Is this a good plan for a lens that will fit my needs?

iBookG4user · Sep 9, 2007

Right now I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and I am using the kit lens, but I have already outgrown it and would like to get a new lens. Since I sometimes shoot some animals that are in motion I decided that I wanted a fast lens. However my budget is rather limiting, I will only have a $400 budget when I get my paycheck in a week. One other thing I want to be able to do is zoom close to the subject so I can get some close up shots, I can't do that with my current lens.

The lens that I'm looking at getting right now is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD, that will take up all of my budget. But two weeks after that I will have enough to get a set of Kenko extension tubes, so that would allow me to get closer pictures of the subject. I have heard good things about the lens I am looking at and how it is even as good as the Canon L series lens, so that was swaying me towards getting it. But I want some advice from the great photographers here.

tsk · Sep 9, 2007

It might be a little out of your budget and I'm not sure if it's fast enough for you, but I'd look at the 70-200 f/4L (no IS). I think it's in the $500 range. It would definitely get you those nice close-ups.

iBookG4user · Sep 9, 2007

tsk said:
It might be a little out of your budget and I'm not sure if it's fast enough for you, but I'd look at the 70-200 f/4L (no IS). I think it's in the $500 range. It would definitely get you those nice close-ups.

I'm really looking for a faster lens than that, I'd like it to be about as fast as the one I said I was looking for in my original post. Thanks for the suggestion though. What do you think of my plan, though? Would it work well?

miloblithe · Sep 9, 2007

What other lenses would you like to buy in the future? Thinking that through can help you put together a longer term plan. I have Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8, and I do like it a lot, but it's hard to fit into a smallish (3-4 lens) lineup of lenses that would do everything I'm interested in. On the other hand, I think it's a great "event" lens, where you don't need that wide of angles and a little extra reach over an 18 or 17 to 55 is nice.

iBookG4user · Sep 9, 2007

miloblithe said:
What other lenses would you like to buy in the future? Thinking that through can help you put together a longer term plan. I have Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8, and I do like it a lot, but it's hard to fit into a smallish (3-4 lens) lineup of lenses that would do everything I'm interested in. On the other hand, I think it's a great "event" lens, where you don't need that wide of angles and a little extra reach over an 18 or 17 to 55 is nice.

Unfortunately this lens would be the only lens that I can get for a while, it will have to last me until I save up a good amount for college. So I was looking at getting a lens that takes great pictures and with the extension tubes it will give me close pictures where I can zoom in. Just to give you an idea of some of the things I take pictures of, here is a link to my DeviantArt, I put a lot of my good pictures up there.

Grimace · Sep 9, 2007

A lens that only goes to 75mm isn't going to give you much reach, no matter how fast it is. Unless you are shooting in dim lighting, the f/4 70-200mm lens would be a fantastic choice. It is extremely sharp and will get much closer to most animals than a lens that tops out at 75mm.

Your meerkat is a great example. You took it at 55mm, the max range of your kit lens. 75mm isn't going to give you much more. 200mm would get you a good face shot, or the whole body around 140mm. Especially with animals, you'll have better luck being further back.

iBookG4user · Sep 9, 2007

Grimace said:
A lens that only goes to 75mm isn't going to give you much reach, no matter how fast it is. Unless you are shooting in dim lighting, the f/4 70-200mm lens would be a fantastic choice. It is extremely sharp and will get much closer to most animals than a lens that tops out at 75mm.

Your meerkat is a great example. You took it at 55mm, the max range of your kit lens. 75mm isn't going to give you much more. 200mm would get you a good face shot, or the whole body around 140mm. Especially with animals, you'll have better luck being further back.

Even with the extension tubes? And would the 70-200 lens be fast enough at f/4 to capture this without the blur issue that I ran into at f/5.6?

Grimace · Sep 9, 2007

iBookG4user said:
Even with the extension tubes? And would the 70-200 lens be fast enough at f/4 to capture this without the blur issue that I ran into at f/5.6?

You are confusing lens "speed" with shudder "speed." Lens speed is how much light the lens can let in. The more light, the faster the shutter can work. I've gotten incredibly sharp shots with fast movement at f/8 or f/11 -- I just have to make sure the shudder flips faster.

You can increase your shutter speed (with the same amount of light) by moving your ISO (sensitivity) setting up. Because you took that shot at ISO 100, you need to let in more light to get a fast shudder speed. If instead that shot were taken at ISO 400, you probably would have gotten a shudder speed of 1/400 instead of 1/160, eliminating the blur.

miloblithe · Sep 9, 2007

I've never used extension tubes so I could be wrong, but I think they won't really work to give you more reach in a lot of circumstances because you lose the ability to focus to infinity. My understanding was that extension tubes are primarily used for macro work, where you're focusing on things that are a matter of inches from the lens.

To make a lens have greater reach, I think what you'd want is a teleconverter, which I don't think would be compatible with the 28-75.

iBookG4user · Sep 9, 2007

Grimace said:
You are confusing lens "speed" with shudder "speed." Lens speed is how much light the lens can let in. The more light, the faster the shutter can work. I've gotten incredibly sharp shots with fast movement at f/8 or f/11 -- I just have to make sure the shudder flips faster.

You can increase your shutter speed (with the same amount of light) by moving your ISO (sensitivity) setting up. Because you took that shot at ISO 100, you need to let in more light to get a fast shudder speed. If instead that shot were taken at ISO 400, you probably would have gotten a shudder speed of 1/400 instead of 1/160, eliminating the blur.

I'm sorry if I worded that wrong, what I was actually trying to ask was that if the same shot would've been clear with it at f/4, same ISO, and the shutter speed adjusted accordingly.

miloblithe said:
I've never used extension tubes so I could be wrong, but I think they won't really work to give you more reach in a lot of circumstances because you lose the ability to focus to infinity. My understanding was that extension tubes are primarily used for macro work, where you're focusing on things that are a matter of inches from the lens.

To make a lens have greater reach, I think what you'd want is a teleconverter, which I don't think would be compatible with the 28-75.

Ah, that makes sense, so I guess I'll have to save up for another couple of weeks and get the Canon lens.

M@lew · Sep 10, 2007

I've also read that when you use extension tubes you lose 1 f stop with the lens.

djbahdow01 · Sep 10, 2007

The Tamron lens is an awesome lens. I own it for my Nikon, and i never take it off for when I am in need of a wider angle. It is always on my camera as it is a decent short range all around lens. For the price it is well worth it. But like others have said if you want a longer range look at a longer lens, 70-300, 70-200, etc.

Using it with extension tubes (macro work) or teleconverters (extending the range) is doubtful. The focus speed slows down as it is a screw driven focus system, not a lens motor driven focus. As another user mentioned, depending on the teleconverter, 1.4x (1 stop) or 2.0x (2 stops) you lose your f2.8, max aperture would be f4.0 or f5.6 and in low light it makes it tough.

Don't get me wrong for the Tamron I am a huge believer that it is a great lens and has done very, very well for me. But it sounds as if you need something a little different.

tsk · Sep 10, 2007

At f/4 it would have been 1 f-stop faster. 1 f-stop at the same setting would halve the shutter speed so you'd be at 1/320. Would that be quick enough to remove the blur? I'm not sure but it should be significantly better than you got with 1/160. The f/4 would allow you to shoot twice as fast as you are at f/5.6. A f/2.8 lens would allow you to shoot 4 times as fast (1/640).

Like someone mentioned previously, I don't think you'll be happy with the reach at 75mm if you're looking for an upgrade from a 55mm.

iBookG4user said:
I'm sorry if I worded that wrong, what I was actually trying to ask was that if the same shot would've been clear with it at f/4, same ISO, and the shutter speed adjusted accordingly.

Ah, that makes sense, so I guess I'll have to save up for another couple of weeks and get the Canon lens.

Regis27 · Sep 10, 2007

If you get the Tamron, consider the 17-50mm instead of the 28-75mm. As others have noted, 75mm is not going to be enough reach so you'll eventually have to supplement it anyway with something >100mm (like a 75-200 or 100-300). And you'll probably find that on a XTi (with the 1.6x crop) the 28mm end is not going to be wide enough. So you end up with a lens that covers the middle range decently but is not enough for either end. In that case, you would be much better off getting the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and using "leg zoom."
At least with the 17-50mm, as you upgrade in the future, you would be left with a decently wide angle lens, rather than carrying a wide and zoom, in addition to your 28-75mm. (remember the 28-75 range was designed for a 35mm camera, the 17-50 is the equivalent useful range on a crop camera.)

ChrisA · Sep 10, 2007

iBookG4user said:
Right now I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and I am using the kit lens, but I have already outgrown it and would like to get a new lens. Since I sometimes shoot some animals that are in motion I decided that I wanted a fast lens. However my budget is rather limiting, I will only have a $400 budget when I get my paycheck in a week. One other thing I want to be able to do is zoom close to the subject so I can get some close up shots, I can't do that with my current lens.

The lens that I'm looking at getting right now is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD, that will take up all of my budget. But two weeks after that I will have enough to get a set of Kenko extension tubes, so that would allow me to get closer pictures of the subject. I have heard good things about the lens I am looking at and how it is even as good as the Canon L series lens, so that was swaying me towards getting it. But I want some advice from the great photographers here.

FOr wildlife 75mm is not long enough. Yes you want the f/2.8. 180mm at f/2.8 would be ideal.

About the extension tubes. They allow you to focus closer. that means you can photograph objects that are just inches away from the lens. It does not a 75mm lens into a 200mm lens. Sorry if this is obvious but your question was not clear.

For any long lens like a 200mm get a tripod. Nothing will make more difference in the technical quality of long telephoto shots.

If you are short of cash look at some used canon lenses.

Search

Search

Is this a good plan for a lens that will fit my needs?

iBookG4user

macrumors 604

tsk

macrumors 6502a

iBookG4user

macrumors 604

miloblithe

macrumors 68020

iBookG4user

macrumors 604

Grimace

macrumors 68040

iBookG4user

macrumors 604

Grimace

macrumors 68040

miloblithe

macrumors 68020

iBookG4user

macrumors 604

M@lew

macrumors 68000

djbahdow01

macrumors 6502a

tsk

macrumors 6502a

Regis27

macrumors member

ChrisA

macrumors G5

Our Staff