Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The Digital Camera Thread: Questions, discussions, etc. (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/31260-digital-camera-thread-questions-discussions-etc-155.html)

They will.... For money!!

You will have to pay for parts and labour - but that's the same even if you buy locally in grey.

I'd vote for Tamron 17-50 if IQ is the concern. Excellent lens for the price.

17-50 is constant f2.8 and highly regarded. Looks like the tamron is smaller and lighter too.
17-70 has more range and a very usable 1:2.3 macro. If versatility is what you are looking for, this gets the vote. On the other hand if you plan getting dedicated macro lenses , then 17-50 is what you should look at. You cant go wrong with either of them.

The TZ3 has a longer range but for birds anything short of 400mm is a short. For a bit more ($350) you can get the Panny FZ18 and I think Oly also makes something that is equally long (400mm+) and economical (about $350).

min 2500mAH

I thought you had decided on the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS combo?

remember 3rd part lenses have very poor resale value. do you need f/2.8?

Another vote for tamron 17-50...

Navin

I looked up a few snaps - honestly found the colour, contrast and most importantly the 'Sharpness' lacking big time in the 18-55 IS kit lens

My methodology - I must have viewed over 500 snaps shot by each of these lenses in various forums and threads - So that averages out everything - ability/equipment/and baises ! Found that the average mean of the IQ to be much, much, much higher with the other two lenses,
and someone sold me on avg lens/good body vs good lens/ good body logic.


Some of the shots with a Kenko Extension tube were brilliant! So much so that with them the Sigma 17-70 probably loses the edge it had in the macro dept.

Canon Digital Photography Forums - View Single Post - -= Archive Tamron 17-50 2.8


End of the day I like the IQ these lenses provided - So perhaps at a cost of 12 & 15k - its bearable.
Canon Digital Photography Forums - View Single Post - -= Archive Tamron 17-50 2.8


The downside - wonder if the lack of IS is going to be a huge handicap?

HERE is a GOOD databank of images and actual user opinions of various lenses - Please note that this is a Canon forum
-=Lens Sample Images Archive=- (work in progress) - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Navin,
the 17-50 is a great lens, not just for aperture, but for image quality also.
Photozone.de is a great site for lens reviews, and they have most of the lenses professionally tested.

If your eyes are that demanding I think the 17-55/2.8 IS is on order. The sample I got is tack sharp and focuses very fast on my 40D. I am not a fan of 3rd party lenses especially sitting here in India where service is spotty.

KB, think of it this way. The venerable 5D today costs $2K. Good FF lenses like the 24-70, 24-105IS, 70-200IS all cost around $1.5K each. So a 2 lens FF (like the 24-70 + 70-200) kit even using the 5D will cost you $5k+.

Nikon's only FF costs about $5K. only if Nikon introduces a FF body under 2k will Canon do the same. I dont see this happening any time soon (despite rumours of 50D and 5D MkII) - like in the next 2-3 years.

If you are planing to upgrade to FF the frist chance you see how the the 350/400D with a BGE3 ifts in your hand. If it works for you get that body and use the money saved for lenses. Remeber bodies loose value faster than lenses (even EF-S lenses will retain value better than bodies).

I fear sample to sample variance in 3rd party lenses. Both Sigma and Tamron have disappointed me. However I have a friend who uses Nikon and has had great results using Tokina ATX-Pro lenses.

Thanks Navin ji.

Budget in fact needs to be in the range of 250$ so I think shooting distances will not be an option in that case.

FZ18 was the first choice. Then slowly worked my way down to the TZ3. Now that also seems a tad pricey.

Navin..I have decided full frame will happen not LESS than five years from now.

I know the attributes of the lenses you mention - and yes I would have to invest in them at some point. But I would rather pick and chose my way over time.

What I need for the moment, is a 'learning kit' of acceptable quality - which gives me the latitude for some ceative freedom, without breaking the bank. I am trying to keep my initial cost down to an acceptable level. I find the contrast/colour/'pop' combination in these lenses - which is one step up from the kit-lens- is over the threshold of what I expect/look for/like - anything lower and my P&S is better:). So much so that while I like the pics the Canon 70-300IS USM produces, I am trying to argue with myself if it'll not be more prudent to cut my teeth with the 50-250IS instead - half in cost for just 50mm less on the top plus some slighly inferior optics and IQ. To complicate matters the 70-200 F4L is at the same price! Everyone I know seems to think IS is important for tele+noobie combination. Which will then mean a 2x or a 3x budget. If I have to spend that kind of money, then I want to be SURE of what I, with my ability - or what I would have aquired by then - can get out of the lens.

The Xsi/450D Canon indepth review is out on dpreview!

Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Will you be happy with the 18-55 IS for 5 years? If you are as progressive a photographer as I think you are the answer is NO. If you want a lens that will last you 5 years think no further than the 17-55 (3rd party lenses are poor cousins with limited resale value, the 17-55 is a keeper - I expect FF camers in 2009-11 will offer the option of using EF-S / DX lenses; why the Nikon D3 does so today).

For the tele, going by your records with the P/S what % of shots do you use the tele for? If it less than 15% and light is good then get the 55-250 or 70-300 (depending on budget). The 70-300 with IS will be more useful than a non IS lens.

With the recent discounts on the 40D (upto $200) the 450D is not yet good VFM. It will be once the "new-ness" wears off.

I agree. I cannot stand the 18-55 even going by the smple shots I've seen - hence the hunt for better lenses like Tamron 17-50 f2.8 etc.

What I meant is that 'I' intent to resist the 'UPGRADITIS' disease for the next five years.:D So all this will have to last me for 5 yrs at least!

I now need to compare between a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 24-105L f4 IS USM. The latter seems a brilliant walkaround at the expense of the wide angle. The tele front - I intent to learn with the 70-300 IS (or competetive variants) before I move onto more expensive lenses. The way I assume my usage will develop would be


INDOORS (from Now - to - one year from now) 50% - 25%

OUTDOORS 50% - 35%

MACRO Nil - 15%
(flowers bugs et all)

TELE Nil - 15%
Wildlife, Birds etc

Overlaps Nil - 10%


Very true - the US price of a 450 kit with the 18-55IS kit lens is $900 (899 actually) - where as the 40D body is $940 - a difference for just $40. The difference between the 'body alone' variants of the two is just $140.

In India the B&W price of a 450D is 43k - and the 40 D body can be had for about the same price. Guess they have made the decision making easy worldwide!!

As long as a lens is giving L like image quality, why bother about resale. For somebody who keeps lenses for 3-4 years, resale is no big deal.
As for FF and EF-S lenses, that is not possible due to 2 reasons
1. Technically, the mirror will hit against the lens due to lens design
2. EF-S lenses are very poor in corners. They are optimized for center 1.6 circle.