Lenses for a 350D

cathal

cathal

cathal

Associate
Joined
8 Oct 2003
Posts
110
Location
Limerick, Ireland
I'm about to get a 350D (body only) and was wondering what lenses would best suit it? I have a few existing lenses from my non DSLR (also a canon). They are . . .
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

I was thinking of getting the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM but I've also noticed some "L" series lenses for in or around the same price like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4,0 L USM.
I was wondering would it be worth keeping the 28-105 lens and also get the 70-200 lens or should I go for the dedicated EF-S lens?

Any help much appreciated,
cathal
 

rpstewart

rpstewart

rpstewart

Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2003
Posts
10,706
Location
Greenock, Scotland
Certainly keep the 50mm f1.8, it's a real peach of a lens and with the addition of a set of extension tubes it makes a very good substitute for a true macro lens.

I'm not sure about the 28-105, I haven't used one but I dare say someone else on here will have. I'd wait until you get an opinion on that before making a decision on what else to go for. What I will say though is that the 70-200f4L is a great lens for the money.

At the end of the day the decision is really down to what style of photography you'll be doing most of the time as that will determine what type of lens will be more beneficial.
 

dod

dod

dod

Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
4,099
Location
Inverness
28-105 F3.5/4.5 is a cracking lens. I've tried to justify replacing mine a few times with the likes of the 28-70 F2.8 and I can't. They only sell for about £100 second hand anyway so no point selling it.

In terms of resolution the 28-105 is very similar to the 17-85, slightly better at about 50mm, although it lacks the IS and isn't so wide, obviously got a bit more at the long end though. What you shoot might be the deciding factor, do you need wide angle or greater reach.

If you're in the 70-200mm market as well look at the sigma 70-200mm F2.8. Slightly more expensive than the canon F4 but faster aperture and very sharp.
 

cathal

cathal

cathal

Associate
OP
Joined
8 Oct 2003
Posts
110
Location
Limerick, Ireland
rpstewart,
Yes the 50mm lens is a great lens, very pleased with mine. I mostly shoot "general" scenes when I am out and about, and the 28-105 has pretty much covered the range I shoot within. I would like to take more portrait style shots which is why I am leaning towards the 70-200. Is the 70-200 light enough to take handheld shots or does it need a tripod collar?

Cheers,
cathal
 

rpstewart

rpstewart

rpstewart

Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2003
Posts
10,706
Location
Greenock, Scotland
cathal said:
Is the 70-200 light enough to take handheld shots or does it need a tripod collar?

Cheers,
cathal
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think you'd have a problem with hand holding a 70-200f4 on a 350D. I suppose it's all personal though, I don't have a problem hand holding a 100-400L on a 1DMkII for extended periods and that's about twice the weight of what you're proposing.
 

Deleted member 11679

D

Deleted member 11679

I hand hold my 70-200 F/4 L no problem at all and can't see anyone, small or tall needing a tripod mount for it. There's enough so you know your carrying something solid, but nowhere near enough to throw you out when taking photo's.

P.S - It's an awesome lens and I love it, you can whack extension tubes on this for macro and get lovely results from the F/4 :)
 

Geffen

Geffen

Geffen

Associate
Joined
28 Dec 2002
Posts
1,009
Personally i would consider getting the kit lense. It not a great lense but for £30 to £50 it can't be beat for value and would give you reasonable wide angle lens should you need it.

The 70-200 F4 is meant to be a great lense but i would have though something like the 85mm F1.8 would be better for portraits.
 

scoop

scoop

scoop

Associate
Joined
24 Sep 2003
Posts
538
Location
Macclesfield UK
Sleepyd said:
I'd be concerned about the distortion of the lens if I was considering this. I'd rather consider the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 - my 2p
Click to expand...

Or the Sigma 17-70, perhaps? In the tests at photozone.de it blows away the 17-85 and is just over half the price......
 

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,980
Location
London Town
I would not recommend the 17-85mm. On paper it's the ultimate walk-around lens as 17mm is very wide, even on 1.6 crop. In reality however the lens is very very soft below 50mm, although very good above 50mm.

I would keep the 28-105mm and depending on whether you do more landscape or sports/ nature get the Sigma 10-20mm or the 70-200 F4
 

cathal

cathal

cathal

Associate
OP
Joined
8 Oct 2003
Posts
110
Location
Limerick, Ireland
keep the 28-105mm and depending on whether you do more landscape
Click to expand...

Well I normally don't do landscape but this year I will be travelling to Angkor *** and I don't think the 28-105 will be quite wide enough when fitted to a 350D. However if there are problems with the 17-85mm below 50mm then maybe I need to rethink.

Cheers,
cathal

P.S. Didn't think w.a.t was censored! :confused:
 

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,980
Location
London Town
cathal said:
Well I normally don't do landscape but this year I will be travelling to Angkor *** and I don't think the 28-105 will be quite wide enough when fitted to a 350D. However if there are problems with the 17-85mm below 50mm then maybe I need to rethink.
Click to expand...

The 17-85 isn't just soft at 17mm, it also is one of the worst distorting lenses as well, with very very bad pin cushoning.

If you are going to somewhere special like Ankor I would seriously recommend a wider lens. I have a 24-105 L and wide open it's not wide enough for expansice images/ landscapes which is why at the end of the month am ordering a Sigma 10-20mm to go with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom