conditions for the specific shot (e.g. overcast). Did you try the same scene in the same condition with the two cameras ?</p>

<p>I have the same issue with the same lens (mounted on XT, XTi and 50D), especially at the edges the branches are just a blurry purple mess when the conditions are "right".</p>