ok so i bought myself a 100mm/2.8 macro for Christmas, and now i have buyers remorse that i should have gotten something else. i like the 100mm but i really have no use. its too long, i dont shoot portrait and i am finding i really dont like macro. so i want to get something i'd really use.
i have:
18-135 kit
100mm/2.8
50mm/1.8
so here are my options, sell all:
buy canon 15-85mm/3.5-5.6 and 50mm/1.4 an get a something longer down the line
or
keep 50mm/1.8 and get a tamron 17-50/2.8 and maybe a used canon 70-200mm/4L
i would love to get a tamron 24-75mm/2.8 but i know it wont be wide enough.
or
keep the 18-135mm, sell the 50mm and the 100mm and upgrade to 50mm/1.4 and get my love the 85mm/1.8?
If the 100 is too long.... the 85 is negligibly shorter.
100= 24 degrees field of view
85=28 degrees
Personally, I'm just sorta done and underwhelmed with slow zooms. I've accepted that they'll frustrate me and I might as well just suck it up and wait to get a fast one. Your needs and expectations are not mine, but that's how I feel.
What primes does Canon offer down around 20mm? I'd expect a 20 2.8 to be reasonable?
i love primes, they just aren't feasible for walk around. which is why im looking at option 1, i'd be upgrading my 50mm which i use the most and getting a solid walk around.
but then there is option 3, where is do the same, i love the 85mm. but then im keeping the lens i dislike the most.
Yeah, I just looked- what would you think of a 20 2.8 for $480 and then an 85 1.8?
You seem to like primes, that's why I suggest that. What about a 17-40 F4L and then save for a bit and get an 85 on top?
ETA: Thoughts on the angle of view of the 85 being so close to the 100? You said the 100 is just too long?
ETA: Thoughts on the angle of view of the 85 being so close to the 100? You said the 100 is just too long?
i realize the 85mm is long too, but i just love that lens.
i really want to be done with the 18-135, and have no use for the 100mm. but i need to replace the 18-135 some how. for some reason i feel like i need to be so close. maybe its the softness of the lenses i have used in the past and when i crop them tighter they are extremely soft.
if i get a tamron 24-75, i'd like a wider lens to use on occasion, maybe that's where i look.
is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.
Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.
The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.
is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.
Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.
The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.
yeah, with is why i wasn't sure i wanted the tamron, but if i sell the 100mm i can pick up a wider lens.
aw give the macro a fair shake, s'not enough time to know.
fwiw i love the 200mm 2.8L for wildlife and anything that's a reach, gorgeous color, sharpness and bokeh, and adore the canon 10-22mm, fun for city, hip-snaps, perspective.
often jaunt with those 2 and the 50mm 1.8 and feel pretty covered.
is a tamron 24-75 and some wide angle to use for landscape.
Keep in mind it's a 28-75. Also keep in mind that a 24 is negligibly wider than a 28. I know this, I have one. I use my 24 as a lightweight backpack lens for that reason. That's why the 20 might not be too bad an option. But, depending upon your landscapes, 20 might be either great or a little bit too tele. For mountains, it's a bit tele for me at times, but it's a good compromise.
The Tamron 28-75 is super sharp and has great contrast. It's lightweight and has a close minimum focus distance too.
yeah, with is why i wasn't sure i wanted the tamron, but if i sell the 100mm i can pick up a wider lens.
I was VERY happy with the 10-22 and tammy 28-75 combo for @6 years on my 20D and just as happy this year after upgrading to the 7D. The 28mm limit on that tammy never bothered me but go figure I found it a little short on the long end. The tammy is a great lens and that is an outstanding price is your stealing it from bear (even without the mojo it might still have :-) ).
I used that right up to a couple of weeks ago when I managed to snag a 24-105L with a very understand better half given what I have already spend this year :-/ and would still be using it otherwise. I would go for it and get out and take some pictures already :-)
I've heard lots of good things about the 24-105 lens. A great walk around length. I know some very succesful photographers who chose that over the 2.8 series zooms. Albeit it is a costly lens.. sell everything and get that lens???
The *standard* for mid-range zooms on FF is the 24-70. On APS-C, this is not really wide enough at all. The 17-55 is pretty much a direct replacement for the 24-70 range ( it equates to 27-88mm).
As to why the Canon 17-55 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50:
- The Canon has IS. That's the big one. Now, how much you need IS in this focal length range is a matter of debate ;-)
- The Canon is a sharper lens, particularly in the corners. The Canon is reportedly a little softer at close focus distances
- The Canon has USM focus with full-time manual override. The Tamron does not.
- The build is somewhat better on the Canon (though not radically better)
If you are considering these two, I'd take the opportunity to shoot them both. If you are critical about your image sharpness, you will see a difference between them.
