one walk-around lens

ketan · Sep 13, 2007

I love this thread...I am also running into circles not able to decide about the lens. So far following EOS JD I have reached on Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. What is holding me back is little less length, bit short. But I will never compromise on fixed apperture factor for length...
Did anyone tried Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 by chance? I like the range..first time heard this one
Sorry Mike, 17-85 is f/4-5.6...does not read very attractive.
ketan

keith204 · Sep 13, 2007

ketan said:
But I will never compromise on fixed apperture factor for length.......Sorry Mike, 17-85 is f/4-5.6...does not read very attractive.
ketan

"never compromise for length" and "f/4-5.6 isn't attractive"

Your sig shows a 28-200. So it looks like you already have your focal length covered, and now you're looking for a fast lens.

sabbath999 · Sep 13, 2007

Big Mike said:
How about the 17-85 IS? It's nice and wide, which I think is important with these cameras and it's got a nice focal range. Plus, it has IS, which is nice.

IS (VR for you NikoNuts out there) is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Megan14227 · Sep 13, 2007

Mapgirl, I currently own the Canon 28-135 and it's a fantastic all-around lens. I highly recommend it.

subimatt · Sep 13, 2007

I recommend the 28-135 IS, it is a great walk around lens, and the one I use for just such occasions.

ketan · Sep 14, 2007

keith204 said:
"never compromise for length" and "f/4-5.6 isn't attractive"

Your sig shows a 28-200. So it looks like you already have your focal length covered, and now you're looking for a fast lens.

Yah, you are right...I inheridated since my Old EOS 300 film camera days and using it till I make up my mind on what I want. Not very happy with that...
Only lens i bought after buying camera 30D is 50mm 1.8 and I am happy with it.

Steph · Sep 14, 2007

sabbath999 said:
IS (VR for you NikoNuts out there) is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Do you mean you don't need VR/IS but a non-IS/VR lens and a tripod as you don't need sliced bread but bread and a knife???

mapgirl · Sep 14, 2007

I just got the 17-85 and it's perfect for me. :boogie:

Thank you Big Mike and everyone else for the help! I wanted something that would coincide with how I've been shooting, only better. This lens gives me a bit more length as well as more width (as well as being just plain better). The fact that it's a slow lens doesn't bother me. I'm usually trying to stop-down as much as possible anyway, and with the IS, I can achieve a sharp image at slower speeds.

While there are times when a longer lens would be nice, I think I'd rather buy a separate zoom for the longer distances. Maybe lens-making is different now, but I can't get old training out of my head that the quality of the image starts to degrade the further the lens zooms. The best, of course, is a separate lens for each length, no zooms at all. But I'm no pro (and I haven't won the lottery

). So the 17-85 seems ideal for me right now.

Thanks again!:goodvibe:

ketan · Sep 14, 2007

Big Mike said:
Oh no...the dreaded 'Crop Factor' :twisted:

OK, here's the deal. 35mm SLR film cameras have been the standard for many years. The Digital SLR cameras are based on the format of the film cameras and they basically use the same size of lenses. The main difference between the film & *most* of the digital models (besides the obvious film vs digital) is the size of the medium. 35mm film is 24mmx36mm...the sensor in your DSLR is somewhat smaller.

Because the sensor is smaller, the image coming into the camera is 'cropped'. When looking into the viewfinder, you only see the middle portion of the image.

Now, because 35mm film is the standard, the camera companies (and everyone on the internet) use that as a comparison.

So if you were used to using a 35mm film camera and having a 50mm lens....that same lens would be 'cropped' when used on your digital camera...and would compare to an 80mm lens on a film camera. The factor for your camera is 1.6 times.

So when you see that the 17-85mm is 'equivalent' to a 28-135mm lens...that is just a comparison to the old standard that was 35mm film. Don't worry about it at all.

Mike, just for my achedamic understanding, if I use my Tamron 28-200 on my film EOS300 versus 30D, at 28mm I will see diifferent picture! I mean by width it when it is used on film camera it will cover larger area?