A&P Which lens(es)? $600.00 budget.

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by killer4605, Oct 1, 2006.

  1. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have a 350d (rebel xt) and a 17-85 IS lens. I want to sell the 17-85 because it is too slow for me.

    I was thinking of just getting a sigma 30mm f1.4 for now since i'm on a crop body and possibly a 70-200 later down the road. I had a 50mm f1.8 but it was too much for a walkaround.

    Anyways, my limit is about $600.00 (college student w/ no job ftl).

    What do you guys suggest I get?

    And please, no L glass that's out of my price range and I don't care that 3rd party manufacturers aren't as great as canon.
     
  2. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    sigma 70-200 :dunno:
     
  3. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    the tamron 17-50 2.8 has been getting pretty good reviews, and then theres always the 28-75. I would watch for used 70-200 F/4s now that the IS version was announced.
     
  4. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    sounds good but need a walkaround too
     
  5. 00soul

    00soul halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    28,325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the overlook hotel
    canon 28 2.8 :dunno:
     
  6. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    canon f4 L is less than the sigma
     
  7. pyork03

    pyork03 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep you can get a canon 70-200 f/4L for around 450-500 used. Im thinking about selling mine. Its an awesome lense.
     
  8. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think f4 might be a little slow. that's one of the things i don't like about my 17-85
     
  9. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    well for that budget you don't have many options
     
  10. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. brasheye

    brasheye Rotary Crew

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    6,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney - AU
    Canon 17-40f4L

    Not sure what that is in US dollars, might be a bit higher than $600 sorry.

    Great walkaround everyday lens :)
     
  12. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for the walk around lens. the 17-40 f4.0L has better build quality, quieter autofocus, and quicker af in bright lighting.
     
  13. killer4605

    killer4605 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see alot of people suggesting f4.0 lenses... does the 17-85 just suck or do I just suck? I really don't like using the lens in even moderately low light situations. It isn't the sharpest of lenses either. I mean when I took pictures with my 50mm f1.8, the colors seemed more vibrant... with the 17-85 they seem more dull.
     
  14. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I don't like the 17 85 nor the 28 135; 2.8 no care
     
  15. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    There is nothing wrong with f4. Learn how to use it.
     
  16. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Why learn how to use a lens with max aperture of 4.0 when there are 2.8 glass out there. I use 4.0 on a 2.8 lens all the time because it's sharper. On a 4.0 lens, to get the same sharpness an aperture of 5.6... which doesn't give as good of a background blur. The 17 40 is overrated; it's the L badge that people place too much emphasis on.
     
  17. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,754
    Likes Received:
    8
    :werd: i'd rather have the 24-70 f/2.8L than the 17-40, even if the 24 isnt wide enough
     
  18. ohknaks

    ohknaks New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Depends what you want to do. If you don't like the lens you've got, get the tamron 17-50 or 28-75 f/2.8. They're both great lenses that won't let you down. If you want to expand your range a bit decide if you want to do wide angle or telephoto. On the telephoto side you can get the canon 70-200f4l or maybe the sigma 70-200 f2.8. If you get the sigma you can get a 2.0tc later on to extend the range. On the wide angle side there are a bunch of options from canon, tokina, sigma, and tamron.

    Pick a range and look at your options. Personally, my next lens is going to be a wide angle.
     
  19. mattsb2000

    mattsb2000 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    61,666
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Bernardino, CA
    My 70-2004 is sharp wide open, and stopped down.
     
  20. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,938
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    i got my 28-75 f/2.8 for 385 shipped :dunno: that'd still leave you ~200 for other things
     
  21. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    shoot raw
     
  22. N-Word-Jim

    N-Word-Jim Cure for boredom

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    because its cheaper and fits the budget. the 17-40L has higher IQ than similarly priced other-than-canon brand lenses like the 17-50 2.8.

    Also, all of my L glass needs not be stopped down whatsoever to achieve photos sharper than necessary. The only reason I stop down (since I only shoot with L glass) is to increase my depth of field. I'm not saying it doesn't get sharper when i take it down a stop from wide open, but I can't discern a difference. I shoot wide open most of the time and all of my stuff is way sharp.
     
  23. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    my 70 200 f/2.8L IS is noticeably sharper at 4.0 at 2.8. It's sharp at 2.8 but it's just sharper at 4.0. I tend to shoot at 3.2 or 3.5 when I have the 70 200 on the 1D MKII and 2.8 or 3.2 when on the 20D mainly for the depth of field control.
     
  24. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    My response was to him saying anything f4 sucks.


    It doesn't. I don't shoot at anything but f22 anyway.




    :mamoru:
     

Share This Page