|
All images © Bob Atkins
This website is hosted by:
|
 Author
|
Topic: Please Help: Advice needed on single lens solution for canon rebel xt (Read 10860 times)
|
carlitozwy
Newbie
Posts: 2
|
I've quickly grown out of my 18-55mm kit lens. I usually find myself taking photos at the 35-55mm range and it never seems quite close enough and I end up doing some cropping. So... I have about $400 to spend for a new lens. I'm interested in a zoom lens that I could also use for portraits. I'm taking a vacation in the next couple of weeks to Disney and would love to get some good shots of the park and my 3 year old. I'll also be taking some indoor and night shots at a family members'. I had been sold on the 28-135mm USM lens as a nice walk-around lens until I started reading up on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 today. I'm totally confused now. I could use some advice on which to pick. I'm interested in using the lens for portrait work, indoors and outdoors, if possible. I guess I'm concerned about zoom distance and pics in low light. Is the USM and IS worth it on the Canon 28-135mm? Or is it better to go with the Tamron since it's a faster lens? I could also use some help on a filter choice... I was thinking of the Hoya circular polarizer, but should I get the UV filter instead? Thanks in advance for the help. ~Newbie  ccruz429@yahoo.com |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
Well, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 would probably make the better portrait lens due to the wider aperture's ability to blur the background more, but the 28-135 has a much longer reach. It depends on which is most important to you. The 28-135 is probably the more vesatile lens given the image stabilization and increased telephoto reach. I'd probably be inclined to go with the EF 28-135/3.5-5.6IS USM and also pick up an EF 50/1.8 IIwhich would be even better than the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for portrait work. I know it's not a "1 lens solution", but I think it give you more bang for your buck. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
carlitozwy
Newbie
Posts: 2
|
Bob, Thanks! That's what I was leaning towards originally after reviewing your site. Then I read your review of the Tamron that compared it to both Canon 28-135mm and 50mm lenses. Thanks for clearing it up. I really value your website and suggestion. I also want to thank you for your prompt response. That's what I'll go with... Should I get both circular polarizing and UV filters? Which would you recommend first?
I have a lot to learn about photography and I find your website an invaluable tool in learning all I can. Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
UV filters don't really do anything useful except perhaps keeping jam and ice cream off the lens!
If I could have one or the other I think a polarizer is a lot more useful
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
photosbybrian
Junior Member
Posts: 15
|
My choice is the 28-135 IS. The IS would make up for some of the difference in lense speed. I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS lenses. I agree with Bob's rationale, and also the advice about the 50 1.8. I own both lenses as well as a handful of "L" glass. I use these two lenses quite a bit. BB www.photosbybrian.photoreflect.com |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GDS
Newbie
Posts: 1
|
What about the Cannon 18-200 or Tamron 18-270?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Johnf
Junior Member
Posts: 29
|
18-200 (I have been jelous of Nikon users for a while now)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
