Taking Stock

[AlphaZeroOne]

A few years ago I purchased my first DSLR - more out of implulse rather then any real thought. Now I am planning to try to build on my basic knowledge and skills this year and try to take wildlife photographs - birds, insects, flowers, fungi, landscape etc. The question is, are the lense that I purchased with my camera three years ago of any real use to me for macro and telephoto.

I wonder of you guys could give an honest opinion (don't worry about denting my ego) on the lense that I currently have. For macro I have a Tamron SP AV 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1.1 (model 172E) and my telephoto lense is a Canon EF 90-300 mm (1:4.5-5.6) USM.

I am not looking for reassurance but rather honest views as to if you think, from experience, these lenses are able to produce reasonable results or should I consider upgrading to something like Bigma that I have heard people almost droolling over.

I know absolutely nothing about camera lenses but what I have learnt from my short time in these forums is that quality glass is the most important consideration. Do these lenses qualify? Thanks in advanced!

[eeyore]

In my opinion the tamron is an execellent macro lens and certainly as good as you need unless you get heavily into macro - the 90-300 is an okay lens , but is suspect that for serious wildlife photography you will also want something longer (ie 400 or 500m) there are numerous debate threads on which is the best long lens and i dont intendto have that one again here.

You might also want to get something to cover the short end , especially as the kit lens is total bobbins - I would suggest either a Canon EFS 17-85 IS or the Canon EF 28-135 IS _ boddie has the former while I have the latter - both are excellent bits of kit available in the shops for arround 300 notes or probably cheaper than that from ebay

[AlphaZeroOne]

Hi Eeyore

Thanks for your comments. Just to prove that my ignorance is total - 'Cover the short end'. Does this mean wide angle? I have read that the standard lense that comes with the camera is 'pants' but the problem is I have no idea on how you would know if one lense is better than another. How would the lense that you suggest be any better than my current 50mm and how could I see the difference?

Thanks again.

[eeyore]

Hi Eeyore

Thanks for your comments. Just to prove that my ignorance is total - 'Cover the short end'. Does this mean wide angle? I have read that the standard lense that comes with the camera is 'pants' but the problem is I have no idea on how you would know if one lense is better than another. How would the lense that you suggest be any better than my current 50mm and how could I see the difference?

Thanks again.[/quote]

by "the short end" I mean the focal lengths not covered by your existing lenses - ie less than 90mm

the kit lens is awful IMO - it is okay for holiday snaps but for serious photography no way - It is optically soft particularly at the edges , suffers badly from flare when shooting into the sun, has chromatic abberation (that is coloured bits turning up in pics) particularly at the edge, and is slow to focus - YUK in other words. You can tell when you handle it that it is a cheap bit of tat which has been built to a price for minimum performance standards.

the lenses i suggested have better quality glass and a better build - plus of course they areimage stabilised meaning a goodbye to camera wobble in all but the worstlight.

[AlphaZeroOne]

Again, thanks for your comments Eeyore. I am trying to understand the finer points. Can you suggest the sort of photograph that I could take in order to see the abberations that you have listed with regard to the kit lens. There are obviously some clear visual tell-tail signs that are clear to an expert but I would also like to be able to identify the hall marks of a good and bad lens myself.

In terms of macro - I am relieved that I have at least a half decent lens in the Tamron. Again I have heard rave reports regarding the Sigma 105 macro lens. Is this lens any better than the Tamron and, if so, are the differences down to the 'number of elements' that I keep reading about.

I guess that I need to explain that I am not just chasing the 'label' so to speak. I seriously want to be able to reproduce some of the fantastic photographs that I have seen on WAB - or at least have fun trying to achieve something like them.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by AlphaZeroOne

Again, thanks for your comments Eeyore. I am trying to understand the finer points. Can you suggest the sort of photograph that I could take in order to see the abberations that you have listed with regard to the kit lens. There are obviously some clear visual tell-tail signs that are clear to an expert but I would also like to be able to identify the hall marks of a good and bad lens myself.

In terms of macro - I am relieved that I have at least a half decent lens in the Tamron. Again I have heard rave reports regarding the Sigma 105 macro lens. Is this lens any better than the Tamron and, if so, are the differences down to the 'number of elements' that I keep reading about.

I guess that I need to explain that I am not just chasing the 'label' so to speak. I seriously want to be able to reproduce some of the fantastic photographs that I have seen on WAB - or at least have fun trying to achieve something like them.

I'm not an expert on the technical side i'm afraid I just know that I didnt like my kit lens (and lets face it buying body only you only save 50 quid if that - which tells us what we need to know about the cost of that particular bit of kit) If you dont want to spend 300 notes on a short lens both Tamron and Sigma make 18-55 lenss which are significantly better than the kit lens for around 150 notes.

The sigma 105 is an excellent macro lens certainly and ifyou were buying new i might suggest you go for that - but the tamron you have is perfectly capable and you would not benefit significantly from changing to the sigma - If you do want to get another macro lense I would suggestthe 150 sigma or the 180 tamron for their longer reach - however these are expensive and probably not worth it at this stage in yourhotographic experience

IMO your next purchase ought to be some long glass , such as the little bigma , bigma , 100-400 IS , Sigma 80-400 OS or similar - reviews of all these in our reviews section.

Also camera wise - you say you bought it a few years ago - if it is a 10D or a 20D I would stick with it - However if it is a D30 , D60, or 300D you might want to look at upgrading - the 400D which goes for arround 400 notes would probably be a good choice.

[AlphaZeroOne]

Ahh - some good news at last. I have just upgraded from the 300D to the 400D and I must say that I am completely bowled over with it (which is another reason that I want to get serious about wildlife photography this year).

I totally agree with your opinion about the kit lens. I had already suspected as such based also on the price difference between the body only option but I feel a bit frustrated when I can't spot or understand something that seems to be obvious to others.

I am more than prepared to invest in some decent 'glass' but I also want to try to purchase based on quality and performance rather than some vague notion. You have been a great help. Thanks

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by AlphaZeroOne

Ahh - some good news at last. I have just upgraded from the 300D to the 400D and I must say that I am completely bowled over with it (which is another reason that I want to get serious about wildlife photography this year).

I totally agree with your opinion about the kit lens. I had already suspected as such based also on the price difference between the body only option but I feel a bit frustrated when I can't spot or understand something that seems to be obvious to others.

I am more than prepared to invest in some decent 'glass' but I also want to try to purchase based on quality and performance rather than some vague notion. You have been a great help. Thanks

The kit lens will probably bring you £30 plus on ebay ..... I have seen them go for £60 there.

[Zebethyal]

I cannot comment on any of your current lenses as I have not tried them myself and since I am tied into Nikon lenses cannot really comment on the Canon side of things.

That said, don't let the camera equipment you have stop you from taking pictures, the more you take the better you will become. The better lenses will not in themselves make you a better photographer, although it sounds like the kit lens leaves a bit to be desired from what has been said so far.

Photography is more about seeing a picture and transfering it to your chosen medium (film, memory card, etc) as you see it in your mind than having the best lens, camera or gadget.

Give a top wildlife photographer a point and shoot camera and they will still walk away with better pictures than you or I no matter what we are using, it is what they do all day after all.

Learn all you can about your camera, techniques and your chosen subject and you will take better pictures, better equipment will only allow you to improve on that.

Regards

Tim

[nightshade]

If you look on the net you will find comparison tests like this one;
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM vs Tamron 90mm Macro Lens
I have always used a well lit wall and whatever lense on a good tripod
to get some idea of a lenses performance (not my current crop)