Change up the lenses?

[MPowerM3]

I have a Canon Rebel Xt now and until I get better/can afford to step up the body (way down the line) I was thinking of making some changes.

I have a Canon Rebel Eos 35mm camera I wanted to sell (never used once I got my Dslr). And I wanted to get this lens http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/55200mm.asp

What do you think, is it worth it. The Xt came with a 17-55 lenses, this fits perfectly, I have a 70-300 zoom lens but was thinking of selling it too cause I just dont use it, and im not happy with the pictures from fullest zoom because I shake it too much (no monopod). Am I thinking in the right direction here?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Big Mike]

What is your budget?

I don't really think that the Tamron lens is a great lens...it's most likely no better than your 70-300. If you look at the maximum aperture of the lens...at 200mm it's F5.6...which is probably the maximum aperture of your 70-300 lens at 300mm. So your 70-300 at 200mm, probably has a maximum aperture of F4 or something like that.

Basically, if you think that you are too shaky with the 70-300...the 55-200 Tamron won't be any better.

If you are going to shoot with a telephoto and no support...then you will want an F2.8 lens...but those are expensive. Maybe something with a max of F4 would fit better. If you can afford IS...that will really help.

The 70-200 lenses are highly regarded. Canon has several to choose from...70-200 F4 L, 70-200 F4 L IS, 70-200 F2.8 and the fantastic 70-200 F2.8 L IS. Those range in price...but they don't start cheap.

Canon even has a 70-300 with IS.

Again, it depends on your budget. You won't get enough to buy a lens by selling your film rebel...but it might be enough to get a decent tripod or a monopod...which will surely help.

 

[MPowerM3]

Thanks Mike, I have a tripod already, I guess i'll have to keep looking for a 55-200 f2/8. Thanks again.

 

[Big Mike]

55-200 is just on the limit of 'too much zoom'.

When they design a lens that has a wide range (28-300 etc) they have to make compromises in the image quality. Even the 70-300 lenses are not all that great...compared to the best lenses.

If your budget allows...Sigma makes a 70-200 F2.8 lens that is much cheaper than the Canon version...but is still a pretty good lens.

 

[uberben]

depending oh how much zoom you need....when I started out I sold my kit lens and got a canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. I got it used for 150 and it has served me well. Its no L lens, but its 1/12 the cost of the L lens for that range. There are a couple versions of this lens, stick with Mk1 or mk2 of the f/3.5-4.5 USM lenses. Stay way from the 4.5-5.6, thats a junky lens. I'm sure you've read before....the 50mm 1.8 is probably the most bang for buck lens I have. Its so cheap and gives you great results.

fred miranda.com is a great resource for gear reviews:http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

~Ben

 

[Big Mike]

the 50mm 1.8 is probably the most bang for buck lens I have. Its so cheap and gives you great results.

:thumbsup: I agree

 

[MPowerM3]

All apreciated, I guess I should tell you guys that im doing this for mostly action/sports taking. Ive read that 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, I also was thinking about a Sigma 10-20.

How about this one...
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3267&navigator=2

 

[Big Mike]

For action/sports...you will need a big aperture.

The Sigma F2.8-4 zooms are supposed to be alright...the F2.8 is nice...but they are only F4 on the long end (which is where you would probably be for sports)...so that is not very fast.

I've been looking at getting the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (Sigma has an 18-50 F2.8 )...having F2.8 for the whole range is very nice...although it will cost you more.

For sports, you might also consider the Canon 85mm F1.8...it's also a great portrait lens.

 

[table1349]

For action/sports...you will need a big aperture.

The Sigma F2.8-4 zooms are supposed to be alright...the F2.8 is nice...but they are only F4 on the long end (which is where you would probably be for sports)...so that is not very fast.

I've been looking at getting the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (Sigma has an 18-50 F2.8 )...having F2.8 for the whole range is very nice...although it will cost you more.

For sports, you might also consider the Canon 85mm F1.8...it's also a great portrait lens.

Mike, as side note, I have that lens and absolutley love it. I don't know if I just got a really good copy or what, but I will put it up against a 17-40L for crispness and color any day. As for build, it is not bad but definaltely NOT L quality but still quite good. Sorry, didn't mean to hi-jack the thread.