Canon Lens.

[Hellbelly]

Well, today I got myself a Canon 28-135 IS USM for £275 brand new.

 

Not even tried it on my camera yet.

 

Yogi.

 

I'm looking at those too Yogi. They're $560 here, that about 225pounds. I'm really keen to get the 17-40 though. Have been looking at Chippy's gallery regularly and love the shots that his 17-40 produce.

 

@Chippy. I've just found a 17-50 Tamron for $540 (220 pound). Is that going to be nealy as good as the canon 17-40 or is it a different kettle of fish?

 

Cheers.........HB.

[Chippy]

I'm looking at those too Yogi. They're $560 here, that about 225pounds. I'm really keen to get the 17-40 though. Have been looking at Chippy's gallery regularly and love the shots that his 17-40 produce.

 

@Chippy. I've just found a 17-50 Tamron for $540 (220 pound). Is that going to be nealy as good as the canon 17-40 or is it a different kettle of fish?

 

Cheers.........HB.

 

 

Havent got any experience of it myself, but the write-ups looks very good:- Tamron 17-50 review

[Cameraman]

Well, today I got myself a Canon 28-135 IS USM for £275 brand new.

 

Not even tried it on my camera yet.

 

Yogi.

 

Same as mine, most usefull and versatile lens I have, keep it on the camera in readiness as a carry about.

[Yogi]

Same as mine, most usefull and versatile lens I have, keep it on the camera in readiness as a carry about.

 

Most defo Cameraman, I'll keep mine on the camera too. Won a auction on E-Bay for a 72mm clear filter for protection - and the cost of the filter £0.06p, yep 6p. I've had the lens cap off once, but it wont get used until I've got the filter.

 

As for the 17-40, hmm I've looked at those too, quite expensive. I've been eyeing up a good Sigma lens on E-Bay for a good price. However, I prefere to stick to Canon lens.

 

Yogi.

[Hellbelly]

Well, it official. I just bought a new Canon 17-40mm EF f/4L USM 17-40 Lens + Free UV Filter. So, now I've got lens, battery grip (with two extra batteries) and 2GIG memory card. Now all I need is the bloody camera . That'll have to wait until another pay or two goes in the bank.

 

Cheers.........HB

[Yogi]

Well, it official. I just bought a new Canon 17-40mm EF f/4L USM 17-40 Lens + Free UV Filter. So, now I've got lens, battery grip (with two extra batteries) and 2GIG memory card. Now all I need is the bloody camera . That'll have to wait until another pay or two goes in the bank.

 

Cheers.........HB

 

Now make sure you get a camera to fit that particular batt grip, they vary. Been looking at them 17-40s, I feel the aperture a bit slow at F4, need to read a few more write-ups first I think before I commit myself.

 

Yogi.

[Hellbelly]

@Yogi. Yea mate, F4 could be a tad slow but a heap of Chippy's pics are taken with it and they're mostly the type of shot's I'd be looking at taking. Along with some family type shots, so will get a 28-135 in the coming months.

 

HB.

[Yogi]

@Yogi. Yea mate, F4 could be a tad slow but a heap of Chippy's pics are taken with it and they're mostly the type of shot's I'd be looking at taking. Along with some family type shots, so will get a 28-135 in the coming months.

 

HB.

 

Yeah, I'm more of a longer lens person for the type of stuff I prefere doing, natural history and sport etc but I'll take photo's of anything. I was always in the pits n paddock at Silverstone so the 28-135 would be ideal for close work, whether I get there this year is another story. Would love to get hold of a decent macro lens as I like trying to do close-up work of flowers and insects etc. My other dream lens would be the 28-300, not sure what aperture that is though but i know its outta my price range right now. Am off to The Aurosport Show at the NEC in two weeks so I'll give the 28-135 a good run.

 

Must admit, Chippy's photos are good, but I can't help thinking that the 17-40 is a bit over priced for a F4.

 

Yogi.

[Hellbelly]

OK, now that

I've got the 17-40 for landscape shot, I'm looking for a good but cheap lens for taking pics of close'ish family members. Would a 50mm prime do this for me? They still have a focus setting dont they? You just have to walk back and forth to get the things you want to fit in in?

 

HB

[Guest CJS2]

OK, now that

I've got the 17-40 for landscape shot, I'm looking for a good but cheap lens for taking pics of close'ish family members. Would a 50mm prime do this for me? They still have a focus setting dont they? You just have to walk back and forth to get the things you want to fit in in?

 

HB

 

Hellbelly, I've always been advised to use a 90mm focal length for people (personal study, studio type) shots? You get to close with anything shorter and the subject becomes self conscious. Your 40 (x1.6) is going to cover true 50mm. How about a Tamron 90mm? then you have top quality macro as well? However if you are looking at 'compact' then the 50 makes the outfit very tight! I used a 17-40 for a long time as my standard lens, now use the excellent Nikon 18-70 kit lens as my standard.

 

What about the Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 (2.8 at 24mm) dont forget the x 1.6. Would cover the standard lens range £279.99rr.

 

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/sta...om/24-135mm.htm

 

Sigma do a 105mm f2.8 with macro 1.1, £339.99

 

 

There are probably others, Tamron do a 28-200 f3.8-5.6, £155.

 

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/page192.htm

 

 

Food for thought, others will have their own ideas? Cliff, (CJS2)