Someone give me a lens to buy...

[Johnny Thunders]

I don't feel like looking because I don't really know, but I need a good all-around lens to replace the piece of shit one I use for my Digital Rebel.

Something that will enable me to take some good, sharp fashion style shots.

What MM range should I be looking for? Anyone want to send me some links to good lenses?

It'll be my christmas present.

[Todd Spoth]

im buying the 300mm 2.8L IS monday. you should get that one so we can be lens friends.

[Johnny Thunders]

im buying the 300mm 2.8L IS monday. you should get that one so we can be lens friends.

I'm looking for something that has some lens range... 300mm is a bit of a distance lense, correct?

[Todd Spoth]

EF 85 f/1.4L
EF 70-200 f/2.8L
EF 50 f/1.4L

whats an 85mm 1.4L?

[Todd Spoth]

I'm looking for something that has some lens range... 300mm is a bit of a distance lense, correct?

whats a lense?

[galantv600]

the L series is the pro series so will be nice quality.. i have the 17-40L and man tis sharp... here are some good lenses for short distances
17-55
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=425812&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
24-70
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

two great lenses...

[SHANGHAi]

Do you have a budget?

[OneArmedScissor]

yeah...im gonna be lens shopping myself. I may next day something from BH... Yodobashi's prices may not be as good.

[David Seale]

28-70 2.8?

[Johnny Thunders]

Do you have a budget?

A fairly decent one.... not to exceed $500

[Johnny Thunders]

the L series is the pro series so will be nice quality.. i have the 17-40L and man tis sharp... here are some good lenses for short distances
17-55
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=425812&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
24-70
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

two great lenses...

$1,000 are you fucking kidding me?

[Johnny Thunders]

i like my sigma 24-70 f/2.8 good bokeh, very sharp (even wide open). slow to focus, but for portraits that's not a big deal. and it's only $430.

and sorry todd, typo, 85 f/1.2 now get over it.

Is this the lens you used for your sushi shots?

And he doesn't care about typos... he'll let you know that you're wrong nonetheless. Notice my "What's a lense" comment.

[Johnny Thunders]

yup, that's the lens. it stays on my camera 99% of the time. i love it.

Thanks dude... those were some nice shots. I'll check it out... where did you buy it?

[Johnny Thunders]

.... any comments?


18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3285&navigator=6

[Johnny Thunders]

Guess I can go a bit over $500 :hsugh: hahaha

[Johnny Thunders]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

:yum:

Why can't I be rich :cry:

[Johnny Thunders]

why are you looking for such a wide angle? even with ethan i rarely use below 35mm and he's tiny compared to adults.

I don't even know what below 35mm would accomplish. I don't know shit when it comes to anything that even THINKS it's technical talk.

[captobvious]

if you stopped smoking you'd have lots of extra money to spend on a lens

[Johnny Thunders]

but then she'd lose all her creativity to use it. lol

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

This is seriously the best laugh I've had all night... GG! :thumb:

[Johnny Thunders]

if you stopped smoking you'd have lots of extra money to spend on a lens

I don't buy alot of pot and the last time I spent over $500 on something was when I saved up for MONTHS to buy my WW RS Lip Kit :hsugh:

It'll be a christmas present from mommy and daddy :hsugh:

[Todd Spoth]

as for lenses im good but my Sigma 120-300mm is having issues as of now, and is currently out of commision. im sending it off to Sigma for repair, and am being forced to spend a grip on the 300L IS. its really sad to spend the dough, but ill be happier in the end with a better tool. all canon for me from here on in.

[galantv600]

well now konwing that you have that budget, that sigma lens you mentioned.. the (18-50) will be very nice!! due to the 2.8 as well will help in low light situations... for starter id go for that.. ive got a buddy that has pure sigma. dont knw exactly what mm lenses he has, but hasnt had ANY trouble iwth them.. best of luck!

[Doug]

If you're looking for a cheaper zoom lense, you can pick a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 for around $200.

[Costas]

If you're looking for a cheaper zoom lense, you can pick a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 for around $200.
ew

i like my tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

hawt bokeh + hawt colors + hawt price = teh win. i've used it for portraits and use it on cars alot and it's pretty sharp. the canon version is better, the 24-70mm f/2.8L i believe, but huge difference in price. tamron gets you 90% of what the canon gets you from what i've seen.

[SHANGHAi]

ew

i like my tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

hawt bokeh + hawt colors + hawt price = teh win. i've used it for portraits and use it on cars alot and it's pretty sharp. the canon version is better, the 24-70mm f/2.8L i believe, but huge difference in price. tamron gets you 90% of what the canon gets you from what i've seen.
I have the same one for Canon. I agree, it's great for the price (only $300) and is 2.8 and very sharp. It's great for walkaround, just not very wide.

[azinwood]

70-200 f/2.8 L

[galantv600]

DO NOT get the 70 200 F/4 even on a tripod it wont be good... i tested it out at houston camera exchange.. not even on a tripod will it get a decent pic... unless its really bright outside and you get a farely nice shutter speed.. atleast thats from my experience..

[Todd Spoth]

DO NOT get the 70 200 F/4 even on a tripod it wont be good... i tested it out at houston camera exchange.. not even on a tripod will it get a decent pic... unless its really bright outside and you get a farely nice shutter speed.. atleast thats from my experience..


hahaha so "L" class ISN'T worthy, but a low-end sigma is?

man i feel sorry for your customers. :roflmao:

[Todd Spoth]

ew

i like my tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

hawt bokeh + hawt colors + hawt price = teh win. i've used it for portraits and use it on cars alot and it's pretty sharp. the canon version is better, the 24-70mm f/2.8L i believe, but huge difference in price. tamron gets you 90% of what the canon gets you from what i've seen.

id say maybe 40% on that budddyy.

[ofay]

28-70 2.8?
she doenst have a nikon



24-70 f2.8L


/thread

[Johnny Thunders]

she doenst have a nikon



24-70 f2.8L


/thread

The canon?

Can I even afford an L series? :hsugh:

[Johnny Thunders]

70-200 f/2.8 L

I'm not looking for that much zoom....

Ok... I'm definetly sure that I want it to have a low f# because a majority of my shots are without studio lighting...

I want to be able to have enough control in the zoom to where I could just crop my images differently...

I want it to be a little wide... basically I want to be able to have a large amount of control as far as the framing goes.

SHARP SHARP SHARP! Image stabilization would be nice too

[SHANGHAi]

DO NOT get the 70 200 F/4 even on a tripod it wont be good... i tested it out at houston camera exchange.. not even on a tripod will it get a decent pic... unless its really bright outside and you get a farely nice shutter speed.. atleast thats from my experience..
You're crazy.

[Todd Spoth]

I'm not looking for that much zoom....

Ok... I'm definetly sure that I want it to have a low f# because a majority of my shots are without studio lighting...

I want to be able to have enough control in the zoom to where I could just crop my images differently...

I want it to be a little wide... basically I want to be able to have a large amount of control as far as the framing goes.

SHARP SHARP SHARP! Image stabilization would be nice too


adrienne your best bang for the buck is going to be that Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di lens.

if youre going to trust anyone, trust me.

ive owned, sold, and tested the most lenses out of anyone here.

[Johnny Thunders]

Ok... apparently I have a fairly large budget. Try not to get over $1,000.

[Johnny Thunders]

adrienne your best bang for the buck is going to be that Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di lens.

if youre going to trust anyone, trust me.

I would trust you and Drew over other people.

What lens would you suggest as an upgrade to that one?

[Todd Spoth]

I would trust you and Drew over other people.

What lens would you suggest as an upgrade to that one?

if you mean quality upgrade the top is the Canon version, but the price point is a stretch.

its probably $350 vs $1300 or so...so about a grand difference, which at this point i dont think you are really going to tell.

id stick with that Tamron. lots of people have owned and loved it. Costas, Chow, etc.

[Todd Spoth]

Ok... apparently I have a fairly large budget. Try not to get over $1,000.

it sucks having to shell out money for lenses. im placing an order for one right now. $3899.99 im crying on the inside. :(

[Johnny Thunders]

it sucks having to shell out money for lenses. im placing an order for one right now. $3899.99 im crying on the inside. :(

No... really dude. I'm just STARTING to try and get more equiptment and I'm basically shitting my pants. I thought the $1000 rebel was bad... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


And give me the link to the canon lens you're talking about please!

[Johnny Thunders]

if you mean quality upgrade the top is the Canon version, but the price point is a stretch.

its probably $350 vs $1300 or so...so about a grand difference, which at this point i dont think you are really going to tell.

id stick with that Tamron. lots of people have owned and loved it. Costas, Chow, etc.

Where could I get the Tamron lens for $350?

I just don't like buying a less nice lens when eventually I'm going to have to upgrade it anyways. I probably wouldn't be able to tell a huge difference, but eventually I WILL be able to.

[Todd Spoth]

BH LINK FOR THE TAMRON: ($349.99)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

BH LINK FOR THE CANON EQUIV: ($1149.99)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

BH LINK FOR THE CANON I ORDERED (i didnt know which one you were talking about...)($3899.99)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183202&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[azinwood]

is the tamron 28-75 better than the sigma 24-70?

[captobvious]

woot, i want to play with the 300 when you get it todd. if you have a grand to spend, i'd just save up a couple extra hundred bux and get the L adri

[Johnny Thunders]

And what does the $1,000 price difference REALLY get me? What does the canon have that the Tamron doesn't?

The canon posted isn't the L series, correct?

[Todd Spoth]

And what does the $1,000 price difference REALLY get me? What does the canon have that the Tamron doesn't?

The canon posted isn't the L series, correct?

yes it is and it will get you better build, better color and sharper. the color is the biggest difference. i say get the tamron and then get another lens too.

[Todd Spoth]

is the tamron 28-75 better than the sigma 24-70?

yes it is.

[Johnny Thunders]

yes it is and it will get you better build, better color and sharper. the color is the biggest difference. i say get the tamron and then get another lens too.

What would I need another lens for though? I just don't see the use yet... I still use the 75-300mm telephoto I got from BB... works decent.

[captobvious]

yeah, you should get the tamron, then buy my 70-200 2.8

[Johnny Thunders]

yeah, you should get the tamron, then buy my 70-200 2.8

:roflmao:

I'd rather have one AWESOME lens than two decent lenses.... that's just how I roll!

Gucci or nothin baby! hahaha

[Todd Spoth]

:roflmao:

I'd rather have one AWESOME lens than two decent lenses.... that's just how I roll!

Gucci or nothin baby! hahaha

i just dont see the sense in spending over three times as much for a lens that isnt really going to make a difference "just because" or you just want an awesome lens.

[Johnny Thunders]

i just dont see the sense in spending over three times as much for a lens that isnt really going to make a difference "just because" or you just want an awesome lens.

But it will make a difference. You said yourself it's a better lens... my next 2 years of college are going to be all photography classes... i might as well get a better piece of equiptment if I can swing it.

I probably won't be able to swing it though.

[Todd Spoth]

But it will make a difference. You said yourself it's a better lens... my next 2 years of college are going to be all photography classes... i might as well get a better piece of equiptment if I can swing it.

I probably won't be able to swing it though.

it makes sense if you are using it everyday and its a work necessity. i think getting the tamron and getting a sweet macro lens or a fisheye or 85mm 1.8 or 50 1.8 too would be a lot better.

[Johnny Thunders]

it makes sense if you are using it everyday and its a work necessity. i think getting the tamron and getting a sweet macro lens or a fisheye or 85mm 1.8 or 50 1.8 too would be a lot better.

Ooooh a fisheye would be fun :o

I think I would get really tired of a fisheye though :(

[Todd Spoth]

Ooooh a fisheye would be fun :o

I think I would get really tired of a fisheye though :(

i didnt use it as much as i would like but now i miss it dearly.

[ofay]

i didnt use it as much as i would like but now i miss it dearly.
they are really sweet, but they get boring quick.


I play with one at work and get bored in like 10 mins.

[tien]

i'm selling my sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4 if you're interested..its a good walkaround.

[zerinVR6]

LOL @ the guy who said the 70-200 f/4L is bad.

Warning on L glass though. Once you buy one L lens, you won't be able to buy anything else. I have 3 L lenses (17-40f/4L, 24-70f2.8L, and 70-200f2.8L) and can't imagine going back to anything else. If you can afford it, buy the L. They hold their value, and will outlast your camera.

Todd, you want to come shoot Petit Le Mans with us? I have to submit my credential request this week. We'll be working with Corvette Racing and Audi Sport North America, as well as directly with John Thawley. Lemme know.

[David Seale]

yeah ill come thanks for askin.

[datboynamsays]

anyone of you canon pros have experience of the 28-70L vs the 24-70L?

[Todd Spoth]

they are really sweet, but they get boring quick.


I play with one at work and get bored in like 10 mins.


dude sean you need to stop. you have never owned a slr nor any lens so you cant really talk.

[Todd Spoth]

LOL @ the guy who said the 70-200 f/4L is bad.

Warning on L glass though. Once you buy one L lens, you won't be able to buy anything else. I have 3 L lenses (17-40f/4L, 24-70f2.8L, and 70-200f2.8L) and can't imagine going back to anything else. If you can afford it, buy the L. They hold their value, and will outlast your camera.

Todd, you want to come shoot Petit Le Mans with us? I have to submit my credential request this week. We'll be working with Corvette Racing and Audi Sport North America, as well as directly with John Thawley. Lemme know.


wrd ill hit you up on AIM.

[SloESLex]

glass is the devil. just ordered a sig 10-20. hope it's the ish.

[Costas]

But it will make a difference. You said yourself it's a better lens... my next 2 years of college are going to be all photography classes... i might as well get a better piece of equiptment if I can swing it.

I probably won't be able to swing it though.
go to google and search for comparison tests between the tamron and the canon lenses that i named. when i looked at them the differences seemed very miniscule. the canon version is better no doubt about that, i'm just not sure if it's $1,000 better lolz.

[ofay]

dude sean you need to stop. you have never owned a dslr
fixed.



And no I haven't owned a dslr or any of the stuff that I talk about, but I spend all day playing with it and talking to people who do. So I take all of that, I what I gather and form and educated opinion.
Sorry for trying to learn.

[Todd Spoth]

fixed.



And no I haven't owned a dslr or any of the stuff that I talk about, but I spend all day playing with it and talking to people who do. So I take all of that, I what I gather and form and educated opinion.
Sorry for trying to learn.

theres nothing wrong with trying to learn but saying this and that. this lens is boring etc. when youve never used or owned it is rediculous. how can you say a lens is boring when youve never taken it out and used it.

[JeffTSi924]

I just got the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di II a few days ago. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Tamron_Zoom_Super_Wide_Angle_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_ 8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_IF_Autofocus_Lens_for_Can on_EOS_D,__20083619/search=tamron

The few shots I've taken so far are pretty nice

[ofay]

theres nothing wrong with trying to learn but saying this and that. this lens is boring etc. when youve never used or owned it is rediculous. how can you say a lens is boring when youve never taken it out and used it.
I meant for ppl to realize that when I said that I was playing with it at work. I really like it, and jim and I usually have the 10.5 on the D200 on a daily basis, but you know how much there is to take pics of at work/ppl coming into buy stuff and ruining the fun.

but out of all the stuff at work, the fisheye gets way more time than anything else, just knowing adri and what she said she wanted for this thread, I dont think a fisheye is what she is looking for

[galantv600]

damnit, i just noticed i put not get the F/4 hahah dont get the F/3.5.. they sell a model at HCE and it sucks big time.. not image stabalized.. sorry about that, completely just noticed my typo!

[SloESLex]

i have IS on my Sigma.

[Todd Spoth]

damnit, i just noticed i put not get the F/4 hahah dont get the F/3.5.. they sell a model at HCE and it sucks big time.. not image stabalized.. sorry about that, completely just noticed my typo!

youre probably talking about the 75-300 3.5-5.6 or something similar, which she already stated that she had anyways. image stablization is not crucial and does not make the lens "suck big time".

[Todd Spoth]

i have IS on my Sigma.

wrd?

the Sigma stabilization technology is called Optical Stabilization or OS btw.

[SloESLex]

wrd?

the Sigma stabilization technology is called Optical Stabilization or OS btw.
i have no idea.

shows how much research i put into buying the damn thing. :roflmao:

but seriously. i'm excited. i overnighted that ho.

[Todd Spoth]

i have no idea.

shows how much research i put into buying the damn thing. :roflmao:

but seriously. i'm excited. i overnighted that ho.

damn i know that feeling. i have some grip equipment coming tommorow and my new lens coming wednesday. its exciting.

[ofay]

damn i know that feeling. i have some grip equipment coming tommorow and my new lens coming wednesday. its exciting.
party at todds house.

[datboynamsays]

anyone of you canon pros have experience of the 28-70L vs the 24-70L?

[Todd Spoth]

party at todds house.

wrd. works for me but my gear is for work. no one is gonna "play" with it.

i may let you and drew view it within 5 feet though.

[Todd Spoth]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

[ofay]

wrd. works for me but my gear is for work. no one is gonna "play" with it.

i may let you and drew view it within 5 feet though.
Ill touch it while you are peeing.



Muhahahahahahaha, and you know you need to take some sweet warm up shots to get the feel of it.

[captobvious]

wrd. works for me but my gear is for work. no one is gonna "play" with it.

i may let you and drew view it within 5 feet though.
within 5 feet, you know your shit is safe in my hands :hs:

[Todd Spoth]

within 5 feet, you know your shit is safe in my hands :hs:

cause its not in my own. ha.

[captobvious]

cause its not in my own. ha.
i treat your stuff just as good if not better then my own equipment:)

[Johnny Thunders]

i treat your stuff just as good if not better then my own equipment:)

than*

[galantv600]

youre probably talking about the 75-300 3.5-5.6 or something similar, which she already stated that she had anyways. image stablization is not crucial and does not make the lens "suck big time".

im talking about the 75-300,, and well from what ive seen and was talking about with a guy at HCE was that the stabalizer did have a big problem with the image coming up badly... even with good sunlight, from range 100mm+ youd get a farely blury picture.. while i played around with it that was what i noticed aswell...

[Todd Spoth]

im talking about the 75-300,, and well from what ive seen and was talking about with a guy at HCE was that the stabalizer did have a big problem with the image coming up badly... even with good sunlight, from range 100mm+ youd get a farely blury picture.. while i played around with it that was what i noticed aswell...

no offense bro, but you should really do your homework before starting your own business in any industry. you have a lot of mis-information. id suggest picking up a good photo book and reading it through. theres one i forget who its by, but its called EXPOSURE that is good. check it out.

[Johnny Thunders]

no offense bro, but you should really do your homework before starting your own business in any industry. you have a lot of mis-information. id suggest picking up a good photo book and reading it through. theres one i forget who its by, but its called EXPOSURE that is good. check it out.

good advice!

[galantv600]

thx man... ill check it out.. i needa check these freaking resources that are giving me the wrong advice..

[OneArmedScissor]

28-75 tamron. I'm buying one tomorrrrrowwwwwwww.