Old 04-28-2010, 03:38 PM   #1
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default Looking for a new lense; Help

Been shooting a Canon EOS Rebel XS for a 1 1/2 years nwo, and predominantly use my default lense from my Canon Rebel 35MM, 90mm, which works pretty well, every shot on here of mine has used that. However I am starting to branch off from just trains and start shooting other things as well. I am looking for a good quality, not amazingly expensive Canon lense. Im not exactly sure how far I am looking for 300mm maybe? Not totally sure, will be doing research of course but I figure you guys are the ones to ask!
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 03:48 PM   #2
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

Something like this? http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_200707_-1
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 04:08 PM   #3
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Lots of clarification needed.

First of all, what are you using now? A 90mm? Do you mean a 28-90mm zoom?

More importantly, it seems like you are guessing as to what you want, and it is hard to help because you don't say anything about what you want to shoot besides non-trains. So tell us a bit more about what you want to do. Also try telling us what is lacking in what you have now.

Also, it seems like you want to have an all-in-one lens instead of having multiple lenses. Or are you willing to, say, add a 70-300 to your current 28-90, if that is in fact what it is?

You should at least think about whether in general you like to shoot wider or tele. Presumably you are in between right now and you could push farther in both directions, especially if you have a 28-90.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 04:55 PM   #4
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

Yea, its something like a 28-90mm, will have to check when I get home. It was the default on the Rebel 35mm camera. The 18-55mm is nice for shooting closer stuff, but I would like more distance than the 28-90mm gives me.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 05:07 PM   #5
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

EF-S 55-250IS is good for the price, or 70-200/4L if you can afford it.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:08 PM   #6
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

How much do you want to spend?
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:13 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
How much do you want to spend?
Always the most important question when getting new gear. I'd suggest the 70 to 200 mm f4L if you have 700 bucks or so.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:53 PM   #8
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

What's a lense?
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 07:31 PM   #9
Christopher Muller
Senior Member
 
Christopher Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Always the most important question when getting new gear. I'd suggest the 70 to 200 mm f4L if you have 700 bucks or so.
I would agree. I have the 70-200 and use it 70% of the time.
Christopher Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 07:42 PM   #10
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

The 70-200 f/4 L is a solid lens. If you look around a little bit, I think you could find a used one for $500ish.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 07:52 PM   #11
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
What's a lense?
I apologize. I meant glass.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 08:10 PM   #12
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
I apologize. I meant glass.
I think he meant you meant "lens," not "lense."
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 08:31 PM   #13
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

Note to self - when too dry, others will take you seriously.

Last edited by Freericks; 04-28-2010 at 11:12 PM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 09:20 PM   #14
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
Note to self - when too dry, other's will take your seriously.


Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 10:58 PM   #15
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
other's
Bwahahahaha.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 11:12 PM   #16
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
Bwahahahaha.
Hoisted upon my own pertard!!!

Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:13 AM   #17
Cranky
Junior Member
 
Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose View Post
The 70-200 f/4 L is a solid lens. If you look around a little bit, I think you could find a used one for $500ish.
Agree 100% ! I stand by my 20-700 f/4 "L". Once you go "L" series you will not go back. Strong build,quick focus though I mainly manual focus while I still can. I do have lazy days. Best Glass next to the 24-105f/4 "L"




Cranky
see my choo choos
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=41178
Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:14 AM   #18
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
Note to self - when too dry, others will take you seriously.
Oh i'm right there with you, dry humor is my specialty. Except when I dont notice my mistake. I guess I just figured a man like yourself would be smart enough to realize what I meant...
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:37 AM   #19
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Oh i'm right there with you, dry humor is my specialty. Except when I dont notice my mistake. I guess I just figured a man like yourself would be smart enough to realize what I meant...
Ouch, ouch, ouch... it burns... it burns...

Crawling back into my place in the alley now.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:45 AM   #20
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

And take your SD45's with you!
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:48 AM   #21
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

Wait... that arguement was about SD40-2s versus SD40s, wasn't it?

Or was it about 45s?

:-0
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 02:19 AM   #22
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

I think variants of the SD45.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 04:49 PM   #23
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

I have been doing alot of research on this lens, and everything it postiive. Has anyone used it at night, and if so how was the sharpness/colors/etc?
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 08:43 AM   #24
GIZMO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default One lens should do virtually all of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
The Canon 18-200 looks good. Below is something I composed before I was aware of that lens and it does glow quite a bit but I still like the Tamrons and have used them for over 20 years.
All other sorts of lens give up too much in terms or coverage or near focus or something. Users of cameras like the EOS D50 could gain a lot more speed by increasing ISO if they wanted to play with it. The real test of image quality comes from seeing how far he can blow it up on the computer without loosing detail.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...234+4294185281

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Di_II_VC.html


My choice far and away would be the Tamron 18-270 with VC Vibration Control, with the Tamron 18-200 without VC my fall-back budget position. These are high quality lens from a company that has been at the forefront of innovation over the last twenty years, with innovations that are usually out in front of Nikon and now are ahead of Canon in important features, particularly considering prices . These lenses and similar are not the limiting factor in image quality in cameras like my Nikon D200 or D700. There has been continual improvement in focal range coverage with their FX series for full frame cameras and their DX series for cameras with the smaller APS C frames. Near focal distance has continually improved, from about seven feet 20 years ago to 18 inches currently in both series, yielding increasingly excellent macro performance. Everything is right there in one lens that covers virtually everything for the typical user, which is important, since it allows one to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, near or far. Wide FOV is particularly important in getting proper positioning in tight situations and helps in avoiding that long strung out look in his train images. Near focus comes in handy more frequently the more one becomes accustomed to using it, as in imaging such things as gauges or placards.

Canon simply has nothing to compare. The lens you mention has a 35 mm equivalent of about 45-480 on a Canon EOS D50 considering the format factor of 1.6 and fails to provide the proper 75 degree FOV. Going for a lens like the Canon 18-55 gives the 75 degree FOV but then one needs several lens to get proper coverage and the right lens is often not quickly available in the event. One then misses all the nice things that seem to have gone away.
GIZMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 09:42 AM   #25
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIZMO View Post
The Canon 18-200 looks good. Below is something I composed before I was aware of that lens and it does glow quite a bit but I still like the Tamrons and have used them for over 20 years.
All other sorts of lens give up too much in terms or coverage or near focus or something. Users of cameras like the EOS D50 could gain a lot more speed by increasing ISO if they wanted to play with it. The real test of image quality comes from seeing how far he can blow it up on the computer without loosing detail.
My choice far and away would be the Tamron 18-270 with VC Vibration Control, with the Tamron 18-200 without VC my fall-back budget position. These are high quality lens from a company that has been at the forefront of innovation over the last twenty years, with innovations that are usually out in front of Nikon and now are ahead of Canon in important features, particularly considering prices . These lenses and similar are not the limiting factor in image quality in cameras like my Nikon D200 or D700. There has been continual improvement in focal range coverage with their FX series for full frame cameras and their DX series for cameras with the smaller APS C frames. Near focal distance has continually improved, from about seven feet 20 years ago to 18 inches currently in both series, yielding increasingly excellent macro performance. Everything is right there in one lens that covers virtually everything for the typical user, which is important, since it allows one to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, near or far. Wide FOV is particularly important in getting proper positioning in tight situations and helps in avoiding that long strung out look in his train images. Near focus comes in handy more frequently the more one becomes accustomed to using it, as in imaging such things as gauges or placards.

Canon simply has nothing to compare. The lens you mention has a 35 mm equivalent of about 45-480 on a Canon EOS D50 considering the format factor of 1.6 and fails to provide the proper 75 degree FOV. Going for a lens like the Canon 18-55 gives the 75 degree FOV but then one needs several lens to get proper coverage and the right lens is often not quickly available in the event. One then misses all the nice things that seem to have gone away.
Blah blah blah.
Looks like we do indeed have a tamron troll.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.