noob lens question
- Thread starter China Man
- Start date
thats cool,
another question. what are the benefit of having the 2 seperate lens?
surely it will be easier to just have one lens and do it all right.
sorry for the noob quesion , it is just that I have enough of the kit lens and looking to purchase my next lens and I want to have the best function with a tight budget.
China
another question. what are the benefit of having the 2 seperate lens?
surely it will be easier to just have one lens and do it all right.
sorry for the noob quesion , it is just that I have enough of the kit lens and looking to purchase my next lens and I want to have the best function with a tight budget.
China
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,707
lower mm number = wider photo, higher = longer zoom so the 28 - 300 can get both closer to a subject and fit more of a wide subject in
China Man said:
Prime lenses, with no zoom capability were invented first, so have had the advantage of quality over new telephoto zoom lenses.
However that is no longer the case, as technology has caught up.
So now its basically as case of cost, size, and speed.
I believe also, but not 100% that most zoom lenses dont have as wide a variety of F stops, and dont go as high in the apeture range, thus some depth of field is lost, and they dont work as well in low light conditions.
Zoom lenses will do everything, but they cost more obviously, are large and heavy to accomdate the variable glasses. and they are not as quick to focus.
Thats about the only disadvantages.
Last edited:
Deleted member 11679
Deleted member 11679
ChroniC said:
I think he means the 28-300. If so we need to know what brand of lens, the aperture rating etc to advise.
I have heard/read a lot of bad things about that lense, but also some good points.
Its basically a compromise, between cost and versatility, over quality.
Some people say it not to bad, other say the pictures come out to soft at both ends of the scale. But it will do everything you want, as not being a pro you might find it suits your needs.
I think you should read up on that lense before you think about buying it.
Its basically a compromise, between cost and versatility, over quality.
Some people say it not to bad, other say the pictures come out to soft at both ends of the scale. But it will do everything you want, as not being a pro you might find it suits your needs.
I think you should read up on that lense before you think about buying it.
ChroniC said:
As Chronic says, there are mixed review for this lens. It is cheap for the focal lengths offered, but softness is a common complaint I think. 'Jack of all trades, master of none'
Reviews here on Fred Miranda
The Tamron 28-200mm is supposed to be very good for the money. Might be worth considering:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=253&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=253&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
The Canon 35-350L is another huge range lens, I nearly bought one before my 100-400, thinking as you did that it would be a perfect all in one solution, as others have said, you compromise quality by having convenience.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 466
Just out of interest I have a sigma 28-300, though I don't use it much now I have found it useful in the past. I pretty much agree with all that was said above but just to reiterate. It is quite soft (edges in images aren't clearly defined) especially at long end of the lens. Also it wasn't the fastest to focus, particularly in low light. Still it was the first lens I bought to replace the 35-80 which was on my EOS 500 and as such was a big jump up. The main advantage for me though was that while I was travelling round the world on a 6 month trip I just had to look after one lens that covered pretty much everything I'd need to take a shot of. I guess it was also quite cheap - about £200 new I think. I guess one further observation is that on a digital SLR such as a 300d or 20d the effective range of the lens is a little odd - something like 45-420(ish).
Yes .... and no.China Man said:
Bear in mind that the focal length of a lens, or the zoom range, tells you nothing whatever about the quality of the lens. Unfortunately, a better guide is usually the price.
Ultra-zooms (like 28-300mm) are often an optical compromise. The advantage is that you only have to buy (and carry about) one lens, and you don't have to keep changing lenses to get the one you need. The disadvantage is that it often won't be anywhere near as good as a good pair of shorter-range zooms.
Another thing to think about is that F number. The smaller the number, the "faster" the lens is. In other words, the more able it is to operate in low light. So an f2.8 28-70mm is going (typically) to be a better lens than an f4 28-70mm. Why? Because in order to get that low light performance you are going to end up using bigger lens elements, of higher optical quality, and that means higher price. And because it's higher price, it's going to be bought (usually) by a knowledgable and critical buyer. And therefore, if it isn't damn good, it won't sell.
China Man, it's a complex field, and something of a minefield. Unless you have VERY large sums of money (and don't mind lugging very heavy lenses about), anything you buy is going to be a compromise, somewhere and somehow. The art is deciding what issues are important, and what level of compromise is acceptable, and affordable.
Thanks.AdWright said:Very informed and level-headed point of view there
Though there's one important point I should add.
Is a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens better than a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens? It should be, because it's about three times the price, but is it? And even if it is, is it better enough to justify triple the price, or are you just paying for the name?
And even if it is, are you a good enough photographer to make the best of it, to use the capabilities? Or would you be better off with the Tamron and £500 in your pocket? Does your need justify expensive lenses, or are "ok" ones good enough?
Like I said .... it's a minefield.
I think I will be ok with a lens that can do more range than quality print at the moment. I am still learning how to composite and lighting technique and not really going to print anything big yet 
many thanks to all your replies
many thanks to all your replies