Do you own a consumer lens?

siejones

siejones

Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
What consumer grade lenses do you own that you actually want to keep and are not a stop gap until you can afford a pro grade lens of the same focal range?

Do you have a consumer grade lens that you swear by?

Also I am thinking of getting me a inexpensive light weight lens to take into the mountains with me when my pack has to be minimal as possible. You know something that if it got smashed on the rocks I wouldn't feel the need to jump off the nearest cliff face. Something with acceptable sharpness will do but better than the budget range. This will sit along side my siggy 10-20 so needs to cover the range say from 24 or 28 onwards.

I have been looking at used canon 28-105's as these seem to be a popular stand up lens. It would be nice it it stretched a little longer and I have also looked at the Canon 28-200 although I can't seem to find much info on this one. I wouldn't go for the 18-200 ranges as I think they push the limits to far to be good enough and I really don't need that wide end.

So any ideas/recommendations?
 
Not sure it's too good an idea really Sie given the standard of work you turn out? The primary reason for these ventures into the hills is photographic I assume, and as it's not a casual undertaking to tackle that terrain are you really going to be satisfied with anything but the best images you can get? ;)
 
CT said:
Not sure it's too good an idea really Sie given the standard of work you turn out? The primary reason for these ventures into the hills is photographic I assume, and as it's not a casual undertaking to tackle that terrain are you really going to be satisfied with anything but the best images you can get? ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks CT :)

I am not so sure that some of the consumer range is as bad I once thought. The little siggy 10-20 is sharp at the centre but it really does degrade at the edges and it is noticeable if I pixel peep but I find that I am not bothered that much as it has not impact on the final image.

Also the cheaper lenses tend to behave when stopped down to F8 and beyond and although this is crap for wildlife shots it would be fine for landscape shots that I tend to average around F11. I also tend to end up manual focusing as well so a poor focus system is less important as well.

Like I say if it were fast moving and wide open aperture demanding stuff I wouldn't settle for less than the pro range but I think I would get away with it.

Apparently Galen Rowel used to use some consumer lenses for the same reasons :eek:
 
Couple of years ago Sie, as I was just getting into photography - I took one of my first shots in the grand canyon ( I know - think it was this that properly inspired me to try and take it a little bit more seriously) with a film SLR and a couple of kit lenses!
Hmmm - Big mistake - The shots mean loads to me, but boy do I wish I had a better lens. Incidentally - I still have both kit lenses :)
 
The only lens I have any experience of is the 17-85 EF-S IS. Not quite as sharp as the 17-40L but it's not night and day, and colour saturation isn't quite as good out of the camera, but it's an excellent lens and the IS is a real boon at times.

Hardly a consumer lens, but you can pick them up at pretty well consumer prices 2nd hand now. I'd have kept mine if it had fitted the 1 Series body. :)
 
chewyuk said:
Couple of years ago Sie, as I was just getting into photography - I took one of my first shots in the grand canyon ( I know - think it was this that properly inspired me to try and take it a little bit more seriously) with a film SLR and a couple of kit lenses!
Hmmm - Big mistake - The shots mean loads to me, but boy do I wish I had a better lens. Incidentally - I still have both kit lenses :)
Click to expand...

Cheers mate :)

I do agree about the kit lenses. I quickly replaced my 18-55 but these are considered budget lenses and are a step down from consumer grade. I would never consider taking my old kit lens to the beatiful places :)
 
chewyuk said:
Indeed - Just a thought - would you classify a 17-85 a consumer lens?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it is.

Bit wider at the one than needed and a bit shorter at the other than I wanted and the IS makes it a little heavier and I tend to use a tripod anyway soooo..... :thinking:
 
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 its razor sharp and cheap. Only issues are its a little slow at focusing and a bit noisy but excellent lens, and is staying in my collection until I can fund a canon 24-70 L.
 
mikeleslie said:
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 its razor sharp and cheap. Only issues are its a little slow at focusing and a bit noisy but excellent lens, and is staying in my collection until I can fund a canon 24-70 L.
Click to expand...

Wow yeah your right this is a suprising good lens. F2.8! and I can't believe it's resolution figures even wide open and for £250 brand new!. If only it were a little longer it would be this no questions asked.
 
If you go down the 28-105 route, make sure you get the metal mount, 3.5 -4.5 version. I used to have this lens and whilst it won't set the world on fire, it turned in decent enough shots with petty decent sharpness too. I've seen some real bargain prices second hand too - check the EOS classified site (y)

Definately get the hood for it though - its a fairly robust but light package.
 
Well - to be truthful, all of the shots I have taken of any landscape on my 30d have been on a 17-85 :) I think I am doing OK so far - So maybe give this a go ? Confession Time - I don't own an L lens !
Think the point for me is, if you have an eye, and you clearly do, you can use most lenses, but to CT's point, how gutted would you be if you have taken a lower quality lens and you got that 'perfect' moment but just had your 28-200?

Personally I'd stick with what you have until you can stretch yourself financially... but WE do offer buy now pay later ;)
 
chewyuk said:
Well - to be truthful, all of the shots I have taken of any landscape on my 30d have been on a 17-85 :) I think I am doing OK so far - So maybe give this a go ? Confession Time - I don't own an L lens !
Think the point for me is, if you have an eye, and you clearly do, you can use most lenses, but to CT's point, how gutted would you be if you have taken a lower quality lens and you got that 'perfect' moment but just had your 28-200?

Personally I'd stick with what you have until you can stretch yourself financially... but WE do offer buy now pay later ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah 17-85 certainly does do the jobs for you mate. I have seen the evidance (y)

I agree about missing that opportunity but with this in mind I do tend to take several of the same scene either with slight composition changes or slight changes in aperture so one usually hit's the spot :) My siggy 10-20 tends to have it's dumb moments and misfocuses occasionally but I have been saved by my belt and braces attitude to shooting and another has been ok. Of coarse this only counts for non moving landscape scenary :D

I already kind of have this range covered with better lenses and not my reasons for buying. It's more what I said about in my original post about lightness e.t.c ;)
 
Jonnyreb said:
If you go down the 28-105 route, make sure you get the metal mount, 3.5 -4.5 version. I used to have this lens and whilst it won't set the world on fire, it turned in decent enough shots with petty decent sharpness too. I've seen some real bargain prices second hand too - check the EOS classified site (y)

Definately get the hood for it though - its a fairly robust but light package.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate :)

EOS classified site? New on me...will have to Yahoo it :)

I have just found this site which is useful. It has a list of lens which it give you info on then points you too reviews on other sites of that lens.

http://www.eflens.com/
 
stephenb said:
I had a 28-105 lens and found it useless at anything other than f8.
Click to expand...

Starting at F8 or just F8? In other words was it ok at F11 and onwards?
 
stephenb said:
I had a 28-105 lens and found it useless at anything other than f8.
Click to expand...

Thats interesting - no such problems with mine..... which version did you have: there were 3 or 4 versions from memory?
 
To be honest if you are printing 6x4 / 7x5 a consumer lens is more than adequate. You will only start noticing the drawbacks once you hit 10x8 upwards. A lot of photographers dont actually print their shots and pixel peep on their monitors looking for reasons to purchase that L or Gold Ring Nikon glass.

Asses your needs before spending hundreds on glass you dont actually need.

King.
 
King_Boru said:
To be honest if you are printing 6x4 / 7x5 a consumer lens is more than adequate. You will only start noticing the drawbacks once you hit 10x8 upwards. A lot of photographers dont actually print their shots and pixel peep on their monitors looking for reasons to purchase that L or Gold Ring Nikon glass.

Asses your needs before spending hundreds on glass you dont actually need.

King.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed :)

Although money isn't really they issue here as I mentioned in my original post ;)
 
Steep said:
The Tamron 18-250 gets a good rating on FredMiranda http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

/edit ah, but it's not so cheap...
Click to expand...

Thank yeah I that's amazingly good for such a long zoom range!

I am really...really swaying towards this Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It's an amazing lens for the money and has rave ratings everywhere. 75 is a little short but I may just comprimise.

I am acutally considering selling my canon 17-40 now :eek: It's done me proud and I love it but ever since I got my little siggy 10-20 it's not getting much use and when it does it's just too short and the long end. The only thing stopping me is the possibility of getting a FF body in the future but I am still in 2 minds as to wether I will or not arrrrgggg :wacky:
 
siejones said:
I am not so sure that some of the consumer range is as bad I once thought. The little siggy 10-20 is sharp at the centre but it really does degrade at the edges and it is noticeable if I pixel peep but I find that I am not bothered that much as it has not impact on the final image.
Click to expand...

The 10-20mm is one of Sigma's pro EX range lenses though rather than a consumer model.

I am very happy with my consumer grade Sigma 17-70mm, and have produced large prints from it. My only complaint (aside from wishing it was HSM, constant aperture etc.) is that it has gotten a little loose so has a tendency to creep when vertically oriented. Though I rarely take shots of my feet or the sky so more an annoyance than a practical problem.

Michael.
 
I had the Tamron 28-75 since not long after I got the 20D. It really is that good!

28 isn't that wide but 75 isn't bad on a crop camera. I sold mine recently to John (Darkstar) and I think he is equally impressed with it.

I have gone FF now and I'm not only loving having lenses that show the view I was used to from film, I'm finding the 5D is a better performer all round. And my 17-40 now gives me a similar view to your 10-20 :D

Not sure I've helped much ;)
 
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8?

EX - so well built, large aperture, good focal range, sharp, and only £219 new :)
 
siejones said:
Wow yeah your right this is a suprising good lens. F2.8! and I can't believe it's resolution figures even wide open and for £250 brand new!. If only it were a little longer it would be this no questions asked.
Click to expand...

£206 from onestop. From experience I would say the Sigma 24-70 feels slightly better built but the Tamron is sharper and cheaper.
 
I still use my Canon 28-105 on a regular basis, found it really sharp, even wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top