Compatibility of Full Frame lenses...

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Thank you all for your input, however, I think there is a misconception that I am already an owner of a 7D and the primary use of the soon to be lens is for video.

If video was the primary use, a lot of this would take on less importance. And it doesn't matter if you're mounting this to a 7D, T2i, XTi, or any other crop sensor camera. The issues are the same.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

In fact, I do not own a 7D and it's primary usage will be for Photography- not video. Having said that, does the 18-270 sound more appealing? Again, this is not for video use.

Sounds less appealing.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

until I start generating some income from my hobby, then and only then, will I consider prime lenses and somethign with a lot less focul range.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Is the same true for Photographs? Again, my main use will be for Photography. If this is true for both then It's something I will most definitely consider before I buy.

It's worse with photographs. The relatively low resolution of video (about 2.2 Megapixels, moving at 24/25/30/60 frames per second) tends to mask a lot of problems. Put those same issues out there in a 12 Megapixel photograph where the intent is to truly stare at a single image, and every issue will be there in all it's glory.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Touché. However, just because it has been that way traditionally doesn't mean it has to continue to be so...Technology is constantly changing and with the advent of digital...a lot of traditions just don't make any sense anymore. Cumbersome indeed. I'd rather not complicate my hobby if a simpler route is available, however, that's not to say I'm lazy and unimaginative to get around limitations. In regards to the range...well, not everything is out of the naked eyes sight. Example.

Technology changes, that is to be certain. But physics does not. Light bends through the glass just the same regardless of whether it's on a 35mm film camera, a 7D, or a $5 million dollar Genesis camera. Look, if you want to get this lens because it makes your life easier, then have at it. You asked our opinion, and it's been offered.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

My boy and I are playing in our backyard, he's a running machine and runs past my 55mm limit, but is within range of 200 and even 300. He'll be tiny, but not invisible. I'm not doing Astro-Photography here.

No disrespect, but have you actually ever shot with a 200m or 300mm lens? I have. For part of my living at one point. A 300mm lens on a crop sensor will have the field of view of a 450mm. Which means if you were standing on one side of a football field, trying to take a photo of a person on the other side (55 yards away), you'd be shooting a head and shoulders shot. We used 300mm lenses on film cameras to tight shots on people 70 yards away. I don't know how big your backyard is. Maybe it's the size of a football field or larger. But I can tell you from experience that trying to TRACK anyone running in random directions at that focal length, or even HALF that focal length is beyond most newer photographers.

But again, you do as you see fit.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

I'm OK with them being awful for video. My primary use will be stills on a Rebel XT.

If you understood this, you'd understand why it will look MUCH better in video use than stills use. Still work is infinitely more critical.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I really appreciate your input guys! Please keep in mind this is primarily for Photography and not videography. I've got my XL2 for that. Sure, it's not as Shallow, but it's got all the bells and whistles I need to make good looking (and sounding) video.

Best of luck with your purchase.

[Dylan Couper]

Thank you, I was not aware of that model.

The 1Ds is Canon's flagship DSLR, and their original full frame DSLR. The current model, mkIII doesn't have video, but the mkIV due at Photokina next month definitely will. It is good candy... at $8000 a pop.

[Roger Rosales]

Perrone,

Indeed I did ask for your opinions and I appreciate your honest answers!

Actually, I've used the 55-250mm Canon lens. Not extensively, but a fair amount, enough to know the quality isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Of course, our applications are entirely different and you most likely do far more detailed, high resolution print work that I don't do that picks up on those ugly defects. But in my limited experience, it wasn't all that bad. You might also have a much more critical eye than me. Whatever the reason, I understand where you're coming from, I just don't entirely agree that this lens is THAT bad.

Well, thanks! I appreciate your honesty, it's hard to come by these days!

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Roger,

Reading your answers, you seems to have already made your choice. If so, why asking? The Canon 55-250, while not a great lens, is significantly better than any superzoom. It have a 4.5x zoom ratio vs the 15x ratio of the lens you are looking at. Optically, there is a lot of compromises in order to acheive this kind of thing.

What's the point in having an interchangable lens camera if not to take advantage of the feature!??!? You might be more satisfied with a high end powershoot camera with a long zoom.

The advices you are receiving here are from people who wants to help you. You will be able to do good, perhaps great pictures with the tamron. But if you are a little bit serious about photography, soon enough you will regret your choice.

[Roger Rosales]

Jean,

Actually, I have not made my choice. Is it so wrong to ask many questions regarding other peoples views? Perrone has a strong opinion on the matter and all I'm doing is pickin' his brain for more info. He obviously knows what he's talking about but just because I know less doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the information without asking further questions if I have some.

I find myself liking this place less and less...in all honesty, it may be just me, but there seems to be a sense of elitism over here. I can't ask too many questions without getting slammed by it? Isn't this the place to discuss the pros and cons of anything related to cameras and camcorders?

I will most definitely NOT be more satisfied with a point and shoot, no matter how feature filled it is. I want to swap lenses...which is why I'm looking for some right now. I'm definitely getting myself the "nifty fifty" and a zoom lens...how does this indicate that I don't want to take advantage of the interchangeability? Is it because I want versatility in a single package? Like Perrone said, don't we all? And with so many lenses out there, I figured there has to be a winner out there.

Is it also to much to ask for to want good quality in something that costs $500-$600? Which is how much these lenses cost roughly.

I'm certainly no pro to buy the L lenses and I'm not generating any income from my hobby. I find the advice isn't practical for a regular joe like myself trying to shove his way into the industry. Not everyone can start off with a souped up DSLR camera.

The only one that gave me more practical advice was Bill. Nailed it when he said you have to go with what you can afford. Perrone, even with his valid points, is not practical. He made the lenses out to be as if they were mankind's biggest transgression in the camera world! He has his reasons for not liking them and I respect that completely. He was frank but offered little to almost no alternatives. His responses would be enough to discourage someone freshly coming into the world of Photography.

Forgive me for expecting a "cheapo" $600 lens to suffice. Anyway, I feel this thread may get out of hand. I don't want anyone taking anything the wrong way and if anyone interpreted any of my posts as unreasonable, all I can say is, I'm just asking questions. KNOWLEDGE!

Thanks again for all the advice! Someone lock this thread before it gets too personal!

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Is it also to much to ask for to want good quality in something that costs $500-$600?

I think the lens manufacturers are trying their best and the quality will improve over time, but so will the other lenses, so a 15X zoom will always trail a 3X zoom in quality. That said, the lens you take with you has infinitely more quality than the one you leave at home, so a superzoom may best.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

The only one that gave me more practical advice was Bill.

Awe, I thought Roger was going to say my name. Curse you, Bill! You win this time, but we WILL meet again. :)

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

In fact it is fair to ask. But all the advices you got suggest to avoid the superzooms, and you come back saying you will take that path regardless of the advices based on experiences with other lenses. That's why you seems to have already made your choice.

600$ is indeed not cheap, but when a manufacturer pack all the features it can (IS, wide, tele) you can be certain the optical quality will suffer.

For about the same money, you would be much more satisfied with two lenses: A wide to normal zoom aand a telephoto zoom, like a 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 zoom you tried, or some alternatives from third party manufactures.

[Perrone Ford]

Roger,

I think this merits a few comments, and hopefully you understand where they are coming from...

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Jean,

Actually, I have not made my choice. Is it so wrong to ask many questions regarding other peoples views? Perrone has a strong opinion on the matter and all I'm doing is pickin' his brain for more info. He obviously knows what he's talking about but just because I know less doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the information without asking further questions if I have some.

Roger, I feel fine with you picking my brain so to speak, and yes I have strong opinions. I've owned a bunch of cameras, and I've been where you are now. The same is true for others here. Everyone has to start somewhere, and the folks here in one way or another are trying to steer you clear of mistakes and regrets they may have had. Part of participating in a discussion forum is actually absorbing the information given. Whether you choose to follow that advice or not is solely up to you, but try to understand why it's being given.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

I find myself liking this place less and less...in all honesty, it may be just me, but there seems to be a sense of elitism over here. I can't ask too many questions without getting slammed by it? Isn't this the place to discuss the pros and cons of anything related to cameras and camcorders?

It's not elitism. It's the fact that you are in many cases asking a professional about a product they wouldn't use. If you ask a carpenter about a $2 hammer, you're likely to get a laundry list why you should get the $50. You say, well I can only afford the $2 hammer, well then the decision is made. But it's not like the carpenter is going to say, "well then, that $2 hammer is just fine". It's the same hammer, but it's just the best you can do at the moment. That's fair enough, and that's exactly what I said to you.

It seems in this conversation you were far more interested in hearing and absorbing the pros of your intended purchase than the cons, and became defensive of it. That is not the way to get good advice about things. You have to be willing to hear the good AND the bad, and make decisions accordingly.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

I will most definitely NOT be more satisfied with a point and shoot, no matter how feature filled it is. I want to swap lenses...which is why I'm looking for some right now. I'm definitely getting myself the "nifty fifty" and a zoom lens...how does this indicate that I don't want to take advantage of the interchangeability? Is it because I want versatility in a single package? Like Perrone said, don't we all? And with so many lenses out there, I figured there has to be a winner out there.

I wouldn't direct you to a point and shoot. But the basic facts are these. The more range a zoom has the lower quality the optics are going to be. In order to get those optics to be excellent, the price has to rise. There are zooms with the kind of range you're talking that have excellent optics. Angenieux makes some. They cost over $60k. That's what it costs to do it right with the labor and materials at this time. However, that same optical quality is available in prime lenses costing under $500. You may well say that I am willing to sacrifice ultimate optical quality for convenience. We ALL do that. My EX1 has a lens that is likely no better than that Tamron. May not even be as good, though it is faster. If I had the choice, would I change it? YOU BET! But I don't, so I can't. You, as the buyer of a new camera system, CAN change yours. So you get to make the choice.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Is it also to much to ask for to want good quality in something that costs $500-$600? Which is how much these lenses cost roughly.

"Good quality" is extremely relative. The zoom lens on my EX1 likely would cost about $3k retail. It has chromatic aberration, and other distortions. They are not always plainly visible, but they are there if you look. To make a lens with similar zoom range (which is what you're talking about), for less than 1/4 the cost, I know the corners that need to be cut to do that. Would I recommend that lens to someone? No. Does that mean it's not going to work out for them? Absolutely not. May be just fine.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

I'm certainly no pro to buy the L lenses and I'm not generating any income from my hobby. I find the advice isn't practical for a regular joe like myself trying to shove his way into the industry. Not everyone can start off with a souped up DSLR camera.

I want a car that's as fast as a Ferrari, as good as a Cadillac on long trips, hauls lumber like a 2-ton truck, and has features that let me transport a family of 5. And I want it for $5k. Is that so hard? Well, yes, it is hard. And it's no different with these lenses. Something has to give somewhere. You just need to be sure that where things "give", is a place where you can live with it.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

The only one that gave me more practical advice was Bill. Nailed it when he said you have to go with what you can afford. Perrone, even with his valid points, is not practical. He made the lenses out to be as if they were mankind's biggest transgression in the camera world! He has his reasons for not liking them and I respect that completely. He was frank but offered little to almost no alternatives. His responses would be enough to discourage someone freshly coming into the world of Photography.

We've all given you practical advice. From our individual perspectives. Bill is the only one who gave you the advice you wanted to hear or were ready to hear. I could not offer you any alternatives, because frankly you offered no alternative options. You were not willing to sacrifice any of the parameters which would have allowed me to offer alternative choices. ANY lens with the range you're looking for, at the price point you're willing to pay is going to have the same problems. You'd just be trading one set of issues for another.

I'm sorry you find that discouraging. But my advice to you would have saved you a lot of money. Buy a good 35mm lens, and take a lot of pictures. I see you plan to buy a 50mm lens and that's terrific. You didn't mention that at the outset.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Forgive me for expecting a "cheapo" $600 lens to suffice. Anyway, I feel this thread may get out of hand. I don't want anyone taking anything the wrong way and if anyone interpreted any of my posts as unreasonable, all I can say is, I'm just asking questions. KNOWLEDGE!

The lenses you are looking at are expensive because of the difficulty in trying to make them work. Not because they are optically great. There is a huge difference. And the user base at this site, more often than not, is going to sacrifice convenience at the altar of excellence every time. To expect otherwise is probably not a good bet.

Originally Posted by Roger Rosales

Thanks again for all the advice! Someone lock this thread before it gets too personal!

Nothing here should be construed as personal. If you buy the Tamron, I hope you enjoy it to the fullest. It may work great for you or even exceed your expectations. Or it may not. Only you can be the judge of it.

[Roger Rosales]

Daniel, indeed you did offer some good alternatives! My current lens is the stock 18-55mm. It's a good stock lens and my sister owns the 55-250 which I think is great. I may end up purchasing that one, but still not entirely sure yet.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Roger,
Roger, I feel fine with you picking my brain so to speak, and yes I have strong opinions. I've owned a bunch of cameras, and I've been where you are now. The same is true for others here. Everyone has to start somewhere, and the folks here in one way or another are trying to steer you clear of mistakes and regrets they may have had.

And it's for this very reason that I love this place. It may seem harsh at times, but it's a much needed reality check most of the time!

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Part of participating in a discussion forum is actually absorbing the information given. Whether you choose to follow that advice or not is solely up to you, but try to understand why it's being given.

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding other times it's the medium on which it's being delivered and being that forums is nothing but text, it's sometimes easy to misunderstand people. You can mean one thing but depending on the person reading it, they could interpret it the complete opposite!

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

It seems in this conversation you were far more interested in hearing and absorbing the pros of your intended purchase than the cons, and became defensive of it. That is not the way to get good advice about things. You have to be willing to hear the good AND the bad, and make decisions accordingly.

I guess deep down inside I was hoping to hear a little more positive feedback which is why I kept going back and forth on those particular lenses. I didn't want to have to sacrifice, but unfortunately, that is the reality. Your review just seemed a little unfair at first, but ultimately, like you said, it could save me money in the long run. I tend to think short term a lot, which can be great or can be extremely bad! Depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I wouldn't direct you to a point and shoot. But the basic facts are these. The more range a zoom has the lower quality the optics are going to be. In order to get those optics to be excellent, the price has to rise. There are zooms with the kind of range you're talking that have excellent optics. Angenieux makes some. They cost over $60k. That's what it costs to do it right with the labor and materials at this time. However, that same optical quality is available in prime lenses costing under $500. You may well say that I am willing to sacrifice ultimate optical quality for convenience. We ALL do that. My EX1 has a lens that is likely no better than that Tamron. May not even be as good, though it is faster. If I had the choice, would I change it? YOU BET! But I don't, so I can't. You, as the buyer of a new camera system, CAN change yours. So you get to make the choice.

Makes absolute sense. I'm not too keen on the technical and mechanical aspects of photography. I know my settings and how each setting will affect my photos, but that's as far as my knowledge goes for now. Discussions like these are great because they help me understand these things a lot better than before. I was not aware of how much one sacrifices for these "all-in-one" lenses.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I want a car that's as fast as a Ferrari, as good as a Cadillac on long trips, hauls lumber like a 2-ton truck, and has features that let me transport a family of 5. And I want it for $5k. Is that so hard? Well, yes, it is hard. And it's no different with these lenses. Something has to give somewhere. You just need to be sure that where things "give", is a place where you can live with it.

LOL! Point well taken.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

We've all given you practical advice. From our individual perspectives. Bill is the only one who gave you the advice you wanted to hear or were ready to hear. I could not offer you any alternatives, because frankly you offered no alternative options. You were not willing to sacrifice any of the parameters which would have allowed me to offer alternative choices. ANY lens with the range you're looking for, at the price point you're willing to pay is going to have the same problems. You'd just be trading one set of issues for another.

I can see how I came off this way and those were not my intentions. I stopped myself for a moment and thought about all of this and it is true to some extent. I was a little unwilling to hear that these lenses are as imperfect as you say they are and I'm glad you've taken the time several times to explain yourself and your stance on the matter.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I'm sorry you find that discouraging. But my advice to you would have saved you a lot of money. Buy a good 35mm lens, and take a lot of pictures. I see you plan to buy a 50mm lens and that's terrific. You didn't mention that at the outset.

I appreciate your honesty and your looking out for a fellow photographers best interest! I probably should have mentioned the nifty fifty.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

The lenses you are looking at are expensive because of the difficulty in trying to make them work. Not because they are optically great. There is a huge difference. And the user base at this site, more often than not, is going to sacrifice convenience at the altar of excellence every time. To expect otherwise is probably not a good bet.

Now I need to decide of convenience is worth the optical sacrifice. I need to head down to Samy's and try these out! To actually see the end product is going to be my deciding factor. But the more I think about it, convenience is starting to take the back seat. I certainly don't want to be unhappy or wishing I had bought a different lens with less reach 2 or 3 months down the line. It's a big investment and I need to make sure I get what I need.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Nothing here should be construed as personal. If you buy the Tamron, I hope you enjoy it to the fullest. It may work great for you or even exceed your expectations. Or it may not. Only you can be the judge of it.

Whatever I chose, be it the Tamron or a Canon, I can only hope it's the right choice. I Can't stress it enough, but thanks for the advice. It really does help me see things in a different light.

[Perrone Ford]

Roger,

Thanks for taking this the right way. It's encouraging to see people step back for a moment and consider alternatives. You may get down to the store, try that Tamron and say, "BAH! Those guys are full of it!" And that's fine too. You will have listened to our concerns, tried things for yourself, and come to a studied decision.

Believe me, I've done the same thing numerous times. At this stage of the game for me, I KNOW what I am missing when I don't spend $15k on a prime lens. And I am VERY comfortable with my choice!

Best of luck with your lens choice. And if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask here or mail me privately. I'll do what I can to help.

[Roger Rosales]

Much obliged!

[Dylan Couper]

Roger, I checked out your site, you have some good looking stuff.

In my humble opinion, while you don't need to go for L series glass juuuust yet... you should buy a higher quality tool than a superzoom.

While it doesn't have the reach of a 28-300 zoom, the 28-135 IS (or the EF-S version... 18-85 IS? I can't remember offhand), will give you better results, and if/when it comes time to move up, you'll be able to sell it for almost what you paid for it. Or keep it and add a good telephoto (like the 70-200 f4, used for $500) and a 50mm f1.8 (under $100), and you'll have a pretty balanced kit of quality tools on a very reasonable budget.

[Dan Shallenberger]

I say rent the lenses you're thinking about and try them for a couple of days. That will make your decision for you. Yeah, it won't be cheap to rent several lenses, but could save you a fortune from making the wrong decision blindly. Visiting a store will help, but not as much as using them in the real world for a couple of days, as opposed to shooting some random stuff inside the retail store.

And from someone that had a superzoom for about 2 weeks (RAN to the store to return it), go with a canon lens, particularly the 28-135 or a used 24-70 f/4 (over your budget but not by too much). If for nothing else, Dylan is correct that you can sell canon brand lenses for nearly what you paid for it, especially the popular ones or professional ones.

One more point... with the resolution of modern canons, you can shoot your son playing in the backyard at 70mm, crop way in tight, and still have enough pixels for an amazing 8x10 print.

[Roger Rosales]

Thanks for checking out my site Dylan! And I'm glad you think so.

I was actually thinking about getting a a 28-135 today at work. I do product photography there and we use a canon 40D. The crawl (or creep...can't remember the term at the moment) is very bothersome though. But it is a pretty good lens. We also went on some on-location shoots (these are for mountain bikes by the way) and the reach was actually pretty good!

I've only done two of those so far and I just remembered today how great that lens is, despite the creep (or crawl...). I was so hung up on having a super wide to telephoto lens that forgot about the lens I use and stare at every day for 5 days!

I also remember taking the 40D home and loving the range! Suddenly, I didn't seem as far as with my kit 18-55 lens! I'm already getting a 50mm f1.8 for sure. That's a must. The reviews are rock solid and for the price, it's worth a shot.

However, I do want to point out something. I've noticed whenever I open my aperture to about 5"+, depending on the angle and on the product, there is a nasty blotch. I don't know if this is a common issue or if it's in need of cleaning. I'm wondering if it's the 40D or the lens. Any ideas?

Thanks for the suggestions Dan! Sounds like a great idea if it's not to expensive.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Dan Shallenberger

I say rent the lenses you're thinking about and try them for a couple of days. That will make your decision for you. Yeah, it won't be cheap to rent several lenses, but could save you a fortune from making the wrong decision blindly. Visiting a store will help, but not as much as using them in the real world for a couple of days, as opposed to shooting some random stuff inside the retail store.

Great suggestion Dan. Even better, he could rent the lenses from an online rental place, which are much cheaper than retail location rentals and will give him more time with the lens for less money. I was shooting with a 600mm f4 this past weekend that cost less for a full week from an online rental place than it would have for 1 day from a local shop. And this is coming from someone who rents out his own gear a lot!