Tamron Lenses

[shreds]

After reading so many opinions and reviews, I think I am going to start with the 24-105.

Liz, to be honest the one thing about photography is that you can just keep on spending and still have a wish list on top of that! Make the move over to a DSLR with whatever lens, get used to it and then review what else you might need. You talk about IS as an essential, but if you are photographing close up, you should be doing so on a tripod anyway, in which case the IS will be superfluous.

It is a long time since I used a converter and always cursed it for the loss of light and clarity, (although it wasnt that expensive) on an old film based system. Whilst I might find use for one now, I tend to have a range of lenses that generally cover my needs so steer away from such 'compromises'. What am I saying? Wait and see whether youbreally need one, once you have your new camera and lens. Magazines and even forums will provide youbwith such a plethora of options you can become fazed and convinced that you MUST have some bit of equipment. Thats fine if you have pots of money or can justify it, but when starting out with a system, it is far better to take your time. HTH.

[lizzy310]

HAHAHAHA....I have Cannon G10 right now. Everything is too far away to take pictures of. I think even the 24-105 is going to be so much farther than I can shoot now, that I will be happy for awhile. Landscape mostly, since we travel. I went to the beach recently and at low tide there were about a gazillion birds...all kinds just chillin there. My camera gets into the noisy range too quickly so when I was able to get pics that were close enough to see, they were fuzzy. As I got closer, all the birds flew away. I want to be able to be far enough away to be sneaky. But even with the 24-105 I think it will be so far superior that I will be happy for now.

Liz, if you get a lump sum from your trust fund every year, then its not a biggie to get the 24-105 now and if you feel you still need more reach, you can always get a longer lens next year.

What exactly are you looking to photograph from further away that you feel frustrated with right now? It could mean a difference between the 70-200 and 100-400.

If for some reason you dont feel ready to go ahead with a purchase of another lens with the next years lump sum, feel free to send it my way, I could use more lenses!

[Paul in PDX]

Liz
Another piece of kit you may want to budget for if you dont have it already is some photo processing software. Adobe lightroom makes a bigger impact on my photos than whether my lens is an "L" or not.

-Paul

[Colin Southern]

HAHAHAHA....I have Cannon G10 right now.

By the way Liz, it's "Canon", not "Cannon" - a Cannon is one of those battlefield things that fires balls of steel at the enemy

[lizzy310]

I have PS Elements now so I hope that will do.

Liz
Another piece of kit you may want to budget for if you dont have it already is some photo processing software. Adobe lightroom makes a bigger impact on my photos than whether my lens is an "L" or not.

-Paul

[lizzy310]

Canon...it is just auto pilot working. I keep wanting to spell lens lense. At least spell check works there. Oh well...I will be more careful with my corekt speleng from now on.

By the way Liz, it's "Canon", not "Cannon" - a Cannon is one of those battlefield things that fires balls of steel at the enemy

[rpcrowe]

Actually Liz; I would go with the 70-200mm f4 L plus a 1.4x converter. this gives top quality 70-280mm f4-f5.6 lens with AF.

Let me add to this... I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. The IS capabiity allows me to hand hold my lens in dimmer light. I can travel everywhere in the world with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens plus the 1.4x TC and be equipped for virtually all photography except extreme long range sports and wildlife and macro work...

[Colin Southern]

Canon...it is just auto pilot working. I keep wanting to spell lens lense. At least spell check works there. Oh well...I will be more careful with my corekt speleng from now on.

Trust me, you're not the first to schpell it rong -- or even the 1000th (and that's just this month!).

[lizzy310]

I looked up the 17-55 lens...(wow...Colin's spelling lesson seems to have worked...I didn't add the e at the end)...and it says that is is for 40, 30, and 20 D and rebel cameras. Does it work for 60D too? I see it is a wide angle. Tell me if you don't mind what you like about that as opposed to a lens that doesn't have that option. It sounds like you use that for your basic all purpose lens. I was thinking about the 24-105 which is one Donald recommended. I need really good all purpose lens to start with. I know after my G10 anything is going to seem excellent. I can get another lens like the 70-200 later. Oh...here is a PS...Cannon doesn't list that lens on their site.

Let me add to this... I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. The IS capabiity allows me to hand hold my lens in dimmer light. I can travel everywhere in the world with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens plus the 1.4x TC and be equipped for virtually all photography except extreme long range sports and wildlife and macro work...

[Dave Humphries]

Oh...here is a PS...Cannon doesn't list that lens on their site.

That's because they make guns, big ones!

If Colin had one of them, in your shoes, I'd be worried, very worried - three strikes and BOOM!

[lizzy310]

That's because they make guns, big ones!

If Colin had one of them, in your shoes, I'd be worried, very worried - three strikes and BOOM!

Well...it is force of habit. I need to write CANON CANON CANON CANON CANON CANON 100 times on the blackboard. I will practice so I don't seem like such a knuckle head.

Oh and I'd still like to know what you like about that lense...I mean lens.

[Geoff F]

I looked up the 17-55 lens.

I suspect that review was written before the introduction of the 50D 60D & 7D, that's all.

The size of lens depends on what you want to photograph. I would definitely want a second larger lens with something that small.

However, for some people, a 50 mm lens is considered large. But I suspect you would find a 17-55 on it's own to be too limiting for what you want to do.

Most of my work is done within the 50-500 mm range.

There is a school of thought which says something like 'beyond 50 mm you should zoom with your feet and get closer to your subject'. But my reply is 'for me, that would often require a wetsuit or a very long ladder'.

As you have found with your attempt at bird photography. Personally, I wouldn't consider trying to photograph wild birds with anything less than 300 mm.

[arith]

Trust me, you're not the first to schpell it rong -- or even the 1000th (and that's just this month!).

howd he get a job, he can't even spel. cor

[Colin Southern]

howd he get a job, he can't even spel. cor

A job? Heck, I thought it was a punishment!

[lizzy310]

Thanks for the info. Everyone is so very helpful on here.

I looked up the 17-55 lens.

I suspect that review was written before the introduction of the 50D 60D & 7D, that's all.

The size of lens depends on what you want to photograph. I would definitely want a second larger lens with something that small.

However, for some people, a 50 mm lens is considered large. But I suspect you would find a 17-55 on it's own to be too limiting for what you want to do.

Most of my work is done within the 50-500 mm range.

There is a school of thought which says something like 'beyond 50 mm you should zoom with your feet and get closer to your subject'. But my reply is 'for me, that would often require a wetsuit or a very long ladder'.

As you have found with your attempt at bird photography. Personally, I wouldn't consider trying to photograph wild birds with anything less than 300 mm.

[speedneeder]

No one has addressed the question of which has more reach, the G10 or the 24-105L? I do not know the answer to this question.
I do know that as a Sigma DG APO 70-300 owner that recently acquired a 70-200 f4 IS L the Sigma lens is no longer used - ever! I wonder if for Liz's use the 55-250 may be the best option for a single lens?
Personally, if I could only have one lens, I would wonder why the heck I had a DSLR in the first place!? I think you will eventually have at least 3 lenses for all around photography. If I could only have one lens, the 24-105 L may be just the best option, but if I was going to have 3 lenses I don't think this would end up in my bag. That said, I have never used the 24-105, so what do I know?

[Harpo]

Landscape mostly, since we travel.

Liz- when I bought my T2I this past January, I told the dealer the same thing when it came down to determining a lens to start with that would meet my needs. I was offered the EF-S 18-135mm as a "kit Lens" when I bought the camera. That lens, at least back in january, was the standard kit lens that was bundled with the 7D. It is also a bit better than the usual Kit Lens bundle that came with the Rebels at that time. This lens gave me the ability for landscape shots, plus the zoom ability for travel. Fast forward to now... I do like the range of that lens for the most part especially landscape shots. It works for birds in my backyard. However, I am at the point where I would like some better Image Quality than I seem to get with the 18-135. The 24-105mm L is a better lens, but on a crop you will be starting at 34mm... which might be an issue if you want wide angle ability for landscapes.

As much as I would like a "better lens", I have seen examples posted from this camera/lens set up and they are very good, sharp images. So its really a good set up for me to start and work on improving my technical skills so by the time Im better than I am now, when I move to the better lenses, hopefully my pics would look like many that grace these fine pages here.

Just something to think about. Im sure the gurus on here will be able to give better advice

[lizzy310]

Well, here's the dealio...I want 3 lenses...general, zoom telephoto and macro, but with the expense, I have to start with 1. I am going to have to "borrow" the money from my husband to get the camera and lens before we go to the Philippines in Dec. He is going to balk at the price so I have to choose 1 to start. The G10, being a point and shoot just doesn't shoot far away at all. It's been a source of frustration since I got the camera a few years ago. I may rent a lens for our trip to be able to get those distance photos that I long to take. I asked on a thread about a good all purpose lens and Donald recommended it.

No one has addressed the question of which has more reach, the G10 or the 24-105L? I do not know the answer to this question.
I do know that as a Sigma DG APO 70-300 owner that recently acquired a 70-200 f4 IS L the Sigma lens is no longer used - ever! I wonder if for Liz's use the 55-250 may be the best option for a single lens?
Personally, if I could only have one lens, I would wonder why the heck I had a DSLR in the first place!? I think you will eventually have at least 3 lenses for all around photography. If I could only have one lens, the 24-105 L may be just the best option, but if I was going to have 3 lenses I don't think this would end up in my bag. That said, I have never used the 24-105, so what do I know?

[lizzy310]

I have seen the 60D with that same lens included in a kit. I asked Donald about it, and he said that if it had II after it, it is a pretty good lens but none of the ones I saw had that II. So I want something that is really good as a basic good quality lens to start with. Then I will add the other lenses I want as I go along. Like I replied to speedneeder my husband is going to crapola at the cost of all this not being photographically inclined. I guess I can explain to him that REALLY good lenses cost thousands. I wonder if that will help put it in perspective?

Liz- when I bought my T2I this past January, I told the dealer the same thing when it came down to determining a lens to start with that would meet my needs. I was offered the EF-S 18-135mm as a "kit Lens" when I bought the camera. That lens, at least back in january, was the standard kit lens that was bundled with the 7D. It is also a bit better than the usual Kit Lens bundle that came with the Rebels at that time. This lens gave me the ability for landscape shots, plus the zoom ability for travel. Fast forward to now... I do like the range of that lens for the most part especially landsca
pe shots. It works for birds in my backyard. However, I am at the point where I would like some better Image Quality than I seem to get with the 18-135. The 24-105mm L is a better lens, but on a crop you will be starting at 34mm... which might be an issue if you want wide angle ability for landscapes.

As much as I would like a "better lens", I have seen examples posted from this camera/lens set up and they are very good, sharp images. So its really a good set up for me to start and work on improving my technical skills so by the time Im better than I am now, when I move to the better lenses, hopefully my pics would look like many that grace these fine pages here.

Just something to think about. Im sure the gurus on here will be able to give better advice

[speedneeder]

Liz, could you keep your G10 for the 'wide angle' stuff for now and the new camera for the 'telephoto' stuff? If so, it would seem your options for the 60D would be the 70-200 f/4 L IS or the 70-300 L. Either lens is not a light weight lens by any means, but they aren't crazy heavy either. My 70-200 F/4 L IS is a little heavy at times, but I don't mind because it gives me great sharpness, color, and contrast. Your idea about renting a lens is a good one as well. If you are wanting to shoot things in the wild with a 60D, 200mm probably won't be long enough.
If you can't keep your G10 for 'wide angle' stuff, then I would suggest renting two lenses I just don't know of one lens that will 'do it all'. My 18-135 IS is NOT what I would call a sharp lens. It's fairly good at f8-f11, but other than that not so much.
On a separate note, I would love to try one of the G series cameras