Help a new guy w/ lens selection

[blktre]

Hi, new here. This seems like a great forum! Anyways im a beginner just learning my camera and photography in general. Im looking to get another lens. Budget is always a concern. Just about a year ago i bought the Canon EOS Rebel Ti (film) w/ a 28-90mm Quantaray. Ive used the camera few times and enjoy it. I like taking the camera on hikes and shooting nature landscapes, sporting, and just general stuff. So,

I thought the Sigma 28-300 AF would be a nice choice for me. But, i havent gotten good feedback on this lens concerning image/optic quality above 200mm. I will never be a huge photo guru but would like to take some decent pics. Would the 70-300mm lens be a better choice for me? Im thinking the hastle of switching lenses would be worth gaining better optics at the longer focal points. Easing the budget as well........help guide me on which lens i should buy........thanks in advance for all the input! This newbie appreciates it.......Oh, whats APO stand for such as 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super II?........Cheers.....

[another view]

First off, welcome! Yeah, it is a great place!

APO = Apochromatic. Most lens manufacturers have something like this (Nikon calls it ED but it's basically the same thing). Basically here's what happens: Lenses might focus different colors at different points, so photos can look a little soft because, for example, the reds aren't in focus. APO type glass is supposed to correct that. I'm not a technical expert on optics, but that's as I understand it. Marketing gimmick? Maybe, slightly...

There are so many factors that affect a lens's performance, and this is just one small piece of the puzzle. Putting special glass into a lens with other problems won't cause magic. I guess the problem is more evident with longer lenses than normal-range lenses. Usually you'll see it on 80mm or more, but I've seen wide lenses with it too.

The longer the zoom range, the more likely there are compromises. Usually what happens is that the long end of the lens gets soft (not because of the APO stuff). I have a Tokina 80-400 that gets a little soft over 250-300, but it's as good as any Nikon glass under 200. Some of these 28-300 type lenses are getting better, and I've heard great things about the Tamron that came out recently. I usually carry 4-6 different lenses when I shoot because some lenses are better at situations than others.

Some of the 70-300 lenses are better than others, too. I don't know Canon stuff, but Nikon's lens in this range (better of the two, under $300) is really good. It's not always a get-what-you-pay-for thing, but top of the line lenses are usually the best overall. But they're expensive and heavy too. It's a convenience vs. quality thing, and there's a lot to be said for carrying one lens. At least my chiropractor says so! ;)

[92135011]

the term APO has be scrutinized for being used too easily. True True APO designs are are very expensive because of its difficulty in design and possibly exotic glass. So you are right, it could be a marketing gimmick for some (or many) lenses. Usually, APO is required in superwide or supertelephoto lenses.

Examples include the Rodenstock grandagon APOs (not sure if those are gimmick) for wide angle and the Zeiss 350mm SuperAchromatic for Super telephoto. These are great lenses by the way ^_^

[another view]

Rodenstock and Zeiss are certainly two names not associated with marketing gimmicks! These are two of the finest brands out there, but neither makes lenses of this type. Nikon's ED glass has been around for years and it used to be for their top lenses. I'll bet they felt some marketing pressure from companies like Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to include it in more lenses. That 70-300, the better one in the Nikon range, has it for example.

Two things to remember. First off, 92135011 (sorry, don't know your name!) is right about all APO or ED or whatever glass being equal. There's a reason some lenses cost $300 and some cost $1300 (and more, of course). But at least as important is the fact that you don't want to look at one "ingredient" in lens design as being the determining factor of whether or not a lens is good. Zooms have gotten so much better than they used to be, and for $300 (I keep using the same amount as an example, that's all) you can get a pretty nice lens. There are compromises, that's all. Honestly, I don't know which of my lenses have it without looking at a catalog. I look at the end result (the image).

Look at that Tamron, the guy I spoke of in my previous post is a product photographer and uses that lens often for work. He's a full time pro, a studio owner, and this is the lens that he pays the bills with. Surprised me, but the results are that good. Now realize that he's on a tripod in an environment with controlled lighting (studio strobes) and shoots at f11 or f16. Your mileage may vary, as they say... ;)

[blktre]

Thanks for the replies guys. But, im still interested what you think of these lenses. Here are links to BH describing each lens. Look at the what each lens has to offer and look at price and keep in mind im a beginner that is intererested in landscape, sporting, and general photography and dont plan on at this time becoming a pro/novice or whatever. Im looking the the best bang for the buck...and thanks again for your insight.......cheers.......Andy

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

or a Tamron:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search


Thanks again for helping me out......

[another view]

I don't have first-hand experience with any of these lenses so I'm afraid I can't comment. Have you checked the reviews area of this site?

[blktre]

I don't have first-hand experience with any of these lenses so I'm afraid I can't comment. Have you checked the reviews area of this site?

Yea, it gets about a 3.85 outa 5. But they are affordable........just was hoping/wondering if it was a decent deal for what you get........thanks again.......cheers.....