Snapper123
Well-known member
Hey guys, I'm searching desperately for a lens that may make my load easier. I currently have brand new; a EFS 18-55mm 3.5-5 IS (<3), EF 50mm 1.8 (so-so), and a EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 that was a gift (hate). I'm interested in selling all of them as a package for around $400 or so I guess (or around $100 for the first two, $200 for the second, separately.) because I dislike each.
-I really like the kit lens the most, with it's IS, which is essential for video work, but the range feels limited, especially because 18-300mm lenses generally have that same exact aperture (3.5-6), meaning both quadruple the focal length and a lot more aperture possibilities in the 18-100mm range (about 3.5-4). IS at ranges like 35mm and 55mm is simply cannot be replaced, which is also what's nice about an upgrade to something around a IS 18-300mm.
-I like the 50mm 1.8 because it's neat the amount of light it really lets in, but the lack of IS and quite extreme color aberrations makes this lens feel like unsuitable in video mode, so I don't use it often. Also, I've rarely encountered asituation where an aperture of lower than 3.5 is really needed if you know how to light a subject even by natural methods. The other neat thing is because of the size, it makes the T2i truly a very compact camera.
-I never use the 70-300mm because without the IS, you can't even step on the ground around your tripod without this thing shaking, even in the lower ranges. It simply is a horribly shaky lens, and in this range, everything simply turns blurry, flat, and bad looking anyway because of natural haze flaws that seem to happen severely to any focal length beyond 125mm. For extremely stable work, though, it is a sharp as lens as any, possibly the sharpest and least chromatic of these three.
So to you guys; what should I upgrade to, to have one single lens that does everything I need? I have around $500 to spend I'm guessing, and when I went to the store today, I fell in love with a Tamron 28-270 3.5-6.3 IS, I believe it was, but two guys working there said that the same-priced Tamron 28-75 2.8 non-IS would, optically, create much sharper videos, and they effectively confused me to the point I simply returned home to do more research. Is there really any truth to this? I'm guessing the 2.8 has some sort of additional glass quality feature, but I did "quick tests" in video mode with each lens I really didn't make out a difference. Hands down, IS is a must for me, and if for any reason I truly needed a constant aperture, I'd get the 18-55 2.8 IS. A IS-less 28-75 2.8 just doesn't seem worth $500 to me.
Any opinions?
P.S. I almost have my heart set on giving up this whole DSLR thing and simply buying a $800 Panasonic 1080P camcorder, they seem to have like 24-800mm lenses built in, with a constant aperture of like 3.5 or less, and IS built in. To get that in the DSLR field, you'd have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, plus, a camcorder means NO aliasing, which is the biggest flaw of all from these cameras that degrades both the quality and aesthetic. It also seems to have a less severe of auto-gain than the T2i, and seems to have all manual features and a hot-shoe on top. A camcorder body is also a preference to me, with the swivel-screen and absence of lens changing that can get the insides dirty. But I don't want to make the wrong choice.
-I really like the kit lens the most, with it's IS, which is essential for video work, but the range feels limited, especially because 18-300mm lenses generally have that same exact aperture (3.5-6), meaning both quadruple the focal length and a lot more aperture possibilities in the 18-100mm range (about 3.5-4). IS at ranges like 35mm and 55mm is simply cannot be replaced, which is also what's nice about an upgrade to something around a IS 18-300mm.
-I like the 50mm 1.8 because it's neat the amount of light it really lets in, but the lack of IS and quite extreme color aberrations makes this lens feel like unsuitable in video mode, so I don't use it often. Also, I've rarely encountered asituation where an aperture of lower than 3.5 is really needed if you know how to light a subject even by natural methods. The other neat thing is because of the size, it makes the T2i truly a very compact camera.
-I never use the 70-300mm because without the IS, you can't even step on the ground around your tripod without this thing shaking, even in the lower ranges. It simply is a horribly shaky lens, and in this range, everything simply turns blurry, flat, and bad looking anyway because of natural haze flaws that seem to happen severely to any focal length beyond 125mm. For extremely stable work, though, it is a sharp as lens as any, possibly the sharpest and least chromatic of these three.
So to you guys; what should I upgrade to, to have one single lens that does everything I need? I have around $500 to spend I'm guessing, and when I went to the store today, I fell in love with a Tamron 28-270 3.5-6.3 IS, I believe it was, but two guys working there said that the same-priced Tamron 28-75 2.8 non-IS would, optically, create much sharper videos, and they effectively confused me to the point I simply returned home to do more research. Is there really any truth to this? I'm guessing the 2.8 has some sort of additional glass quality feature, but I did "quick tests" in video mode with each lens I really didn't make out a difference. Hands down, IS is a must for me, and if for any reason I truly needed a constant aperture, I'd get the 18-55 2.8 IS. A IS-less 28-75 2.8 just doesn't seem worth $500 to me.
Any opinions?
P.S. I almost have my heart set on giving up this whole DSLR thing and simply buying a $800 Panasonic 1080P camcorder, they seem to have like 24-800mm lenses built in, with a constant aperture of like 3.5 or less, and IS built in. To get that in the DSLR field, you'd have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, plus, a camcorder means NO aliasing, which is the biggest flaw of all from these cameras that degrades both the quality and aesthetic. It also seems to have a less severe of auto-gain than the T2i, and seems to have all manual features and a hot-shoe on top. A camcorder body is also a preference to me, with the swivel-screen and absence of lens changing that can get the insides dirty. But I don't want to make the wrong choice.