im guessing the tamron is a constant aperture lens?

id look up the reviews but would imagine the 17-55 2.8 would be a better lens to have...

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

I have a quick question, what's a Zhumell Canon T-ring adapter?

http://www.opticsale.com/zhumell-1.2...T_d_RING_d_EOS

there you go. the description explains.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

So would it be better to spend more money on the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Di II as opposed to the 18-55?

I have the tamron and it was absolutely worth it for me. great lens, super sharp and the constant 2.8 is great.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

So would it be better to spend more money on the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Di II as opposed to the 18-55?

is the tamron a better lens? Yes, much. But here's what we were getting at earlier, it's only better if you're going to use that range a lot and 2.8 is fast enough for you. For some of us, we don't care about 2.8 for zooms and would rather have primes and slower zooms and just fast zooms. Getting the kit lens, you WILL have issues with it, but it depends on what and how you shoot as to which issues will effect you (the speed, the range, etc). Once you know those answers a faster standard zoom might be the right answer (the tamron) but a tele zoom, UWA zoom, or a fast prime might be a better next step for you. That's what's so hard about the "what should I buy" question from people who really haven't shot much before.

the 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS and 50mm 1.8 COMBINED cost about what the tamron costs... You get 18-250 covered and a much faster lens (f/1.8 is 1.5 stops faster than f/2.8). The ONLY issue with those 3 lenses is the build really and the fact that the 50mm gets a bit long as your first prime on a crop, but it's a GREAT portrait lens for the money. All the other "inexpensive" primes are at least twice the $$$ and usually slower. With those 3 lenses (for the same money) you have more bases covered, but again, this might be a better setup for you, it might not be.

Originally Posted by unamused

id look up the reviews but would imagine the 17-55 2.8 would be a better lens to have...

yeah, it is but it's 2.5x the cost?

I think for now the 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS and 50mm 1.8 are going to be plenty to start off with. That way I can figure out what I need next as I develop and grow as a photographer.

They have different mounts... many 3rd party lens manufacturers will offer their lenses for the different mounts.

I think Ben's recommended "kit" will be your best to start off with. Once you start shooting enough, you will see where you want to focus your upgrades.

Originally Posted by Dave6265

They have different mounts... many 3rd party lens manufacturers will offer their lenses for the different mounts.

I think Ben's recommended "kit" will be your best to start off with. Once you start shooting enough, you will see where you want to focus your upgrades.

Im going to start with that "kit", i was just curious if it could work lol.
But I got my camera tonight! Im so excited. Just waiting on lens. Should be here soon within the next few days!!!
The camera is pretty much brand new, it only has 1447 shutter actuations and is very clean, no scratches or scuffs anywhere. Couldnt be happier!
Question: Is it worth it to get the lens hood for the 18-55?

Well get going already!!

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

Im going to start with that "kit", i was just curious if it could work lol.
But I got my camera tonight! Im so excited. Just waiting on lens. Should be here soon within the next few days!!!
The camera is pretty much brand new, it only has 1447 shutter actuations and is very clean, no scratches or scuffs anywhere. Couldnt be happier!
Question: Is it worth it to get the lens hood for the 18-55?

I wouldn't say it's all that needed unless you plan to be doing a lot of outside shooting at angles that you might be getting unwanted light flare form the sun but then again this can happen from a simple light inside a house as well if you are using a slow enough shutter speed.

If you do decide to get one be sure to get one that is NOT a thread mount. I forget the term of the other one that pops onto the outer edge and king of snaps in place but they are much better. thread mounts can cause vignetting at the wider angles.

so i have some shots on my flickr page! if you want to check them out and let me know what you think?! I used the macro and landscape mode mostly =/ lol Im still learning!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51339106@N06/

I just put a link to my flickr in my signature so it's easier

not a bad start at all. Post some in sharing or critique for more feedback, but I'll say with the bugs/flowers try not to always center everything.

Hello everyone!
I know its been awhile since I've been here. I got the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 but never used the 18-55 so...I sold it I love my 50mm 1.8 though!!
But Im ready for something better and sharper. I can spend a bit more this time...around $500. Give or take a bit.
I really want a sharp lens. Im looking for a "go to" walkaround lens. One that I can take to DC one day, and shoot a car with the next. I want more zoom than the 18-55 provides. I REALLY like the 70-200mm f/4L. I always have. I just don't know what other choices I have in that price range. And since Im shooting with my 40D I need to consider the crop factor vs. FF(which I dont have) I also prefer to shoot handheld rather than with a tripod.

That was a lot lol. But I would really appreciate the help

Sounds like you want the 70-200 f/4L?

you may be disappointed if you're expecting sharpness to greatly exceed that of the nifty fifty, especially at moderate apertures--despite its cheap price and construction it is no slouch.

Originally Posted by Markitos

Sounds like you want the 70-200 f/4L?

I went to the photo store recently and played around with one and there's just something about that lens that I love. Im just worried about the Non IS because I tend to shoot handheld rather than with a tripod. Also the IS version is a little pricey (at the moment) but I could always upgrade in the near future.

Originally Posted by ride5000

you may be disappointed if you're expecting sharpness to greatly exceed that of the nifty fifty, especially at moderate apertures--despite its cheap price and construction it is no slouch.

I agree. But most of the comparisons I've seen between the two lenses, the 70-200 is always the favorite.

with lens prices going up the way they are, get the non IS version and upgrade if you see a need in the future. You'll easily recoup what a 70-200 costs if you keep it a year or more.

Yeah that's what I was thinking.

70-200mm f/4L should be here sometime this week.

Now I need a replacement for the 18-55 kit lens I sold.

nice, the 70-200 is an amazing lens, canon's sharpest zoom IMHO.

I just got it! I thought it would be here sometime later but its here! lol.

Came with a B&W Circular Polarizer Filter, and B&W Neutral Density 0.9-8x Filter

Congrats! What'd you pick it up for?

I went to my local camera store and was looking around at it and I just really liked it. I loved how it felt, and everyone says its a great lens and I could finally afford it so I picked one up.

What lenses do you guys use when going to visit a city? If you were planning a trip to see the museums and memorials around DC which lens would you bring?

I'm going to Barcelona in about a week & taking my 16-35, 35, and 135 lenses. A 50 would be better than the 35 for the gap, but I don't have a 50 currently.

Thats awesome! Have fun there! One of my brothers lives just outside of Madrid.
But I have a 50 f/1.8 but I didn't really like it. I felt like I had to stand too far for most of the shots. I also have the 40D which would make the 50 more like 80.
Maybe I need like a 35mm? 17-35mm f/2.8L maybe?

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

Thats awesome! Have fun there! One of my brothers lives just outside of Madrid.
But I have a 50 f/1.8 but I didn't really like it. I felt like I had to stand too far for most of the shots. I also have the 40D which would make the 50 more like 80.
Maybe I need like a 35mm? 17-35mm f/2.8L maybe?

Yeah, you'd want something more like a 35mm lens. It depends on your photography whether you want a "normal" zoom or a UWA zoom. In general I use my 24-70 (17-35 for you) more, but for travel I like the 16-35 (10-20ish for you) because it's wider. I took just that and a 135 when I went to NYC last year and didn't really feel like I missed anything in the gap too much. The 24-70 is also a lot bigger/heavier than the 16-35, and in a city I'd rather have something a bit smaller.

Im finding myself shooting more flowers/nature, cars/car shows, and my brother BMXing. I would like to get into more street photography though. With that being said, I think overall maybe the 17-35mm or equivalent, would be more beneficial?

depending on who's with me, the first lens would either be a UWA zoom (if alone or not with friends/family) then a fast prime. If family was along, the fast prime would be the priority. The second lens would be the other of the two lenses. 3 lenses would probably be my 2 zooms and one prime.

I think what Im really looking for is a good walk around lens.

ahhh..idk lol

What fast 30-35mm prime would you guys recommend?

budget?

assuming you're on crop, sigma's 30mm is outstanding. On FF canon's 35mm is also good, but it's "only" f/2. Canon's 28,, 1.8 could also work (on both FF and crop).

budget is around 500. Yes, crop body (40D). I was looking at the Sigma 30mm and I really like it.
I am also thinking of picking up a UWA zoom but can't decide between the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, or Tokina 11-16.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...ron_tokina.htm

CNs: they're all pretty damned good. The choice between the tokina and the rest comes down to what you want to do with it. If you need f/2.8 the tokina is the only option, if you want wider or longer or less distortion, the others win. The tokina flares a LOT more than the others which makes it tough for landscaping, but for most everything else I'd probably get it first.

Thank you for that link!! I saw that before and have been trying to find it since lol.

I would like to be able to use the lens in DC, and landscaping as well. But Im not sure how much I would really NEED the f/2.8

the sigma that's fixed at 3.5 (or 3.8?) is a nice compromise as well. Not even a full stop slower, but gets rid of all the optical issues....

Its a little more expensive though, and from what Ive read, a lot of people dont think its worth it.

I thinking im going for the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 28mm f/1.8