Greetings, this is my first post here.

I just bought my first SLR, an old Canon A630, and now I need my first lens. Since I have many hobbies, I know the pain of buying something that turns out to leave no room for future growth, leading to expensive liquidation/new purchse cycles.

From the many posts I've read, I understand that primes are unbeatable. Thus, I would like to make my first zoom also my last zoom, followed by a couple of strategic primes and a teleconverter. Since this is a (budding) hobby and not a profession, I can't justify buying an L series zoom.

I have my eyes upon the Canon 24-85, the Tamron 24-135, and the Tokina 24-200 (Notice I like a wide bottom end?). The prevailing opinion I've read here is that the Canon lenses are a better bet, but I can't help but drool over the longer reach of the other brands.

Am I wasting my time deliberating over "consumer grade" zooms in the first place? If so, I'll just get the super-duper Tokina and enjoy it until the honeymoon's over and I sober up. But if my goals are feasible, which zoom would combine with a couple of primes to make a respectable arsenal? I suppose I could always get a 24 2.8 and combine it with a more standard zoom, but I'm looking ahead to digital SLRs and they tend to already multiply the focal length (24mm = 38mm on the Canon D30).

Thanks!

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001

Answers

The Canon 24-85 USM has very quick AF with FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing. If you've never used FTM, you need to get a lens with it and use it for a couple of weeks. Most people that don't have an FTM lens can't figure out what the big deal is, but 99.44% of those that use them, never want to do without again. None of the others you list have it. This lens is also very sharp for a consumer zoom. The Canon 28-105 USM and 28-135 USM IS are about equal to it in terms of optical and mechanical quality. But the 28-135 USM IS has that great Image Stabilization built in.

The Tamron 24-135 is new, but several reports have said that it is a very nice lens. Quite sharp & contrasty, with no big flare or distortion problems. It is a nice range. It would be my second choice behind the Canon.

The Tokina 24-200 is even newer. I have seen one early preview that said it was surprisingly good, but I'm a bit skeptical. Tokina's 35- 300 was a real dog, but maybe they're on to something here.

Extended range zooms generally have too many compromises for quality images at all apertures, especially on the extreme ends of their zoom range. But optical engineers are getting quite good at using computers to stretch the prevailing wisdom. Still, I doubt I'd buy one until I had several very positive opinions from independent sources.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), August 22, 2001.

For price, range and quality, I'd go for the 28-105. This lens gets good write ups all over for quality. It has FTM, and a non-rotating front. It's a USM lens (so quiet and fast focus) and pretty fast with a maximum aperture of f3.5.

Also, you can pick one up from B&H for about $225.

-- Marcus (citizensmith@lanset.com), August 22, 2001.

Thanks for the feedback on the lenses! I take it then that the Canon zoom or possibly the Tameron zoom would be keepers even down the road. The 28-135 IS is real tempting, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to get a wide lens later. When would I need a lens wider than 24mm?

The complimentary prime lenses I'm considering are a 50 1.8 for existing light indoor photography, and a telephoto with a teleconverter for filming wildlife. I understand prime lenes produce better pictures than any zoom (even L series) by a wide margin, does that apply to Tameron's telephotos and teleconverters as well?

Thanks again.

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.

>From the many posts I've read, I understand that primes are >unbeatable.

This is a matter of hot contention – you’ll often see discussions on whether the slight image quality gain on a prime lens is worth the inconvenience of not being able to compose your shot without running back & forth or switching prime lenses. On the high quality lens end of things (yes, the L series) the more balanced reviews give a slight nod to primes for image sharpness & contrast.

>followed by a couple of strategic primes and a teleconverter. Since >this is a (budding) hobby and not a profession, I can't justify >buying an L series zoom.

I took this as a rather strange statement, as one quality L series zoom might run you $1500 US – but depending on the focal length & f- stop speed of the prime lenses you are wanting to add to your collection, you could be spending several thousand dollars! A new 50mm f/1.8 will run you $80 US, but a Macro 50mm $295, a Macro 100mm $600, a Macro 180mm $1375, a 200mm f/2.8 $700 (f/1.8 $3900!), 300mm f/2.8 $4650, 400mm f/2.8 IS $7500, 600mm f/4 IS $8650 – even an 85mm f/1.8 will run you $390! So before you plan on gathering a nice collection of primes, consider what your needs are, what they are likely to be, and whether a nice L series zoom would actually fit your needs & budget better. Just what kind of photography are you interested in? The answer to that will more truly dictate what kind of lens(es) you should acquire.

>I have my eyes upon the Canon 24-85, the Tamron 24-135, and the >Tokina 24-200 (Notice I like a wide bottom end?).

I’ve owned the 24-85mm USM zoom for quite some time, and very much in enjoy it – especially compared to its lower priced cousins. Some reports put it down with excessive barrel distortion at the low end. I don’t tend to spend too much time taking pictures of grids, brick walls, or Venetian blinds – so I haven’t noticed the problem. It does have an odd-ball lens filter size. I’ve decided to get a larger circular polarizer filter for it (i.e. 77mm) and use a step-down ring to fit. Then I could use the polarizer on the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that I will purchase (as soon as I inherit money, rob a bank, whatever).

>The prevailing opinion I've read here is that the Canon lenses are >a better bet, but I can't help but drool over the longer reach of >the other brands.

You must weigh cost, convenience, & acceptable lens quality. You should also try all 3 lenses on your camera, noting the balance, focusing speed, noise, configuration, etc. Then you should by the lens that you like best.

>Am I wasting my time deliberating over "consumer grade" zooms in the >first place?

No. You get what you can afford. Just remember to be satisfied with whatever you get that exists.

>If so, I'll just get the super-duper Tokina and enjoy it until the >honeymoon's over and I sober up.

Sounds like you’ve already kinda made up your mind.

>But if my goals are feasible, which zoom would combine with a couple >of primes to make a respectable arsenal?

It just depends on what kind of photography you do.

>I suppose I could always get a 24 2.8 and combine it with a more >standard zoom, but I'm looking ahead to digital SLRs and they tend >to already multiply the focal length (24mm = 38mm on the Canon D30).

You’ll be looking for quite some time, before you see a Canon EOS digital down at the consumer price points!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 23, 2001.

The 28-135 IS is real tempting, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to get a wide lens later. When would I need a lens wider than 24mm?

I thought a 28mm would be wide enough for me also. I learned that I was wrong. Now, 24mm is sometimes not enough.

I understand prime lenes produce better pictures than any zoom (even L series) by a wide margin, does that apply to Tameron's telephotos and teleconverters as well?

The Canon L sereis lenses are not beaten by a wide margin by primes as you state. They are very nearly the same with the zooms only trailing a bit, but the convenience of having only 3 "L" lenses (17-35, 28-70, 70-200) to carry instead of the 14mm L, the 20m EF, 24mm EF, 35mm L, 50mm USM, 85mm USM, 100mm USM, 135mm USM (maybe) and a 200 USM greatly outweighs any minimal loss in quality. Okay, I may have exaggerated to prove a point but you see what I'm saying? I can't comment on Tamron's optical quality.

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), August 23, 2001.

You say: From the many posts I've read, I understand that primes are unbeatable. Thus, I would like to make my first zoom also my last zoom, followed by a couple of strategic primes and a teleconverter. Since this is a (budding) hobby and not a profession, I can't justify buying an L series zoom.

There are a couple of problems here. First off, it depends on WHICH prime lenses you are talking about (and which zooms). But a more serious problem is that most people DO NOT NEED the highest-quality lenses for the kind of photography they actually do. Unless you are 1)prepared to actually USE a tripod, any time you are shooting at speeds slower than 1/500 (unless you use IS lenses) and 2) expect to actually make a lot of prints bigger than 8x10, and 3) are prepared to get custom phtofinishing for your exposed film (or set up your own traditional or digital darkroom)-- nearly all current lenses will probably give you adequate results. The people who need top-quality lenses are the ones who have to make 11x14 and bigger prints for paying customers with high standards-- or who aspire to make such prints for themselves, and are willing to spend a lot of time and effort to get just the image they want. If you have "many hobbies," as you say, you may not have the time to spend on photography to be able to rationally justify buying top- quality lenses. And unless you keep your camera on a sturdy tripod, or use only IS lenses, you simply will not get top resolution from your lenses. The traditional rule of thumb is that you can shoot a 50mm lens hand held at about 1/50, or a 200mm lens at 1/200 of a second. But that's assuming you practice dilligently, and are really steady to begin with. If you are into pistol shooting and are good at it, you can probably learn to do that well. Many people never get really good at hand-holding their cameras. If they are not very demanding, and only make 4x6 prints, this won't matter at all. But buying top-quality lenses for that kind of photography is simply wasting your money.

A second problem is the idea that one zoom and "a couple of strategic primes and a teleconverter" will fill all your needs. The teleconverter is probably a mistake. Depending on what lenses you are using, you may lose autofocus. Also, if you gewt serious about photography, you may well want a range considerably greater than 24- 200. For landscapes and interiors, many people work with 20mm and wider lenses. For wildlife and sports, you really need long, high- speed lenses. If you want to cover the entire 24-200mm rnge adequately with prime lenses, with minimum gaps, you would need 24,28,35,50,85,100,135 and 200mm lenses. These days most people don't really do that, of course. But it's really hard to pick out just a couple of those focal lengths to choose if you actually shoot with more than the extreme ends of your 24-200. If you want any prime lenses at all, you will likely want more than two of them.

There are reasons besides optical quality that you might want prime lenses, too. They are likely to be faster, which not only lets you use faster shutter speeds in dim light, and take flash pictures at greater distances, but also allows you to throw backgrounds out of focus more easily. A fast normal or wide angle lense will be a lot smaller and lighter than a 24-200 zoom lens, too.

A final reason for getting prime lenses is specialized lense that you simply cannot get as zooms. Canon examples include macro lenses for real closeups, ultra wide and ultra long lenses, fisheye lenses, and the Canon Tilt-shift lenses. It's perfectly possible that you would want to have a 90mm TS lens, a 100mm macro lens, and a 100mm speed lens, in addition to a zoom that covers the 90-100mm focal length. No most people don't get all those lenses-- but some do.

Anyway-- enjoy photography! You have a good camera body, with a very wide assortment of available lenses. Don't get anything until you look at the various focal lengths in the store, and out the store window, and try to imagine how you woule actually use those focal lengths in a real photo situation. If you don't have a clear notion of what a 24mm lens shows you, as opposed to what an 85mm or 200 mm lens shows you, you shouldn't be buying any of those focal lengths. --Chris

-- Chris Mullin (mullin@selway.umt.edu), August 23, 2001.

Well, it looks like my premise was quite flawed indeed! Thanks again for all the input. I'll try an assortment of zoom lenses at a camera shop this weekend and decide upon one that seems to work best for me as far as focus speed, weight, etc.

Since it's under a hundred bucks, I'll also pick up the 50 1.8 for times that I need a fast lens.

Later, when it's time to add a telephoto lens to my arsenal, I'll have more experience under my belt to help me make a good decision on that.

Again, thank you all so much for taking the time to fill me in on the facts. Wish me luck!

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 23, 2001.

Steven,

The Camera Equipment forum community (to which I'm recently initiated) is happy to help! :-)

Good luck with your photographic journeys. Please stop back with new problems to tackle, and to impart the knowledge you gain to others as well. This is a great forum to add to your favorites, and most everyone here is eager to help. ;-)

You should also try the Canon EOS FAQ Forum. It is a discussion group formulated specifically to help EOS users.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Canon%20EOS%20FAQ% 20forum

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 24, 2001.

Well, I thought I'd drag this thread out a little longer :)

My original idea of one zoom and a few primes might not be so far fetched after all, based on my specific needs and wants. I do use a tripod, along with remote shutter release, and even though I don't at present use a pro development shop or blow pictures up past 8x10, I don't want to buy several lenses that will not grow with me. The pictures I care about the most are my landscape and portrait pictures. Social and action shots that require zoom (or an armada of primes) are strictly 4x6 material when I shoot them, which is where the one mid-priced zoom comes in.

My question is this: Are the Vivitar primes on equal ground with the Canon 50 1.8 mkII? In other words, would a Vivitar 24mm 2.8 MF prime perform better than a Sigma 17-35 zoom set at 24mm (in MF mode)? This is somewhat pivotal to my grand scheme.

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001.

Ok, I just got the reality check that the MF lenses are a completely different mount, and aren't compatible with EOS cameras.

Fortunately, there's still the Vivitar 100mm 3.5 AF, and Sigma makes a 24mm 2.8 for less than half the cost of Canon's. Frankly, the cost of everyone's prime lenses wider than 24mm makes me really suspect the lens quality of the 17-35 consumer zooms that all sell for less. Is it possible that quantity of production and demand for zooms are why the zooms are so cheap? The local camera store I went to this weekend had zooms galore, but only ONE prime lens in stock for the EOS.

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Steve,

>Sigma makes a 24mm 2.8 for less than half the cost of Canon's.

Sigma (& others) do make some fine prime lenses, but this lens MAY not be quite up to your standards. You should look at their EX series of lenses (primes & zooms), as there are pros who swear by them. Less expensive than L-series Canon lenses, but more than consumer grade ones.

>Frankly, the cost of everyone's prime lenses wider than 24mm makes me really suspect the lens quality of the 17-35 consumer zooms that all sell for less.

I’d be very cautious about cheap ultra-wide zooms. The engineering, tolerances, & construction materials that go into making a good one greatly increase the cost. It’s far easier for a third party manufacturer to make a very competitive 70-200mm lens (& indeed, Sigma’s 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM is highly regarded), than an ultra- wide or super-telephoto zoom. The adage “you get what you pay for,” does hold somewhat true.

>Is it possible that quantity of production and demand for zooms are why the zooms are so cheap?

Absolutely. You have found one of the prime laws of modern manufacturing: The higher volume you produce of a particular item reduces the overall cost of manufacture per item – so they can be sold for less. This is why your rarer Canon lenses are stratospherically priced. There just isn’t enough demand for a 50mm f/1.0 when there’s f/1.4’s & f/1.8’s that do the job nearly as well (& how many EF 1200mm lenses do you imagine Canon sells a year? – it’s not just a matter of cost of materials). Thank Henry Ford for truly getting the ball rolling. Power to the people! :-)

>The local camera store I went to this weekend had zooms galore, but only ONE prime lens in stock for the EOS.

That fact is, most people find zooms just too useful/convenient, cost effective and of at least adequate quality to justify buying a stable of prime lenses. It certainly makes sense for a serious photographer to buy primes that fit their particular needs (landscape, architecture, portraits, etc.), but sadly we must pay the price for less demand of those lenses.

Follow this link for a review of the Sigma 24mm f/2.8 lens: http://www.photozone.de/reviews/sigma24.htm

This web page is a list of PhotoZone’s ratings of various manufacturer’s 24mm prime lenses: http://www.photozone.de/easytxt.htm#F24

PhotoZone (http://www.photozone.de) is a useful website, with MTF testing of lenses, as well as user (subjective) reviews. A lot of information available here!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 27, 2001.