Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2  (Read 81335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

stirinthesauce

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2008, 09:36:27 AM »
from my experience, 17 is fairly wide on a crop body, extremely wide on a full frame.  If you want really wide and have a 1.6x crop sensor, get the 10-22 or the 12-24.  Me, my 24 is like the 17 on a crop body.  Wide but there are times I want wider.  Hoping to get a 17-40L.

Ed, pm me before you dump that lens.  I *might* be interested. 

Offline Ed.

  • your popsicle's melting
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
  • Gender: Male
  • FJ Baby!
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2008, 10:53:21 AM »
Question:  Did the 17-40 do you are far as wide angle?  I mean, do you find it to be wide enough for most landscape, cityscape, architechture and indoor shots?  In addtion to the Canon 17-40, I'm considering the Tokina 12-24 f4.0, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 which are both highly rated, and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which also gets good marks.  The latter two are fairly attractive because of the high marks plus the fast lens speed, since indoor shooting will be a high usage factor for this lens.

I always thought it did a fairly decent job at wide angle, but with my 20D the crop made it out to be almost 23-24mm if I remember correctly.  It's ok and I've used that lens more than most others, but I think it'd be fun to have something wider.  I'm going to have to look at the others you mentioned as well and do some research.  My plan with the 17-40 was always to get a 5D and then it would have been plenty wide...but I doubt that will happen.  When I went crazy and bought all these lenses I was planning on making some money off of photography, but these days it'd mostly just for fun.

Yeah, what stirinthesauce said. :)

I have the 17-40L listed on craigslist right now for $550, which is ridiculously overpriced, but everyone seems to lowball you on there.  Some one emailed me and said "I'll give you $500 for the 70-200mm" to which I replied "no you won't" haha.
http://speshuled.smugmug.com/gallery/4626550_ZawJV#406616487_unycf
There are some photos of it if you're interested, I'll be honest though.  This lens has reports of not being one of the sharpest L lenses and I've always thought mine fit into that category.  It still does a great job, and a little bit of sharpening in post took care of the issue.


Because nothing says "I have lots of money and am sort of confused as to how to spend it" like Bose.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2008, 11:41:14 AM »
Thanks for the perspective on the 17mm focal length guys.  I pretty much figured as much.  Back in another life, I was HEAVY into photography and had a 28mm lens.  In fact, back then...we're in the early 70's now and I'm talking Canon FD lenses...back then I really wanted two zooms but couldn't afford them...a 28 - 80 and a 70-200.  I ended up getting a cheap fixed focus 28 and then a really cheap 70-200.  The 28 was my workhorse behind the 50mm f1.8. 

So basically, what we're saying here is that a 17-50mm lens has the exact equivalent focal length on a crop body of that 28-80 all those years ago.  I do recall being pretty satisfied with that 28mm focal length all those years ago, so based on your feedback, that might be how I go. 

So, I may be headed to this...sell the 28-135 f4.0-5.6...sell the 400L...buy a 17-50 f2.8 and buy a 100mm f2.8 for low light concert shooting and macro work.  The 70-300 f4.0 stays for sports, wildlife and outdoor shoots.  Hmmmm.

Anyways, thanks for the feedback!

Offline bluntforcetrauma

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 879
  • Gender: Male
    • http://themovementschool.org
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2008, 04:55:04 PM »
I use the 16-35mm L for wide angle.  Do i need wider, is there wider for indoors and landscapes?

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2008, 05:23:08 PM »
I use the 16-35mm L for wide angle.  Do i need wider, is there wider for indoors and landscapes?

I'm just getting back into photography, so I'm no expert by any means...but I've been doing quite a bit of research over the last 3 weeks and I think maybe some of my thoughts might give you some sort of answer to your questions...

First, there's definitely wider angles than 16mm.  The popular Canon len is the 10-22mm.  A couple posts up I mentioned a fast Tokina 11-16 f2.8 that came out last year.  This one is stated on one review site (photozone.de) to be the best quality super wide angle out there...bar none....and this lens runs less than $600.  So yeah there are definitely options.  Another option is a 12 - 24 f4.0 Tokina.  Also highly rated and low price, but a bit slower. 

You might ask, well it doesn't seem like there's much difference between the low end of your 16-35 and the 11 or 12 low end of these others...I guess that depends on what you want out of the lens.  I've read where on the low end, small differences in focal length can make a fairly significant difference in the field of view.

Referring back to the question you posed...whether you NEED wider is another story.  Seems to me that it's personal preference, the type of shooting you do, etc.  Do you often feel limited by the field of view that you shoot in?  Obviously, when outside say shooting a tall building, you can theoretically keep moving farther away to adjust your field of view.  However, inside a room, if you're as far away as you can get, the only option then is a shorter focal length lens.

Something to consider is that of course, the wider you go, the more you tend to have to deal with distortions like edge falloff and (what's it called) where the straight lines curve because of lens distortion.

As I recall, back in the day when I shot with my 28mm (which again is 17mm or so on a crop body) image distortion didn't become all that much of an issue.  IOW, it wasn't totally obvious that the image had been shot with a wide angle lens.  It's only with the super wide angle lenses that distortions become a major distraction...at least to me they are.

Don't know if that helps...this discussion is probably below your level of knowledge, but like I said, for me it's all fresh on my mind because these are the things I've been considering recently in making some decisions about what my lens aresenal is gonna consist of.

Take care.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 05:24:53 PM by tonedeaf »

Offline j5brock

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2008, 10:34:55 PM »
I picked up a Tokina 11-16 and I love it on the crop body.. really opens up landscapes.. and comes in handy for house interior shots - for houses we are selling... combined with the 17-55 IS - they cover most landscape shots.
DPA4023/DPA4028/MK22/MK41 > KC5 > CMC6xt > Kindkable > Opti V3/ACM V3/ > Kindkable interconnect / Hi-Ho Silvers > 744t

Canon 5D3 / 7D / 50D / 24-70L II / 16-35L II/ 17-55 2.8 IS / 70-200 2.8 IS II/ 100-400L / 85 1.2L / 50 1.4 / 300 2.8 IS / 11-16 wide / Zeiss 2.8/21

Playback - foobar > m audio transit / denon 1930ci underwood transport mod > Grace M902 >  ATH W 5000

Offline divamum

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2008, 11:21:31 PM »
At the long end, the 55-250is is absurdly good for the price. It hunts a bit in lower light, but give it some lumens and it is one sharp lens for not a lot of money...

Also check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I don't have one (yet), but I hear it's also super sharp. It's the "most wanted" on my lens list at the moment... I SERIOUSLY want one of those!
DPA4060
R09

Offline nickgregory

  • Admitted Jeter Homer
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 22376
  • Gender: Male
    • Hurricanes Insider
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2008, 10:52:28 AM »
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas.  Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it

I have been looking at sigma lenses as they seem to offer a good balance between cost and performance..and these two are sold at b&h...question is what is the difference?  I am guessing one is last years model and the other the new one...but curious if anyone can shed any light.  My wife is the photog, not me, so I am running blind here ;D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163662-REG/Sigma_509101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html

Appreciate any input

Offline eric.B

  • to the side qualified
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2796
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2008, 11:30:36 AM »
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas.  Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it

I have been looking at sigma lenses as they seem to offer a good balance between cost and performance..and these two are sold at b&h...question is what is the difference?  I am guessing one is last years model and the other the new one...but curious if anyone can shed any light.  My wife is the photog, not me, so I am running blind here ;D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163662-REG/Sigma_509101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html

Appreciate any input

the latter link is for the macro version of the lens..

Macro photography is close-up photography; the classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.

In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers.


hmm..  from the text in the links you gave, it looked like one lens was a macro and one wasnt.  However, clicking on both links reveals that *both* lenses are macro versions..  One is an APO the other isnt, and to be honest I dont know the differences between the two..
We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.  ~Milton Friedman

Offline Ed.

  • your popsicle's melting
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
  • Gender: Male
  • FJ Baby!
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2008, 11:35:20 AM »
one is an APO, the other isn't...from sigma's website:

Quote
n order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.

SIGMA's APO zoom lenses minimize color aberration. As the refractive index of glass depends on the wavelength of light, color aberration occurs when different colors form images at different points. This problem often occurs with telephoto lenses, but the Special Low-Dispersion (SLD) glass and

Extraordinary Low Dispersion (ELD) used in SIGMA's APO lenses helps to compensate for color aberration, thereby allowing them to produce of sharp images.

also, a review:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review

I don't know what your budget is, but there might be better lenses out there, but it'll take some time to read all the reviews.  Also, I'd try www.pricegrabber.com and www.amazon.com too to see who has the best deal.


Because nothing says "I have lots of money and am sort of confused as to how to spend it" like Bose.

Offline nickgregory

  • Admitted Jeter Homer
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 22376
  • Gender: Male
    • Hurricanes Insider
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2008, 12:28:55 PM »
thanks for the input guys...have to do some reading now...

fwiw, my budget is probably sub $500...so if anyone has any suggestions, I would be interested to hear them...

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2008, 01:19:01 PM »
Hey Nick...at a $500 budget, I'm thinking this...


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html


Review here...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review


Very nicely rated OEM lens with IS. 

I have this lens and I'm quite pleased with it.  The IS means that it has Canon's proprietary image stabilization built in which is a pretty nifty invention where gyroscopic compensation is put in the lens to allow the lens stabilize the image.  This feature effectively speeds up the lens without more glass...Canon generally claims 2 to 3 f-stops increase in lens speed with IS.  That's pretty significant, actually.  This is a pretty cool invention and on the more expensive lenses, IS is generally considered a $400 or more upgrade to the lens, so with this lens costing $500 total, I think it's a great value.

PS:  Go Pens!!!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2008, 01:23:27 PM by tonedeaf »

Offline Ed.

  • your popsicle's melting
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
  • Gender: Male
  • FJ Baby!
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2008, 01:29:59 PM »
over budget and without a tripod ring, but a great lens -
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-froogle.asp?id=226523116&rf=froogle&dfdate=11_13_2008
I've ordered from there before too, so I know they're safe.

Also, if you're interested in buying like new/used, you may want to check out the Flea Market on www.dgrin.com - kind of like ts for photogs.  I see a Canon 55-250mm with image stabalization on there right now for $245.


Because nothing says "I have lots of money and am sort of confused as to how to spend it" like Bose.

Offline nickgregory

  • Admitted Jeter Homer
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 22376
  • Gender: Male
    • Hurricanes Insider
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2008, 01:35:08 PM »
thanks for the options guys!  Now just need to get educated for what fits the wifes use, so I can get her that for christmas...

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2008, 01:55:05 PM »
OK, I am in the market for an affordable zoom lens for my wife for christmas.  Probably will be mostly used for her landscape and kid photography but will likely make it to hockey games as well, as long as we have it

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a lens that suits all three needs:  landscape, kids, hockey games.  I think it's best to decide which 1 or 2 are the priority.  From the way your post is written, it sounds to me like landscapes/kids are a priority over hockey.

A 70-200 or 70-300 will probably work fine for hockey (though at 4-5.6 may be a little slow, requiring you to bump the ISO well high).  I think landscapes are right out at 70mm, especially on an APS-C sensor.  Kids - depends on the shooting environment.  Outside on the playground, where you can get some distance between lens & kids, maybe.  Inside, too long IME (unless it's a studio environment).

For kids & landscapes, I'd consider a wide-ish standard zoom, like a Canon 17-85, Canon 28-135, or even Sigma 18-125.

I'm pretty ignorant of Canon's lens lineup, so the above are just examples of what I think are more suitable focal length ranges for kids/landscape.  And all will still allow you to shoot hockey if you can get up close.

As an afterthought, you could always go for a superzoom, like an 18-200, but quality will suffer, obviously.  Depends on expectations / IQ requirements, etc.

$0.02

What lenses does she have already?

« Last Edit: November 14, 2008, 01:56:52 PM by Brian Skalinder »
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.096 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF