First and foremost thank you ALL for taking he time to respond.
Back in the 70's, I had a Minolta 201 and three primes. A 24 (or 28?), a 50-1.4 and a Sigma 200/Macro. I shot tens of thousand of slides through them and enjoyed the memories. When it came to buying a figital camera, one of the things I wanted to avoid was all the lens changing back and forth. Back then, when my wife and I travelled around, she acted as my nurse.....50 please....200 please....scalpel..... She not that thrilled to be a lens mule anymore. ...........
Sooo....
I started with getting a telephoto and then it morphed into a quest for a good all around lens. First, it was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but I changed my mind because it had no vibration control. Then it was the Tamron 17-55 with VC. When I tried it at the store, it was hunting back and forth and sometimes it would stop dead and out of focus. The salesman had to change the settings on his camera to make sure it worked. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then it was the Canon 15-85. When I bought it on Friday, even if I knew the price, I was kind of shocked to see the $960 bill. Thankfully, it's from a big retailer and I'm bringing it back today.
I know primes are better, but the convenience of travelling without the size and weight makes it worth it.
So....
I don't really want to spend the money on the 24-105 but I can if I have too and if it makes a measurable difference. Alternatively, I can buy the much cheaper 17-85 or go back to the Tamron 17-55 for about the same money. Given what I saw with the 15-85, I doubt I will get that much better shots out of them.
So now its.....
*Canon 17-85 for $450
*Tamron 17-55 f2.8 for $550....and then add a telephoto
*Canon 24-105 for $1400
*NOTHING. Buy a cheap telephoto (Canon 55-250 F4, $300) and call it a day for few years or until they make a substantial good improvement over the camera I have.
Any thoughts?
Again, thanks in advance for people who have taken the time to respond.
Back in the 70's, I had a Minolta 201 and three primes. A 24 (or 28?), a 50-1.4 and a Sigma 200/Macro. I shot tens of thousand of slides through them and enjoyed the memories. When it came to buying a figital camera, one of the things I wanted to avoid was all the lens changing back and forth. Back then, when my wife and I travelled around, she acted as my nurse.....50 please....200 please....scalpel..... She not that thrilled to be a lens mule anymore. ...........
Sooo....
I started with getting a telephoto and then it morphed into a quest for a good all around lens. First, it was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but I changed my mind because it had no vibration control. Then it was the Tamron 17-55 with VC. When I tried it at the store, it was hunting back and forth and sometimes it would stop dead and out of focus. The salesman had to change the settings on his camera to make sure it worked. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then it was the Canon 15-85. When I bought it on Friday, even if I knew the price, I was kind of shocked to see the $960 bill. Thankfully, it's from a big retailer and I'm bringing it back today.
I know primes are better, but the convenience of travelling without the size and weight makes it worth it.
So....
I don't really want to spend the money on the 24-105 but I can if I have too and if it makes a measurable difference. Alternatively, I can buy the much cheaper 17-85 or go back to the Tamron 17-55 for about the same money. Given what I saw with the 15-85, I doubt I will get that much better shots out of them.
So now its.....
*Canon 17-85 for $450
*Tamron 17-55 f2.8 for $550....and then add a telephoto
*Canon 24-105 for $1400
*NOTHING. Buy a cheap telephoto (Canon 55-250 F4, $300) and call it a day for few years or until they make a substantial good improvement over the camera I have.
Any thoughts?
Again, thanks in advance for people who have taken the time to respond.