Canon lens advice ?

Yoblique · Apr 4, 2009

Hello.

I am here for some advice for a new canon lens.

I am a Canon 400D Hobby-Photographer, got only one 18-55 mm objective with my canon.

But i am confused between two lens i am thinking to buy:

Option 1 - Expensive

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC (Vibration Compensation) Aspherical (IF) Auto Focus Zoom Lens for Canon EOS - U.S.A. Warranty

Option 2 - Cheaper

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di Aspherical (IF) Ultra Wide Angle- Telephoto Auto Focus Zoom Lens for Canon EOS - U.S.A. Warranty

Can anybody tell me the difference about these two ?

And which one i should go for ?

I mainly want to buy new lens because i want better zoom in/out.

Thanks alot.

- Y

rufus5150 · Apr 4, 2009

Vibration Compensation -- it's got an internal system that helps counteract hand-shake and stabilize the image.

Yoblique · Apr 4, 2009

rufus5150 said:
Vibration Compensation -- it's got an internal system that helps counteract hand-shake and stabilize the image.

Hey - thanks for your kind information

So this is the only big difference?
I have checked the prices, Vibration compensation is quite expensive..hmmm.

rufus5150 · Apr 4, 2009

It's the same with the canons, nikons, etc. The IS on canon's f/2.8 70-200mm is another $500. Depending on your subjects, it may or may not be worth it.

Katier · Apr 4, 2009

Yoblique said:
Hey - thanks for your kind information

So this is the only big difference?
I have checked the prices, Vibration compensation is quite expensive..hmmm.

Sadly yes, in lens VC does add to the price of the lenses.

Is it worth it? Well I would say neither lens should be your next lens. You already have a 18-55 so look at something like a 70-200 or 70-300 lens. I'm sure the Canon Guru's will suggest suitable ones.

Yoblique · Apr 4, 2009

Katier said:
Sadly yes, in lens VC does add to the price of the lenses.

Is it worth it? Well I would say neither lens should be your next lens. You already have a 18-55 so look at something like a 70-200 or 70-300 lens. I'm sure the Canon Guru's will suggest suitable ones.

Hmm, yeah but with a 70- 200 / 300 ...the zoom out will be decreased.

tsaraleksi · Apr 4, 2009

Just carry both lenses and you'll have your range covered at a higher quality. For the same price as the VC version of the lens you posted, you can get a 70-200 f/4L that is a professional level zoom lens. The 28-300 will probably not have notably better quality than your 18-55 and will lose you 10mm on the wide end (which is pretty significant, much more so than even than losing 100mm on the long end)

RyanLilly · Apr 4, 2009

I also think that a 70-200 f/4 would make a better compliment to you kit lens.

The image quality will be very noticeably better with the canon, and although it is shorter, its also at least a stop faster. For the most part, with what I shoot, I seldom have any need for something longer than 200mm.

Katier · Apr 4, 2009

rufus5150 said:
It's the same with the canons, nikons, etc. The IS on canon's f/2.8 70-200mm is another $500. Depending on your subjects, it may or may not be worth it.

Actually I'm not sure about the 'etc'

It's NOT the case with Sony and Pentax for sure, both of them use the slightly inferior but much more convenient in body stabilisation.

rufus5150 · Apr 4, 2009

I'm pretty sure that other manufacturers (sigma, tamron) also make image stabilizing lenses that are more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.

Yes, I'm aware of pentax/olympus/sony in-body IS which is all manners of convenient unless it dies.

Katier · Apr 4, 2009

Yoblique said:
Hmm, yeah but with a 70- 200 / 300 ...the zoom out will be decreased.

Doesn't matter, that's covered by your kit lens. As time goes in it's concevable you'll end up with lenses covering smaller and smaller ranges. It's the beauty of SLR cameras. You can change lenses to suit the environment your shooting in.

If I could afford it, for instance, I'd have, for my Pentax K200D something like :-

14mm f2.8 Prime (Prime is a non-zoom lens and is usually faster and better quality)
21mm f3.2 Prime or 12-24 mm f4.0
55mm f1.4 Prime
77mm f1.8 Prime
100mm f2.8 Macro Prime
60-250mm F4

As you can see, just 1-2 zooms in total. I'd probably (if you could afford that lot) walk round with the 55mm with the 14 or 21 in my pocket. 77mm for portrait work, 100mm for macro and the long zoom for times when I need that kind of lens.

Yoblique · Apr 4, 2009

Thanks alot everyone, for all advices and information

After reading your posts, i think 70-200 would be the good choice for me now.

Appreciating.
-Y

Yoblique · Apr 4, 2009

Actually i need this lens for event / concert photography...which is supposed to get done by standing in public area (with movie-camera man)

Shoot will be done at evening, so the daylight wont be so great.

Any suggestions?

Montana · Apr 4, 2009

Buy some fast primes. 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4), 85mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2. Primes will be faster than zooms for low light. Zooms don't get much faster than f/2.8 and they are spendy. Fast primes can be had cheaper and allows you to keep your ISO at 800 or less. I wouldn't shoot that 400D over ISO 800.

Derrick

Katier · Apr 4, 2009

Yoblique said:
Actually i need this lens for event / concert photography...which is supposed to get done by standing in public area (with movie-camera man)

Shoot will be done at evening, so the daylight wont be so great.

Any suggestions?

Depends on the range you'll be shooting.

if your close up then you could do with a 50mm f1.4 or 1.8 lens, at range the 70-200 will do (it'll be on the slow side but actually overall better than the kit lens ). Remember to set your ISO speed to something like 800 too as you'll need every aid you can get to get the shutter speed up.