ghassert
New member
As I've probably mentioned a few times on this forum, I'm pretty new to DSLR photography. I own a Canon Digital Rebel XT and it came with a Tamron 28-80 f3.5-56 kit lens. This lens takes decent pictures. Right after purchasing the camera, I was going on a trip to NH and wanted a little something extra, so I purchased an inexpensive Tamron 75-300mm lens(Not very sharp).
Since then my only major purchase has been a Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 USM and a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro. I was thinking of purchasing the 24-105 F4 IS L and also the 100-400m 4.5-5.6 IS L. I figured that I would pretty much have the whole range from 10mm to 400mm covered. Now I have seen the Canon 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 IS L and it would cost a little less than the 24-105 and 100-400 combined. I've seen so much coverage of what a great lens the 24-105L is. Would I be losing much by going to the 28-300mm?
I guess what I'm asking, is the extra 100mm(160mm with the 1.6 crop factor) from the 100-400mm really needed? There would also be the added bonus of not needing to change lenses as often and also being able to hike a little lighter.
Thanks,
Glenn
Since then my only major purchase has been a Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 USM and a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro. I was thinking of purchasing the 24-105 F4 IS L and also the 100-400m 4.5-5.6 IS L. I figured that I would pretty much have the whole range from 10mm to 400mm covered. Now I have seen the Canon 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 IS L and it would cost a little less than the 24-105 and 100-400 combined. I've seen so much coverage of what a great lens the 24-105L is. Would I be losing much by going to the 28-300mm?
I guess what I'm asking, is the extra 100mm(160mm with the 1.6 crop factor) from the 100-400mm really needed? There would also be the added bonus of not needing to change lenses as often and also being able to hike a little lighter.
Thanks,
Glenn