[dogdots]

I hope I'm not a pest about lens, but I have a question that I thought all you in Pixalo could answer for me from your experiences. I have the kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel XTI which does ok to sometimes it surprises me with good shots. Much better then what I had before. I bought the Canon 70-300 and I'm learning with that. My first 70-300 had a problem with focusing---I knew I wasn't that bad---it was hunting alot for the focal point. Drove me crazy. Returned it last night and got another one. This one is much better. Wonder why? Humm...Anyway I would like to know which lens is actually a better lens to work with and have. The Canon 17-85....28-135....or the 70-300. I seem to like to take pictures in the lower 200 range and I know that would be the 70-300 lens, but is it really the better picture taking lens? I will be adding some picture to my pictures here taken with the 70-300 an maybe you can let me know if these are any good or I'm just a lousy picture taker.

[VikingPhotography]

You might as well ask "I have feet, which are the best shoes for me"

On a more serious level: the question that you're asking has more to do with the focal length that you shoot at more often than the subjectiveness of lens quality - and you've more or less answered it yourself in the statment "I seem to like to take pictures in the lower 200 range"

If you're talking about definitive, measureable quality of a lens, well that's easy: Canon make professional-grade lenses and designate them as such by putting L in the product name... example: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM - a lens that boasts an SRP of about £1000.

[dogdots]

VikingPhotography you are so right I did answer the question myself I would love to get an L-series lens but...OUCH...the price can hurt. I just hope I got the best for the money I spent. I don't know if there is something that is better and alittle closer to what I spent....$650.

[Liam O'Neill]

Assuming you mean the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, I would regard that as the better of those three lenses, in terms of image quality.
Would I say it's better to stand further away and use that lens at 200mm than to stand closer and use another lens at, say, 50mm. Thats a very different question, and I think I would say no.

[dogdots]

Liam thanks for the information. Your right my lens is the Canon EF 70-300 IS and I just don't know if I'm happy with it or not. If I understand what you are saying it is better for me to use 50mm and stand closer...Right? Then what lens can/should I use? I guess I'm just a person who wants everything in one lens I see you have Tamron lenses. How do you like those? Thanks again Liam....you have me thinking now.

[Liam O'Neill]

What I was saying is that you shouldn't let the quality of a lens be the main factor in which focal length you use to take a picture. A wide angle lens will tend to distort straight lines, but can also be used to separate a subject from it's background. A normal (~50mm) lens tends to give you what you see with your eye. A telephoto (such as a 70-300mm) will tend to reduce distances between objects, such as making mountains all appear equally far away, or making something in the foreground appear far closer to something in the midground. There are also very significant effects on background blur with the various focal lengths, etc etc etc.
There is also the more practical issue of how close or far away from a subject you can physically get, of course.

What focal length you use most often will depend a great deal on what you take pictures of. Sports stuff needs long focal lengths. Pictures of broad landscapes tend to need shorter focal lengths. As a general photographer of all sorts of things, I find I need a good spread of focal lengths, and so I have my three lenses that cover everything from 17mm to 200mm. I would actually like to be able to go wider than 17mm plenty of times too. You can get all-in-one 17-200mm lenses, but personally, I'm dubious of anything with more than 4 times zoom.

As for my lenses, I love them. They are all wonderfully sharp and I have no complaints with them. However, I would have to seriously consider how I would replace the two Tamrons. The 28-75mm is a silly range on a crop camera like mine. They hadn't released the 17-50mm when I bought it, and I was used to that silly range by then anyway, but today I'd have to give serious thought to the 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron instead.
The 17-35mm is equally a great lens, but I think I would like something wider still, like a 12-24mm or 10-22mm.

There is another solution for me, get a Full Frame camera. I'm not sure I see either happening any time soon.

I would recommend you get something to fill at least some of that 10-70 range that you are happy with. If the picture needs a 50mm lens, use a 50mm lens, not a 200mm one.

[dogdots]

Liam you have given me such good information on lenses. Thank you very much. I had thought of Tamron lenses, but went with Canon. Stupid on my part. Kinda like not looking at the full picture I bought the Canon 70-300 hoping it would fill alot of my needs. I understand now that a couple lenses covering different ranges is a good thing. I looked at your pictures at the link you sent -- AWESOME. Your pictures show that the camera has become a part of you. I like that. They look so natural. I had looked at other peoples pictures on this site looking for someone who was taking pictures that I like to take and then looking at their camera gear. I hadn't come across yours till you posted to my question. The sky opened for me as my mind was becoming so cloudy with info that just wasn't clicking together.

I am going on a trip to Colorado in a few weeks and need a lens that will work great for all the picture taking I hope to do. I see that my choice of the Canon 70-300 isn't going to work well. What would be your choice? How do you think the Canon 17-85 would do for taking pictures of mountains, streams, etc. while hiking in canyons? Or do you think one of the Tamrons you use would be better? I like my pictures to be sharp and detailed.

If I'm right you use the Digital Photo Professional for your editing. You don't like Photoshop? I have noticed that my Photoshop isn't showing my picture as clear as they are. I like to take a picture and not have to do any editing. Not that I'm against editing I just think if I can get the picture right I don't have to edit and can pat myself on the back and say...I saw it and got it.

I notice the copyright by your pictures. Smart thing to do. How is that done? Maybe someday into the furture I may want to do that.