What to buy????

[tc95]

Suzanne...I would look at the 85 1.4 Sigma or Canon lens...used of course...you already have a sharp 50 so might be good to go to the 85...I love mine...and one of my go to lenses...that I always have on me...the Sigma 85 is a good alternate...

Tony C.

[venchka]

Clifton is right. Too much pixel peeping spoils the stew.
85mm lenses are cool. I prefer 100mm teamed with a 50mm lens. Double/half the focal length. Keeps things orderly. A bit of extra length never hurts either.
Folks who have it, rave about the 24-105. It is expensive. It is rather large. It is somewhat slow-but manageable. I have to wonder if 2 or 3 smaller, lighter, faster prime lenses might not be better for the same money? Unfortunately it would be very expensive to conduct such an experiment.

[biggin]

I like primes when I am at home and can have more control, I almost always carry my 90mm and a 50mm with me but never seem to use them. I stick to the 24-70 for walking around.

On the crop sensor I like the 2.8 on the 24-70..

Originally Posted by parrotmomma

Sigh. I am getting the impression that I probably shouldn't have bought the Tamron! I will admit that the images are not as tack-sharp as I would like them to be. I know many of you don't like zoom lenses, but I'm not exactly sure why? Would I be wise to invest in the Canon 24-70 or 24-105 L lenses? I find that I don't zoom out past 200 very often, and most of the time if I do zoom in, I am in the 100 range. If were to get one of the above mentioned L lenses, which one would be the best? The 24-70 is faster, but the 24-105 would give me more reach. I don't want to make another expensive mistake!!

+1 on the first part...

I have been thinking about the Sigma 180mm...

Originally Posted by shnitz

I wouldn't say that you have the 18-270 "covered" because you have that Tamron. If you saw the image difference between that lens and ANY of Canon's L 70-200's, your jaw would drop.

Posts #2 and #3 are pretty spot on. Upgrade your glass in your current range so that you can get some better pictures. I would add, that if you don't mind a mild telephoto, Tamron's 180mm f/3.5 macro is amazing. Image-quality wise, at least here in Nikon land, I haven't seen anything better. Walk around a park with your Tamron, and really look at the focal length range that you're going to use. Of course, if you're happy with your 10-20 for wide angle, your 50mm for that focal length and for macro work, then some sort of telephoto is your best bet.

I stayed away from the 85mm because when I had the lens, I really found little use in it, I really like the 90-100mm with macro, it seems to be a much more sensible choice.

[auddii]

It sounds like you have no idea what you "need" next. Everyone has their opinion about lenses, and everyone has had different experiences. I personally love my tamron 18-270, but I'm a hobbyist and a newbie (and it's my only lens besides my kit lens). So I definitely can't give much advice.

However, since you are so unsure and so "lost", I'd definitely look at all of the recommendations and rent one or two lenses before purchasing anything. If you regret your tamron now, there's no point in regretting your next lens too.

[CtrlAltDel]

Originally Posted by parrotmomma

Thanks for all the input! Since I have it covered from 10 to 270, I wasn't sure about buying another lens within that range, except for something faster? And I have macro in the 50 mm 2.8. That's why I wondered about the 55 1.4? I would love to have L lenses, but they are so expensive..... Am I really going to have my socks knocked off if I invest in say, the 24-70 or 24-105? I do have a tripod already.

Wayne, we were in YS 2 years ago, and I could not believe how close the animals were! We stayed a safe distance away, but I was amazed by some of the idiots who were right up the animals butts. A park ranger told us that once, she had to rescue a kid from his father, who was posing the kid on the back of a buffalo!

I would LOVE to take my family there....and I would boy scout promise to NOT be one of "those idiots"! LOL

Originally Posted by parrotmomma

Sigh. I am getting the impression that I probably shouldn't have bought the Tamron! I will admit that the images are not as tack-sharp as I would like them to be. I know many of you don't like zoom lenses, but I'm not exactly sure why? Would I be wise to invest in the Canon 24-70 or 24-105 L lenses? I find that I don't zoom out past 200 very often, and most of the time if I do zoom in, I am in the 100 range. If were to get one of the above mentioned L lenses, which one would be the best? The 24-70 is faster, but the 24-105 would give me more reach. I don't want to make another expensive mistake!!

Me and my big mouth. I am sorry if I caused you to feel this way. My wife says I have a "problem" when it comes to my pictures. I really want them "super sharp". Please consider renting first. I love my new lenses, but my photos are still not tack sharp. Its me, not my camera. You may find that when you rent, that it is not enough of a difference to invest in a replacement for your tamron. Most places I have found will let you rent for as little as 3 days or up to 4 weeks. I would suggest maybe, just the 3 days and take the same pics with both the rental lens and your tamron. In the end, its what YOU like, not us. Hope that helps and I hope you have a great time. I cant wait to see your pics.

[crazeazn]

theres absolutely nothing wrong with the tamron.

[parrotmomma]

Aww... I don't want anyone to feel bad! You are all very nice and helpful. It's me who can't make up her wishy-washy mind. I am not completely dissatisfied with the Tamron. I love the convenience of not having to change lenses all the time. But I have noticed my photos are not as tack-sharp as some of the ones I have seen on here, and other people's Flickr and SmugMugs. I want my photos to be knock your socks off amazing, and I'm going to do everything I can to get them there. Friends/family (especially people at work) love my photos, but I admit I am soooo picky.

I am going to look into renting, but I don't think my husband will really go for it... at least not $500. for 2 weeks rental for Yellowstone. He can't see any difference between the 50d photos and the snap shots I take with the Elph I keep in my purse. Of course the difference is huge, but to him they all look the same. So trying to justify spending that much money on a rental, would be incredibly hard.

Clifton, I like your dam photos! Do they still allow tours inside? We toured it before 9/11 but then when we tried in 2002 they were longer allowed.

[brewercm]

Yea, they have opened it back up again. They offered two tours one being longer and going through many more tunnels. We just went on the short tour that was basically powerplant stuff and all. I only had this lens on me so some of the inside pictures were pretty rough. I was debating taking my Tamy 28-75 2.8 in with me but decided against having to carry anything else. Probably one of the few times I didn't have that lens on my camera and kicking myself for it. Not a big deal of anything I can't go on and take again later or really feal a need to.

BTW, don't sell the 18-270 too short. In decent light on a tripod and with IS turned off it is pretty decent. Not up to the standards of some of my sharper lenses but probably 90% of people wouldn't notice.

[auddii]

I don't know that you need to specifically rent a lens for your trip, but you might want to rent one or two of the possible choices for three days at a time to try them out before you leave. Then, you can see if you like the sharpness of the photos that they create and how usable it might be. It may seem like a waste of money, but it'd be nothing compared to buying a $1000 lens and hating it.

[venchka]

You could rent the 500 for a week. Have it sent to the house. Send it back from Yellowstone after a week. Piece of cake.

[parrotmomma]

OK, so I made a decision. I spent about $700. bucks. I ordered a Canon 85mm 1.8, and a Canon 30mm 2.0. I think I will enjoy these as they will give me more leverage in low light, and give me a great bokeh. I want to get some nice shots of stars, sunsets, sunrises and flowers. I think with the other lenses I already have I should be ok? Except maybe for a really long tele, but I am still going to look into renting one.

[parrotmomma]

Oh, just thought I'd show you guys this, taken last summer in Colorado, with the Tamron 18-270. I know it's not razor sharp... but I hand held this. Since then I bought a tripod.

[shnitz]

I think that's a great decision. Enjoy your lenses, and don't look back.