Lens advice.. about to upgrade to 40D...

dmcaloney

dmcaloney

Messages
289
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
as it says about to take on a better camera...

but on the same lenses.

Had the 400D and therefore the kit lens 18-55 (which I tend not to use).

Also have:

the 75-300 4.5-5.6 III Usm (which on reflection now is prob the worst lens I could have :D)

the nifty 50 1.8 (ideal for pics of the kids about the house)

and the 28-135 3.5-5.6 (which I am using as a HEAVY walkabout lens)

However, what I want to know is.... can I have a marked improvement in shots from a lens upgrade that isnt going to cost me the earth? Thinking the nifty will be ideal even on the new camera... looking at range really for sports shots.

Was looking at the 70-200 f/4L, but thats gonna cost me the best part of 500 quid, and not sure if the cheaper 55-250 would do the camera justice?

Any advice would be much appreciated. Esp on whether 3rd party equivalents could be had for similar results.

Thanks.
 
Actually I have a 40D and use the 28-135 as my light walk about lens :lol:

I usually have a siggy 50-500 on it :)
 
Do you get decent pics on the 28-135 Davie?

Lens works OK for me, but I always wonder if I am missing a trick somewhere, with another lens, that doesnt cost the price of a new car! :D
 
I have a 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM.

Amazing lens, very sharp - I've heard of it being called the 'hidden' L series lens. It's never really let me down, and I've had some great shots with it:

858023279_6FJgz-M.jpg


858034229_XCAnA-M.jpg


858028353_CmnP9-M.jpg


I'd recommend it over the 70-200 f/4L for the extra reach. However, for sports shots you might have trouble getting good shots in poor light - particularly with the 400D which doesn't have amazing high-ISO capabilities.
 
dmcaloney said:
Was looking at the 70-200 f/4L, but thats gonna cost me the best part of 500
Thanks.
Click to expand...

they come up a lot cheaper than that in the classified, have you checked the price of new with Kerso
 
Cheers Julian.

The new lens will be on the 40D...

been reading reviews between the 70-200, 70-300 and the 55-250 and my head is spinning trying to find the one to go for.

Having just spent out on the camera, pennies are tight on a new lens, but also realise that 90 quid lenses wont do the new camera justoce, so bit of a balancing act.

Cheers for posting up pics to give me the idea of quality.

:thumbs:
 
RKC said:
they come up a lot cheaper than that in the classified, have you checked the price of new with Kerso
Click to expand...

The 70-300 is 349 from Kerso, and the 70-200 is 459, as of February - I dunno if prices have changed massively since then.
 
Thanks Bob and Julian, looks like I should give the man a shout for prices.

Just looking to gather opinion really on perceptions of lenses on different budgets.
 
dmcaloney said:
Thanks Bob and Julian, looks like I should give the man a shout for prices.

Just looking to gather opinion really on perceptions of lenses on different budgets.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the 55-250, but I don't think that you would find that much benefit in getting the 70-200 vs 70-300.

70-200:
Better quality, sharper. (but the 70-300 is by no means soft - you can sharpen it in post processing anyway).
Faster when zoomed in. (but f/4 might still be a bit slow against f/5.6 in poor light for sports)

70-300:
Longer reach.
Cheaper.
Has IS.
 
i have recently acquired a second hand 70-200, all i can say it has a reputation of excellence, and so far i love mine, then again a lot of people have good things to say about 70-300 and 55-200 which both have IS which is definetly worth considering
 
None the wiser then lol :D

Sounds like the lenses dont give so much of a difference to notice (other than obvious reach) then. Cheers peeps.
 
Anyone got anything to add regarding the relative merits of Sigma or Tamron lenses?
 
Yes, I had a sigma 70-200 F2.8, and it was a gem of a lens, and it took the sigma 1.4TC very well.

The only reason I sold it was a further move to primes.
 
Cheers for the info Les, looking like the best part of 6-700 quid though which is a bit too high a bar setting at this stage.
 
dmcaloney said:
Do you get decent pics on the 28-135 Davie?

Lens works OK for me, but I always wonder if I am missing a trick somewhere, with another lens, that doesnt cost the price of a new car! :D
Click to expand...

I find it a fairly versatile lens for when I cant be bothered lugging anything else around. I bought a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with a view to sell the 28-135 but I still have both, just can't bring myself to let it go. I have to say though that having a Canon 10-22 :love: for the wide end helps

I think for a lens that costs less than £200 s/h, there's not alot wrong with it.

Of course you could replace it with the excellent Canon 24-105 f4 IS but it's 3X the price. An option I gave some thought a few months ago. Generally lens wise you get what you pay for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top