Replacing the kit lens on a 20d (wedding use)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cloud9, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. Cloud9 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #1
    This year I will be second shooting at weddings again and leading a handful or more on my own. To prepare for this I purchased the following glass canon 28-70 f2.8L 80-200 f2.8L both used and off ebay.

    The more I read the wedding photo forums out there and the more I think about what I did last year I keep thinking that I might have made a poor decision in purchasing the 28-70 L. Half the photos I shot last year I took with the kit lense because it was the only thing I had that went wide enough. I shot the other half of my photos with my tamron 28-75 2.8 that I will be selling soon.

    So I find myself struggling with the idea that I need to replace my kit lense because I know I am going to reach for it if I don't.

    So Should I keep it or scrounge deep and go for one of the following:

    sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5, justifys my 28-70, is faster then others below $500 and is usable on a full frame camera, (5d in 1-2years)

    Tamron 17-50 2.8, faster, sharper, better- not as wide :(

    sigma, 18-50 2.8 fast, cheaper then the tamron not as wide :(

    tokina 12-24 f4 not as fast:( wide:) justifies my 28-70, wide:)

    You know if nobody screams bloody murder I might just keep shooting with the kit lens. Worked last year why not this year right?

    Please rearrange my thinking on this. I spent a lot of money already, and there is more to spend, I just want to have all the tools avaiable to take advantage of every situation I can afford.

    Thanks
     
  2. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #2
    Optically, the Tamron 17-50 is the best lens on your list. I don't think 15mm vs. 17mm is meaningful for most wedding apps.

    You might also consider the Sigma 17-70; it'll get you closer to your 80-200, but at a price of speed. Optically, it's on-par with the Tamron. I have this lens (sold my 17-40L to buy it) and it provides exceptional sharpness and color saturation.

    If you can get one of these, sell your 24-70 and get a second body, even if it's an XT or XTi. It's kind of dangerous showing up with only one body.
     
  3. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #3
    I dont feel like selling the 28-70. I have never sold anything on ebay so I dont expect to get what I paid for it, plus I bought it on credit. Taking a loss on the purchase and paying a credit company for the loss feels like more pain then I want to grieve for.

    I need a fast lens. Nothing else to it.

    I might go for the tamron in the end, but I would rather have something in the 12-35 range, that way I still get good use out of my 28-70, and I get a wide angle to fill the gap.

    I do plan on getting a used rebel or another 20d, and I am thinking of shooting with 2 cameras on my shoulder this summer.

    But I got to tell you, the wallets in seroius pain.
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    If you're willing to get the Tokina 12-24, then what about the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5?

    Or if you want to go less expensive, how about the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0?

    Or if you need fast, do you think a prime could work for you? Sigma's 20mm f/1.8 qualifies as fast.
     
  5. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #5
    That 17-35 smells pretty nice. I didnt think of that route. I like the idea that it is usable on a full frame and 2.8 is good. I wonder if I shouldnt just get a real wide angle though, (wide for 20d that is). I plan on getting a 5o 1.8 in a month or 2 as an emergency low light lens. Plus it will still be good for portraits, the 20 mm seems to have limited use for me.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Unfortunately for the Tamron 17-35, the full frame results don't seem as impressive:

    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/48/cat/23

    But they'd still be more impressive on a full frame camera than a lens that wouldn't work at all.

    The 50 f/1.8 is nice. It's a cheap clunky piece of plastic, but it's a good lens.

    I've never done wedding photography though, so I'm not fully sensitive to the needs.
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    Why did you pay so much money for a Canon 28-70 mm if you already had the Tamron 28-75 mm? I thought the Tamron was supposed to be an excellent lens. :confused:

    Even if you have never sold anything on eBay, I think you should start. :eek: Having both the Tamron and Canon is just a waste of money. Test the lenses, and if you find that the Tamron is just as good as the Canon, I think you should sell the Canon.
     
  8. Coheebuzz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Nicosia, Cyprus
    #8
    Another vote for the sigma. I don't own in but i've used it briefly and it's a great lens for the $$. Its got great range and it will be even wider when you eventually get a full frame. Also, i don't know your shooting style, but the 50-70 range will help you a lot in portrait shooting. At 70mm the bokeh is way better than lets say 24mm.

    It's only downside it's the f4.5 on the tele end, nothing else. But in low light situations you can use the 50 f1.8 as you said earlier.

    Arrrgh, am still waiting for someone to build a good quality 10-80 f2.8, but it seems the marketing dept. has other plans. :rolleyes:
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    Sigma's 17-70 won't work on a full-frame camera. That was actually one of the consolations I told myself when I decided not to buy this lens and buy Tokina's 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 instead (although the real reason was that the Tokina is over $200 cheaper).

    One downside to the 17-70 is that you've already for 28-70 well covered--much better covered than this lens covers that range. So to some degree you're looking at this as a 17-28 f/2.8-3.5. And actually, it's not bad in that range. It does have pretty good macro ability too, which might be really nice for some details at wedding shoots, so that's a potentially big plus.
     
  10. stagi macrumors 65816

    stagi

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #10
    The 28-70 is a great lens to have, why do you think you made a bad decision?
    Also you shouldn't make your mind up from what you read on photo forums, choose equip. that fits your shooting style and gives you the results you are happy with.

    If you are looking for a wider lens I would go for the canon 16-35 L.

    -- Mark
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    I'm guessing, judging by the lenses the poster has listed, that lens is too expensive. Although, with the new version that just came out, a used 16-35 L mark 1 might be had for under $1000.
     
  12. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #12
    What about the Canon 17-40 f/4L? I don't personally own one, but I've never heard one person complain about it. $658 at B&H.
     
  13. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #13
    I had it and sold it for the Sigma 17-70. The 17-40L is a really nice lens; good color saturation, built like a tank and it has USM focussing. It's pretty soft wide-open, though. I had to shoot at f/5.6, otherwise I had to do some USM in PP. For a crop body, the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 are really the best options - for for range, the other for speed. Optically, they're about the same.
     
  14. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #14
    The tamron would go schitso on me in low light, unable to AF on what I was seeing in the VF. The 28-70L has given me a 20-30% improvement in this area. Thats enough to make it a must have. I don't recreate "moments" and I can't use manual focus fast enough in the dark.
     
  15. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #15
    Alright, let's get this straight- the two lenses you bought off of ebay are among the sharpest ever made for a Canon-mount SLR. Arguments could be made that the 24-70 is slightly better wide open than the older 28-70, but it's really nothing you'll notice at f/4 or above. Perhaps the 70-200 f/2.8 is slightly sharper than the 80-200, but once again, a crop camera will not let you see much of a difference. The Tamron is a nice lens, but truly, you're comparing a Ferrari to a Jag.
    For portraits, and whathaveyou, the 28-70, will more than suffice, and if your copy is sharp, then you will notice a huge difference there.
    For group portraits (which is what I'm assuming you need wider lenses), I would actually consider some primes. Yes, the 24L is probably out of your price range, but a 20 f/2.8 and/or 24 f/2.8 will be more than sufficient to get your wide angle shots, and I doubt that anyone here will tell you a Tamron/Sigma zoom is going to get you sharper results than a prime.
    If you're really into the possibilities of a wide zoom, then look at something like the Canon 10-22. Yes, it's an EF-S mount, but it's optically supperior, and if you're not planning on getting a 5D this summer, it will more than suffice.
     

Share This Page