Advice on getting my first lens

[sje4182]

deleted

 

[woeilee]

By the way, I feel that zoom range will cultivate laziness, not so much learning the technique and how does a 17-85 possibly train technique more so than 18-55? Aren't they both lenses?

I must agree with calebk that both lenses are usable :bsmilie:.
Demandread: Hope you have gathered enough information from this thread to make your descision

 

[YqArts]

I must agree with calebk that both lenses are usable :bsmilie:.
Demandread: Hope you have gathered enough information from this thread to make your descision

You are not making sense... His not talking about usability. His talking about your statement to "learn" better with the larger range of FL . Definitely all lens are usable IMO. :sweat:

 

[coldfish]

Hi Demandread,

I won't try to convince you any other lens since you've your eyes fixated on this one but I'll tell you why I sol mine years ago and never looked back:

1. It's heavy and bulky
Come to think of it, I still find it heavy and bulky (funny how its heaviness can get stuck in my head for so long) comparing to the 17-55mm f2.8

2. 135mm is good enough reach for me but 28mm is just not wide enough
Given that you are going to buy a wide angle lens much later, I can imagine the frustrations you will have for a long time to come.

3. It's IS is only 2 stop effective

4. The f-stop climbs fairly fast when zooming in reaching f5.6 already at 85mm (I think) making it frustrating to use in-doors trying to zoom in from afar. The 2-stop IS doesn't help much here.

5. The aperture has only 6 blades (and not circular)
What this means is that you are not going to get nice bokeh even wide open.

6. This is the most important part: This lens is simply not sharp
If I can recall, my lens's sweet spot was f8...

Of course there are nice things to say about this lens but I'm sure you can read them from elsewhere. My aim here is not to discourage you but hope that you look objectively at what you are going expect when throwing in this much $$$.

 

[demandread]

First, thanks to everyone who replied. All your suggestions have been helpful, even though I didn't really know anything

As coldfish said, I started this thread with my mind fixated on the 28-135mm but now I feel like I'm a kid in a candy store. I set out looking for sweets, but didn't realize that there are different kind of sweets. Does everyone go thru this phase the first time they get their camera?

Now I think i'm up to 3 choices

1) get the 28-135mm as planned
2) get the 17-50mm and then the 55-250 (as some people suggested)
3) get the 18-55 IS (and then get another new lens later)

I'm still leaning towards the first option, but the second option is also sounds good. A question: If I want to do landscape/cityscape photography, how important is aperture?

coldfish, out of curiosity, what did you relace your 28-135 with?

Somehow I feel like i'm rushing my decision, but I'll be going home for vacation in a month's time and I plan to take pictures while I'm there (most likely some old churches, and maybe a good sunset photo)

 

[YqArts]

First, thanks to everyone who replied. All your suggestions have been helpful, even though I didn't really know anything

As coldfish said, I started this thread with my mind fixated on the 28-135mm but now I feel like I'm a kid in a candy store. I set out looking for sweets, but didn't realize that there are different kind of sweets. Does everyone go thru this phase the first time they get their camera?

Now I think i'm up to 3 choices

1) get the 28-135mm as planned
2) get the 17-50mm and then the 55-250 (as some people suggested)
3) get the 18-55 IS (and then get another new lens later)

I'm still leaning towards the first option, but the second option is also sounds good. A question: If I want to do landscape/cityscape photography, how important is aperture?

coldfish, out of curiosity, what did you relace your 28-135 with?

Somehow I feel like i'm rushing my decision, but I'll be going home for vacation in a month's time and I plan to take pictures while I'm there (most likely some old churches, and maybe a good sunset photo)

I guess yes. Everyone had gone thru the same phase as you =)
Who doesnt want to start off perfect :bsmilie: .
But unfortunately theres no such thing... :cry:

Landscape/Cityscape I would reckon you will need small aperture 5.6 to 11? So in that sense fixed 2.8 lens may seems a little useless for you.
But! having 2.8 or small aperture will be a blessing in even situation you cant forsee now.
And! not only that these lens gives fixed aperture, as a norm they give better optics result due to better lens elements used :thumbsup:

 

[coldfish]

Hi Demanread,

Don't worry, we've all been there before (sometimes still am :angel.

If I can recall, I got it exchanged for a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (the first version).
Still miss this lens a lot for it's warm tones. Very flattering taking portraits.
That's where I got really hooked with f2.8 (!)

I'd go for really good tripod right from the beginning (again I went through the phase of starting with really flimsy ones then upgrade and upgrade till I got it right, should have listened to the experts...) but IMHO, there is no need to go for the very best in the market, at least in the beginning.
Try out some 3rd party lens first as they are really good for the money. No lens, like everything else in this world, is perfect, it's how you make the best out of their virtues to get the pictures you want.
What's important is these 3rd party lens help boost your confidence with their nice bokeh and fast apertures.
When you've built your confidence and have a deeper pocket, there is no stopping you from going for the red rings.

First, thanks to everyone who replied. All your suggestions have been helpful, even though I didn't really know anything

As coldfish said, I started this thread with my mind fixated on the 28-135mm but now I feel like I'm a kid in a candy store. I set out looking for sweets, but didn't realize that there are different kind of sweets. Does everyone go thru this phase the first time they get their camera?

Now I think i'm up to 3 choices

1) get the 28-135mm as planned
2) get the 17-50mm and then the 55-250 (as some people suggested)
3) get the 18-55 IS (and then get another new lens later)

I'm still leaning towards the first option, but the second option is also sounds good. A question: If I want to do landscape/cityscape photography, how important is aperture?

coldfish, out of curiosity, what did you relace your 28-135 with?

Somehow I feel like i'm rushing my decision, but I'll be going home for vacation in a month's time and I plan to take pictures while I'm there (most likely some old churches, and maybe a good sunset photo)

 

[bry'an]

18-55 is good lens

 

[gman23xx]

actually, the only reason why I didn't get the kit lens was that I read reviews which said that the 18-55 lens was crap and that I should just get a better one instead :dunno:

So since I'm kind of committed now (shouldn't cry over spilt milk and all that), i thought it might be a good idea to get something within budget (i've set aside something like 600-700 for this)

The kit lens is a very good lens. Don't look down on it.


gman

 

[demandread]

An Update: I sent out emails to some stores the other day for quotes on the 28-135, 17-50, and 55-250. When they came back, the 28-135 was the cheaper (compared to the Tamron 17-50) which practically sealed the deal for me. I decided that I would be getting it next week after I take my friend's copy out for a spin.

That night I told my friend (who shares the flat with me) that I would be buying the 28-135 and he goes "WTF!! Get a different lens so we can try out something more. Just borrow my copy if you need it @_(#()$*#)$#" (language not that colorful)

So I told him I wanted range and he said he had a 70-300 (sigma one) lens I could also borrow. That practically got me thinking of delaying my lens buying till next year and get the 24-105L.. or getting the 17-50. In the end, the 17-50 won. I still want my 10-22 and the cost of those 2 lenses would probably be equal to the 24-105. I'll also probably get the 55-250 at some distant point in the future (btw, how's the IQ for this? I heard it could be better, but it's still the best bang for buck)

Thanks for everyone who replied to this thread, and hopefully someday I can post some pictures I can be proud of. One more thing. Can I still get those nice blurred background shots with an aperture of 5.6?

 

[bernstein1234]

An Update: I sent out emails to some stores the other day for quotes on the 28-135, 17-50, and 55-250. When they came back, the 28-135 was the cheaper (compared to the Tamron 17-50) which practically sealed the deal for me. I decided that I would be getting it next week after I take my friend's copy out for a spin.

That night I told my friend (who shares the flat with me) that I would be buying the 28-135 and he goes "WTF!! Get a different lens so we can try out something more. Just borrow my copy if you need it @_(#()$*#)$#" (language not that colorful)

So I told him I wanted range and he said he had a 70-300 (sigma one) lens I could also borrow. That practically got me thinking of delaying my lens buying till next year and get the 24-105L.. or getting the 17-50. In the end, the 17-50 won. I still want my 10-22 and the cost of those 2 lenses would probably be equal to the 24-105. I'll also probably get the 55-250 at some distant point in the future (btw, how's the IQ for this? I heard it could be better, but it's still the best bang for buck)

Thanks for everyone who replied to this thread, and hopefully someday I can post some pictures I can be proud of. One more thing. Can I still get those nice blurred background shots with an aperture of 5.6?

I'd owned this 28-135 before. Although I do not have a shot at 135mm with f/5.6, but I'd one taken with f/11. Here's what it can do at this aperture:

No PP done. ISO 100, 135mm, f/11, taken using 350D.

 

[coldfish]

That's one fine example of this lens's performance: It records the colours faithfully. No more.


Here's mine at f5.6, 0.8s, ISO100 @135mm with 300D

No PP. Converted from RAW.