Questions about canon lenses and third party lenses

[Breakeronetwo]

After I saw what kind of incredible pictures are being posted here, I thought it might be better to ask my questions here.

I just aquired my Canon EOS450D or Rebel XSi as it is called in some places.
I played around with the kit lens 17-55, and coming from making pictures with my compact I was already pretty impressed with the quality of portrait pictures with this cheap lens.

I think its best to say what I like to do.

1. I will want to take macro pics of my future tank.
2. I want some kind of good zoom for things like animals and random stuff, maybe a good allrounder lense.

Of course I want much more, like landscapes and better portraits with a better lens for bad light settings, but I should leave it at the first 2 points for now.

So, lets say I am definetly a newbie in photography, but I am also someone who really doesnt like mediocre things. This fact alone gives me trouble in deciding between canon and third party lenses. As I have no experience at all, all I can do is read reviews of the lenses and some rare comparisons, which go so deep into details that I cant really understand it fully.

Lets name some lenses:

Canon EF 70-300mm / 1:4,0-5,6 IS USM
Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3,5-6,3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO
Sigma 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 DG APO MAKRO

All reviews I found rated the canon as the best picture quality lens, and of course I guess thats most important to me. The big question is, how picky are these tests, and does the difference really concern someone like me, who wants very very good pictures, but of course, I wont take them apart in tons of superprofessional software afterwards. What I can do is Photoshop and I'd say Photoshop can do a lot, especially to RAW pictures.

I guess the Sigma falls short because it has no anti vibration mechanics, hence the low price.

So the question would be if I could go with the tamron, which is not exactly cheaper, but would almost also be a substitute for the kit lense, while the canon would have to be used for a bit more specific purposes.
Many tests say, yeah, Tamron is a super good deal for the price (would I take the Tamron 70-300, the price difference to canon would be big), but of course you cant expect the same as from a canon lens for that price.
Now is that all talk of canon fan boys or of professional photographers, or is it just plain true and even I would see a real difference?

Actually to answer my own point 1., I guess I will go for the canon 100mm macro lens afterwards for real macro pics.

Sorry for the long post, kinda mirrors my long search for an answer

 

[BlueCorn]

With a DSLR, the lens is more important than the camera body when it comes to image quality. Comparing images side to side it's very easy to tell a good lens from a bad one.

Neither of those three lenses get very good reviews. Generally speaking, the wider the zoom range the lower the quality of the lens. It's very difficult (expensive) to produce a lens that will produce quality images over a very wide zoom range. The kit lens, on that camera, is actually decent. It's better than the old one that used to come with the XT line.

You mentioned the need for improved low-light performance but none of those lenses listed will help you there. What I'd recommend is that you stick with the "kit" lens for now. To add range I'd suggest the Canon 70-200 f/4. It comes in two flavors, with or without IS. The non-IS version is a real bargain and both are tack sharp. Then add the 100 macro at some point and you've got a pretty versatile kit. To go longer, or wider, from there you've still got options and you're not throwing money away on bad optics.

Like reef keeping, it's often cheaper in the long run to just buy the good gear the first time.

Cheers

 

[KurtsReef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13237722#post13237722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
With a DSLR, the lens is more important than the camera body when it comes to image quality.

Like reef keeping, it's often cheaper in the long run to just buy the good gear the first time.

Cheers

AMEN

If people would read that and understand its better to get a cheaper DSLR that more than likely will accomplish more than they will use function wise and spend the money on the lenses it will save them in the long run. Your Lens selection can last for 10/20 years or longer and on many camera bodies you will go through.

The sensor does play a part in Image Quality, but what matters much more is the glass your taking the photograph with.

 

[Breakeronetwo]

Thanks for the quick replys.

I guess I was a bit unclear about the price part. I dont care too much if the canon lens is more expensive. In fact, if they had the same details, I would take the canon, just to be sure, so I dont want to save some money here.
I was merely hoping to get a lens, which would give me the option to leave the kit lens at home and run around with just the 28-300 without lowering the quality noticably.

But I sure understand the problem that a lens with a large zoom will not have the quality of a fixed lens. Thats why I also thought about the 50mm fixed 1.4 canon lens for portraits.

The question is, how noticable is the difference?
Will I see a difference by eye in a picture with a 70-200 canon or even a 70-300 canon lens compared to a 28-300 tamron lens picture without editing anything afterwards? If yes, by a fair margin?

If you say it is so, then I will not take any chances and get canon lenses for every purpose I need and keep the zoom factor low.

I was planning to maybe take some closeup shots from zoo animals with the 28-300/70-300. Will a 70-200 be enough to get close to a face, which is like 15 meters away? Or will I need at least 300mm and look for a smaller zoom difference like 100-300 maybe?

 

[BlueCorn]

The 70-200 Canon is leaps and bounds above the 70-300 Canon and the 28-300 Tamron. My point wasn't that Canon was always better, it was that of the lenses listed none are very good.

If you wanted to get closer with the 70-200 you could add a 1.4x teleconverter (TC) and still be as fast as the Canon 70-300 but with better image quality. On your camera, with no TC, the 200 is already equivalent to a 320mm lens on a 35mm Camera.

 

[Breakeronetwo]

Yes, I know there are converters out there, but as far as I understood it, they can only be used on lenses with good light factors (if thats what its called, sorry, I'm german) and even then bring some drawbacks with them.

I also know about the 1.5 to 1.6 factor because of my cam, but I have no experience at all, what 200, 300 or in fact 480 really means in a live setting. Like at what distance will I still be able to get a full face shot with 320mm.

And of course I know that these lenses are not too great if you compare them to the professional ones, but I need to start with at least one of them to see what I really want before I bust out some thousand euros for a single lens

 

[KurtsReef]

The 70-200 IS lens I think is an "L" (some one jump on me if I am wrong)

The "L" in canon lens line up indicates its their quality glass.

Almost any Prime lens (non-zoom) will out perform a zoom for sharpness, clarity, colors, and contrast. They are simply better, there are certain zooms that are very good and the 70-200 for whatever physics may explain it is a quality piece of equipment for both the Nikon and Canon line. Anyone who purchases these lenses is happy with the performance whereas anyone who really looks at photographs will be selling the 70-300 models shortly after purchasing them.

Just look at the used market and see if you can find a couple 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lenses and then search for the gazillion 70-300 models that are out there.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13238059#post13238059 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Breakeronetwo
Yes, I know there are converters out there, but as far as I understood it, they can only be used on lenses with good light factors (if thats what its called, sorry, I'm german) and even then bring some drawbacks with them.

Correct but the 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x TC will produce better images than the Canon 70-300 with no TC.

 

[Breakeronetwo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13238116#post13238116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by KurtsReef

Just look at the used market and see if you can find a couple 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lenses and then search for the gazillion 70-300 models that are out there.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is the professional model for like 2000 dollars, I wasnt really comparing the cheap 70-300 to that one
I guess that also expains why its not being sold often on ebay and such.

But I believe beerguy was talking about the Canon EF 70-200mm / 1:4,0 L USM, and thats the same price range as the two I listed, but it has no image stabilizer.

Since it seems to be difficult to tell me at what distance I will be able to get a close face shot with this lens I will have to try it out at a store, cant be to difficult.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13238329#post13238329 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Breakeronetwo

But I believe beerguy was talking about the Canon EF 70-200mm / 1:4,0 L USM, and thats the same price range as the two I listed, but it has no image stabilizer.

Yes. You'll notice, however, that it too carries the "L" designation and is a professional lens.

 

[Breakeronetwo]

It does, but unexperienced as I am, this does not help me to know what is included in the L

Does the L make up for not having the image stabilizer? Or is a stabilizer maybe included in every L lens?

 

[BlueCorn]

There's nothing "included" with the L. It just designates the lens as belonging to the professional line. The 70-200 f/4L is available in IS and non IS versions. It's the IS that denotes stabilization. I shoot virtually everything on a tripod so on the few lenses that I have with IS, I turn it off.

As a general rule, you never want to shoot at a shutter speed slower than your focal length. For example, on at 200mm you'd want to stay above 1/200th. That's to avoid "camera shake." Some people are steadier than others so it's a ballpark figure. IS can add 2 - 4 "stops" to that range depending on the quality of the IS. The consumer lens IS system on the 70-300 is good for about 2 stops. That means that most folks would be able to use a shutter speed two stops slower with IS on than off with similar results. So technically, in a low light situation you might be able to get a blur free image one stop slower on the 70-300 than the 70-200 but after you compare the sharpness of the two images the 70-200 is still going to win.

IS is useful when you're hand holding the camera in low-light but it will not automatically ensure blur free images. It also does nothing to stop the motion of your subject. For that there is no substitute for a fast lens (low f/stop number).

 

[BlueCorn]

Here in the states we have several lens rental companies. I'd be surprised if you didn't have a similar service. It's a good way to try out lenses without making a purchase. What, ultimately, works for you will depend on your shooting style.

Cheers

 

[Breakeronetwo]

Hm, the problem is, I'm still sold to the IS feature, because you seem to be a bit more professional in the way of using the cam then I might ever be. Of course I will have a tripod for some occasions, but I plan on shooting mostly free hand, so would you really say I'm good without the IS and especially with a heavy package like most of these L lenses seem to be?

I just read up on some reviews and the 70-200L finishes with top results, on the other hand the reviewer made terribly awful pictures with it, and I am so easily sold on plain results
In another thread
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1450555
the guy is using an amateur 70-300 lens and is having great results, as far as I am concerned.

I guess you see that I am a difficult one, but I tend to listen to you. I guess I will try to get my hands on that L lens...

Actually I am already thinking about getting the L IS version. Damn, already planning to spend lots of money again without having a clue...

 

[BlueCorn]

Sure. Something to keep in mind that at 800 x 600 it's hard to tell one lens from another. A full sized image, or print would be when you'd be likely to notice it.

Cheers

 

[Jacob D]

There's also the Canon 100-400. Not as fast as the 70-200, but lots more reach. About the same weight, and a little less $$. http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ElSS

With that one and a 17-85 (also not fast, same quality as kit 18-55) you'd have a lot of variety with 2 lenses. If you want really fast lenses over a really wide range it's gonna take 3 or 4 to cover all your bases.


Have fun deciding
Then have fun shooting!

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

just for clarification, you have the 18-55, not the 17-55. The 17-55 is a very high quality expensive lens.

 

[Darrin]

I just typed a dissertation on lenses that I was going to post here, but decided to post it as a new thread...

 

[Toddrtrex]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13238059#post13238059 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Breakeronetwo

I also know about the 1.5 to 1.6 factor because of my cam, but I have no experience at all, what 200, 300 or in fact 480 really means in a live setting. Like at what distance will I still be able to get a full face shot with 320mm.

I use a Nikon, but will try to help with these question. I have a 55-200 lens, and found that I can get pretty decent shots with it.

This picture was taken with at the 55 setting,

And this one was at the 200 setting ( I was in the same spot )

Not sure if that helps or not.

 

[Breakeronetwo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13243760#post13243760 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Toddrtrex
I use a Nikon, but will try to help with these question. I have a 55-200 lens, and found that I can get pretty decent shots with it.

And this one was at the 200 setting ( I was in the same spot )



Not sure if that helps or not.

Yes, that actually helps, thanks alot. Now I know that I would need more then 200mm. But does your cam use this 1.6 factor, so that you effectively shot with 320?

To clarify this one more time for me. I need to multiply all of the lens data with 1.6, right? And if I then use a converter like 1.4, can I multiply a second time for 320x1.4=448, or does it not work that way?

And yes, thanks for the other clarification, its an 18-55

As for the 100-400L, as far as I can see, it costs about 40% more (1400 euros here) and weights twice as much, which is the worse part.