Author Topic: What lens to buy (Read 6721 times)

Ed. · « **on:** April 25, 2006, 02:08:07 PM »

Ok, I think I just pulled the plug on a 20d w/grip. Woot! Now I have a question on which lenses to get.

I know what I need for concert photography, so my question is more on whats a good all around lens? I'm going out to Napa Valley next month and would like something that would be a good for landscapes, party pictures, portraits, that kind of stuff. Just a nice default lens. Are the kit lenses any good, or should I try to upgrade from there.

I could probably spend around $300-400, maybe a little more, but would prefer a little less.

Thanks for the help.

MattD · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2006, 02:27:08 PM »

The 24-105 f/4 IS is probably THE all-around lens, but 24 is a little long on a 20D, plus it's over a grand. The 17-40 f/4 L is the lens I used most in Napa/Sonoma. It's a little short for portraits, but if you're also bringing one of the good concert lenses (50/1.8 or 85/1.8 ), you'll have that covered. The 17-40 is over $500, though.

The 17-85 f/4-5.6 is probably most of what you're looking for and is right around 500 bucks. It's a slower lens and the glass isn't as good as either of the two I mentioned above, but it will do the job.

If you're comfortable with switching lenses, try the three primes 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. This really isn't a beginner's setup, and you don't give any indication of your skill level. This definitely isn't a "default lens" recommendation.

I hope that helped. For that price, you will have to make some kind of sacrifice, either in flexibility (slow zoom) or in ease-of-use (primes). I love my 17-40. The other nice thing is that it's L glass, so you can resell it at a good price.

jpschust · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2006, 02:30:40 PM »

unless you buy a 50 f/1.4 i highly suggest getting a 50 f/1.8. It's like 60 bucks or something like that. you will have to stop down to 2.8 or even 4 to get a nice crisp image, but it's a great lens and super cheap.

avoid lenses with f stops above 4. there are exceptions for specialty lenses (super wides, super zooms) but for what you are looking for go with stuff sub 4. Also, take a look at www.sigma4less.com for some good lenses. lots of reviews of these lenses on fredmiranda.com/reviews

Ed. · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2006, 02:34:47 PM »

I haven't really picked up an SLR in the last 3 years or so, but before that I used one quite a bit for school. Granted, I mostly just used the kit lens back then for everything. That was a canon lens, and I still have it, I bet I could use that for some things too.

I'm guessing something like this then wouldn't really be worth my time then.

I honestly know nothing about glass. I can take a picture but all the technical stuff about lenses I've forgotten over the years.

Ed. · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2006, 02:36:00 PM »

Quote from: jpschust on April 25, 2006, 02:30:40 PM

Also, take a look at www.sigma4less.com for some good lenses. lots of reviews of these lenses on fredmiranda.com/reviews

good deal, time to do some reading.

jpschust · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2006, 02:54:56 PM »

avoid those zooms like the plague. it's rare that they do any one part of that well.

i cant think of one zoom that does wide angle and distance well.

i do have a few zooms in my kit, but they are reserved for certain ranges.

this is what i'm carting around at the moment and why i have it

canon 50 f/1.8- this is my beater lens. if i need super low light and something i can get destroyed this is what i use

leica 50 f/1.4- this is my real shooting lens for mid range

sigma 15 f/3.5 fisheye- specialized lens for getting super wide with curvature

canon 70-200 f/2.8L this is my prime shooting lens for distance. probably gets more use than any lens i own

canon 180 f/3.5L macro lens- this was my primary lens for macro shooting for a while, though i recently got another macro lens (coming in a moment on the list). Debating whether to sell this or not. It makes a great distance portrait lens, but it's slow on its AF. VERY VERY sharp though.

Leica 100 f/2.8 macro- this is the baby of my macro lenses. just when i didn't think it could get sharper this lens comes along and proves me way wrong

sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3- i keep this lens around and don't use it as much as i should. it's really for zoo shooting, nature shooting, birding, etc. I didn't want to spend the money on a 400mm lens, so I got this. It's ok, not my favorite. Must use a monopod or tripod with it in order to shoot well.

other things I use a lot

canon 1.4x multiplier
canon 2.0x multiplier
canon 580 flash
canon 550 flash
st-e2 flash remote

I've gotta be forgetting something in my kit, but thats what im using and why i use each piece. im no longer in the hunt for lenses, though im sure the time will come that i will be.

Ed. · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2006, 03:02:39 PM »

thanks guys +t's

time to get all this stuff sorted out. I haven't did anything at work today. And the guy i was messaging about the camera got off fredmiranda and never let me know if i had the cam or not.

ahh.

adubphoto · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:00:08 PM »

I've got a Sigma 24 to 70 f2.8 and I love it. it's about $400. Check out the link for examples of what it can do. I use it on a 30d so it's pretty much the same setup as what you would use if you had this lens.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=62738.0

jpschust · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:05:17 PM »

i hate it when singers wear hats. you can NEVER get their eyes.

morningdew · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:06:10 PM »

Assumming you have the 50/1.8

Why not the Sigma 28-70/2.8. It has gotten rave reviews and I believe the new price tag is right at $400. Maybe that's the used price tag. I forget. It would be one heck of an all around lens.
Edit: Oops. I see someone already beat me to it.

Make your next purchase the Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 and you've got a pretty nice lens kit. This lens gets excellent reviews as well.

As time and money permits you can upgrade to the equivalent lens in the Canon L series.

Ed. · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:18:44 PM »

well, the guy who i thought i was getting the 20d and the grip from decided to sell to someone else. I guess thats what I get from just being a lurker on FM.

So I think I'm going to go with this...
http://www2.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?ref=pricegrabber&sku=EOS20DW18-55

I was going to get just the body, but if I get the one with the lens, its only $50 more.

I pm'd a guy about a 17-40 f/4 L, but I may just go with the sigma 28-70, that looks good for starters along with the 50/1.8.

I'm gonna have to start upgrading my glass like I did my mics. Maybe in 4 years I'll have all the toys I need and want to start a new hobby again, haha.

Thanks guys.

jpschust · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:47:18 PM »

man im not sure i would buy from them- im not so excited about their reseller ratings.

what about this, its just a touch more and gets you the 30d (newer technology)

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0624041&c=us&l=en&cs=04&category_id=2999&page=external

i know it looks like 400 dollars more, but watch slickdeals.net for a dell deal in the coming days- you may be able to knock 10-15% off of the price.

pjdavep · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:01:34 PM »

Quote from: jpschust on April 25, 2006, 04:47:18 PM

what about this, its just a touch more and gets you the 30d (newer technology)

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0624041&c=us&l=en&cs=04&category_id=2999&page=external

i know it looks like 400 dollars more, but watch slickdeals.net for a dell deal in the coming days- you may be able to knock 10-15% off of the price.

I saw that same 30D kit at Costco for $100 less than the Dell price. Just FYI....

I bought the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens from a fellow TS.com member that upgraded to L glass and the wife and I are very happy with it. It yields *much* better colors than the standard 18-55 EF-S kit lens in the comp photos I took when I first got the thing.

Later,
pjdavep

jpschust · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:03:32 PM »

yes, but at costco it's likely you'll have to pay sales tax, which may end up making it more expensive depending on where you are.

Ed. · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:57:51 PM »

well, i just ordered the sigma 28-70/2.8 and the canon 50/1.8.

I haven't ordered the camera yet, gonna wait until later on in the week. Guess i'll if anything pops up in the meantime.

phanophish · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2006, 11:55:46 PM »

One thing nice about lenses is the quality glass tends to hold value fairly well. It makes upgrading easy because you don't loose a whole lot when selling you old stuff. I'll second the reccomendation for the Sigma 70-200/2.8. I have one for my D70 and it is a great lens. Though I do have my eye on a VR (ISin Canon speak) version from Nikon.

dmonterisi · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2006, 12:04:34 PM »

Quote from: Ed. on April 25, 2006, 05:57:51 PM

well, i just ordered the sigma 28-70/2.8 and the canon 50/1.8.

I haven't ordered the camera yet, gonna wait until later on in the week. Guess i'll if anything pops up in the meantime.

sorry i missed this thread to this point. i personally think the sigma 28-70 as your widest lens will not be wide enough for what you want to shoot on a 1.6x crop factor camera like the 20d. the effective field of view on that lens will be 45-112. if you want to shoot landscapes effectively, i really think you need something wider than this. at the very least get the 20d with the 18-55 kit lens (not a great lens by any stretch but at least you'll have some wider coverage). i honestly think the 17-85 IS may be a good option as an all purpose lens. while some of the recommendations about going with primes is good, to start out, i really think a zoom is the best option. while the 17-85 is relatively slow, the IS will allow you some more latitude.

Ed. · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:03:25 PM »

I have to say that lenses are more confusing than microphones when you're first starting out.

The 20d will be coming with the kit lens, and I'm still talking to a guy about a 17-40mm f/4 L

I really need a crash course in lenses and what everything does. I think it'll be easier once I get the camera and some lenses and can start learning with a hands on approach. i have a feeling that over the course of the next year I'll be through a lot of glass to find out what works best for me and when to use what.

dmonterisi · « **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:18:00 PM »

well, in that case, i'd hold off on getting the 17-40. if you've got the 18-55, the 28-70 and the 50/1.8, you're well equipped to become familiar with the camera, see what you like to shoot and then decide what lenses make the most sense. 17-40's pop up for sale almost every day so they'll always be there for you to grab if you decide that's the range you use the most.

neutrino · « **Reply #19 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:32:07 PM »

Just to add a few cents here - I have both the 17-40L lens and the 50mm 1.8 which I use with my 300D. The 17-40L is an amazing touring lens which I've taken on several vacations and yielded some amazingly rich colors. You will love that lens! I picked up the 50mm on a recommendation for a low light concert lens, but unless the concert is using a lot of light, and you’re close to the stage, the results won't be that spectacular. You really need to get up front to get a lot of light into the lens. Although I have seen some good shots with the 50mm, mine had been really hit or miss. A friend of mine has been using the Tamron 28-75 2.8 with some pretty good results. Check out some of his photos here... http://www.punkvinyl.com/2006/01/01/zero-boys-123005-at-abbey-pub/
If you dig around his site a bit you can find some amazing concert photos with that lens...
dB-

dmonterisi · « **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:35:59 PM »

Quote from: neutrino on April 26, 2006, 01:32:07 PM

Just to add a few cents here - I have both the 17-40L lens and the 50mm 1.8 which I use with my 300D. The 17-40L is an amazing touring lens which I've taken on several vacations and yielded some amazingly rich colors. You will love that lens! I picked up the 50mm on a recommendation for a low light concert lens, but unless the concert is using a lot of light, and you’re close to the stage, the results won't be that spectacular. You really need to get up front to get a lot of light into the lens. Although I have seen some good shots with the 50mm, mine had been really hit or miss. A friend of mine has been using the Tamron 28-75 2.8 with some pretty good results. Check out some of his photos here... http://www.punkvinyl.com/2006/01/01/zero-boys-123005-at-abbey-pub/
If you dig around his site a bit you can find some amazing concert photos with that lens...
dB-

this is definitely true, you need to be up close to work with the 50mm in concert settings. there are 2 ideal concert lenses, imo: the 70-200 f2.8IS and 135mm/f2. i own the 135 and it is easily my favorite lens but its uses are obviously limited. i have seen no lens with the performance of the 135 wide open at f2. it performs just as well wide open as it does stopped down. however, both of those lenses are pretty pricey. the 135 is a lot more compact than the 70-200 IS and is about half the price (135 costs around $850). but you can get good shots further back. slickrick uses the 70-200IS for most of his concert work.

jpschust · « **Reply #21 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:45:05 PM »

you forget the best part of the 70-200. the w00k bashing abilities of that lens.

i almost exclusively use the 70-200 for concert work, though i often bring the 15 fish with me in case i want that crazy ultrawide shot, but it's really only good for a few shots.

Ed. · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2006, 01:51:50 AM »

I got my lenses, should have the camera by the end of the week. I'm sure as time goes on, I'll get more filters, but I was wondering if there is just a cheap filter that I can put on my lens to prevent the lens from getting scratched. Do I just go with a normal UV filter, or is there something else I should look into?

crackhead · « **Reply #23 on:** May 09, 2006, 09:39:11 PM »

Heres what i use:

Canon 350D + grip
Canon 50mm f/1.4 (great low-light lens)
Canon 35mm f/2 (when you want to shoot a little wider than 50mm)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (when I need a compact, discreet zoom in low light)
Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS (awesome lens that came out this past year, really nice and flexible zoom range at shows)
Canon 70-200mm f/4 (awesome lens when outdoors, outstanding colors and contrast, makes me drool for the f/2.8 IS version yikes)

i also want a 15mm fisheye , an 85mm f/1.8 and maybe a 10-20mm ultrawide..... photography is soooo pricey

Ed. · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2006, 01:42:32 PM »

taping is pretty pricey too. Actually, all my lenses I've bought so far have been relatively cheap. I know the sigma's aren't as great as the canon lenses, but they've gotten decent reviews and will work for what I want to use them for.

I'm probably going to sell the kit lens, since the sigma 18-125 will take care of everything the kit lens did. i think my next lens will either be an ultra wide, fisheye, or the 70-200 f/2.8.

VA_TAPER · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2006, 10:19:22 PM »

I've got the 100-400 4.5-5.6IS, the 16-35 2.8, and the 50 1.4. By far the 16-35 is my most used lens. Esp. indoors this lens rocks with the 20d.
peace, chris