 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2005Suggestions for good 'all round' lens?.....
Hi all. I'm looking for a bit advice regarding lenses. Having owned a Fuji S60 pro for quite a while, have to decided to enter the 'proper' DSL world! After a lot of thought, have decided to buy a Canon 350D - it suits m budget, plus you guys have recommended it on any number of occasions a an excellent starter. From the forums, I understand that the packaged 18-55mm lens leaves lot to be desired. I have also seen kits being sold with the 18-55 plus an additional 55-200. (Comments?) Ideally I would like to buy the body only, then add a good quality 'al round' lens......but what do I go for?! I've just joined a pretty goo club & hope to take part in their 'studio nights' - I'm also int sports so would be thankful for a lens that could handle the od action/distance shot as well........am I asking for too much here??! Help much appreciated -- Dirk 1 Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better than any zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and weight. > Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better than any > zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and weight. Most 50s are. But they're not worth squat when what's happening is 75-100 yards away or spread over a wide area. >> Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better than any >> zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and weight. > >Most 50s are. But they're not worth squat when what's happening is >75-100 yards away or spread over a wide area. That's why you have legs and feet. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ I have the Canon 20D and three lenses. Canon 24-85 3.5/4.5 USM, 28-135 IS lense and a 70-200 lense. Honestly, the ONLY lense I use consistently is the 28-135. It's excellent as an every day walking around lense. It has a suitable telephoto and doesn't weigh down the camera all that much. -- Chris www.cjpphotos.com > I have the Canon 20D and three lenses. Canon 24-85 3.5/4.5 USM, 28-135 > IS lense and a 70-200 lense. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Chris > www.cjpphotos.com I second the 28-135 IS lens. Sometimes I take only that one lens, even on a big trip to Europe. If I need a wider angle view, I simply take 2 or 3 frames and mosaic them together later. The IS is great when imaging from moving platforms, or where you can't use a tripod, like and old church in Europe. Roger Having used the Canon 350 XT with Sigma 18-200 and now own the Nikon D50 and the Tamron 18-200, I'd take the latter combo. However, if you have not purchased a camera yet, you might consider getting the Nikon D200 in a couple weeks and add to it their new 18-200 VR lens. I plan to purchase the new Nikon lens. To me this lens is of high quality and the most versatile you can make use of. For more w/a image, add the Tamron 11-18 mm lens. If you don't want the extra expense of the D200, go with a D50 plus the 18-200 lens. I'm intrigued by the D200 and will be definitely looking at that. The current system then would be BU and available for my wife. >>> Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better than any >>> zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That's why you have legs and feet. Is that also why you can become invisible/inaudible, and can walk through walls, and shoot pictures through them?  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>> Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better >>>> than any zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is that also why you can become invisible/inaudible, and can walk > through walls, and shoot pictures through them? I don't know about the walls and pictures parts, but he certainly became invisible/inaudible to me. Quite a while ago. SignatureFrank ess "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." ~Proverbs 17:22~ >>> That's why you have legs and feet. >> Is that also why you can become invisible/inaudible, and can walk >> through walls, and shoot pictures through them? >I don't know about the walls and pictures parts, but he certainly >became invisible/inaudible to me. Quite a while ago. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against using your feet, but photography has a broad range of perspectives, so getting the shot is more often a case of the right distance *and* the right lens. Working with one focal length is a great *excercise*; I believe that temporary limitations enhance creativity, but this one-focal-length-fits-all stuff sounds kind of silly. To anyone who is about to reply, "focal length is not perspective", thanks, I already knew that, and did not imply otherwise. Focal length combined with distance (or relative distances of subjects, backgrounds, and foregrounds) determines perspective. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >> Get the 50 mm 1.8 AF Canon lens. It is about $70 and much better than any > >> zoom lens in terms of image quality, aperture, size and weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's why you have legs and feet. Sure enough. Trot your legs, feet and a.s out in the middle of a race track to grab those shots on the other side. Frigging brilliant. > Hi all. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Help much appreciated. It really depends on how much money you want to spend. I have a bag full of lenses but I use one in particular way more than the others, the Sigma 18-200mm. It allows me to go from wide angle to telephoto shots with the twist of the zoom ring. It isn't the highest quality or most expensive lens I own either but is is the most versatile. I have taken many fine pictures with this lens and will continue using it until a better lens is available with the same zoom range. There are other zooms you can consider that will work fine but, IMO, they don't match the 18-200 zoom range that seems to be ideal for a multi-purpose lens. Tamron also makes an 18-200mm zoom but I think the Sigma is marginally better. You can find the Sigma 18-200mm online for around $300-$350. Since you like taking club shots and sports so you might want to consider a fast zoom like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and maybe Canon 70-200 f/4. This will be a less convenient and more expensive option but it might suit you better. >It really depends on how much money you want to spend. I have a bag >full of lenses but I use one in particular way more than the others, the >Sigma 18-200mm. It allows me to go from wide angle to telephoto shots >with the twist of the zoom ring. It isn't the highest quality or most >expensive lens I own either but is is the most versatile. To me, a wide-ranging zoo lens scores points when it is sharp at its longest end. If it's sharp at the tele end, then any softness at the wide end could be excused with "yes, it's a bit soft, but it's wide, and you can't crop to get wide". If, however, the tele end is pure fluff, and resolves no more detail at some point well below it's longest focal length, say an 18-200 that captures no more detail at 200 than it does at 100, then the design is a bit of a waste, and better lens could probably have been made for the same money that went only from 18-100. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< currently using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 70-200L f4 and 70-3005.6 Heard very good things about the 28-135 IS. supposed to be better than the 17-85IS EFS. Am also considering the 24-105ISLF4. Its built with the canon 5D in mind but should sit nicely on my 20D. Having seen the performance of the 70-200F4L i'm expecting alot from the 24-105 F4L. With the IS and the noise free iso800 setting on the 20D i think i can go without the f2.8 As for dof their is always quickmask and gaussian blur. Thanks guys. This is all good advice - given me a lot to consider. I gave the 28-135 a test run & it's very impressive - definatel swaying towards it. If I can throw another question into the mix. I know the IS is of grea benefit but, that aside, how good is the lens overall? (eg: does th fact that the sigma 28-135 is 1/3 the price make it only 1/3 effectiv as a lens?) Like anyone else, I don't have an infinite budget. No everyone can afford a lens with IS, yet they still manage to captur some great shots. Do I need IS?....... -- Dirk 1 > Thanks guys. This is all good advice - given me a lot to consider. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > everyone can afford a lens with IS, yet they still manage to capture > some great shots. Do I need IS?........ The short answer is no, but that's like asking of you need a good spare tire in the trunk to drive a car. You'll be tooling along, day after day, week after week, blissfully happy you saved a few bucks because you didn't need to buy that spare tire to drive your new car. And then one day... pffftttt! Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> Thanks guys. This is all good advice - given me a lot to consider. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > didn't need to buy that spare tire to drive your new car. And then one > day... pffftttt! LOL! When I first bought the 28-135 IS I wasn't sure IS was needed on such a short lens. But then I started doing images from moving platforms, like boats, horseback, airplanes, and cars. Then in low light conditions, like churches (I remember a 1/8 second hand held image of stained glass in a church in Ireland that came out impressively sharp). So no you don't need it, but once you have it, it opens up many new possibilities. Roger > currently using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 > 70-200L f4 > and 70-3005.6 > > Heard very good things about the 28-135 IS. supposed to be better than the > 17-85IS EFS. I have both lenses and judging my photos taken with both lenses, I think the 17-85 on the 20D is a better lens than the 28-135. > Am also considering the 24-105ISLF4. Its built with the canon 5D in mind > but should sit nicely on my 20D. Go for it. I recently acquired the 24-105 and consider it a winner. I tested it for flare using the lens hood and found it to be flare free but decided to turn it in to Canon for replacement. I was advised to do that by Canon tech service. Canon replaces the lens with a new lens and the new 24-105 lens should be arriving soon. > Having seen the performance of the 70-200F4L i'm expecting alot from the > 24-105 F4L. With the IS and the noise free iso800 setting on the 20D i > think i can go without the f2.8 As for dof their is always quickmask and > gaussian blur. >> currently using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 >> 70-200L f4 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > by Canon tech service. Canon replaces the lens with a new lens and the new > 24-105 lens should be arriving soon. What was wrong with it? >>>currently using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 >>>70-200L f4 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What was wrong with it? Apparently the early releases of the 24-105 lens were somewhat defective. Lenses up to UT1000 exhibited excessive flaring problems and Canon was replacing the 24-105 lens with new lenses. What's puzzling was when I had heard about the problem I tested my lens, using a hood, with the sunlight just at the brim of the hood and edge rays entering the lens and saw no flaring. I called Canon tech service and made inquires and was told not all lenses below UT1000 were defective however, since it is believed the majority of the lenses below UT1000 were defective, he advised me to turn my lens in and in turn Canon would send me a new lens. Better to be safe than later be sorry. Observation: All my film gear is Nikon. I've been Nikon for the past 40 years. One day on an unexplainable impulse I disregarded good cost effective commercial sense and bought into Canon for digital equipment and I must say I have received so much better tech service from Canon than I ever did from Nikon. Compared to Canon, dealing with Nikon is a PITA. > Apparently the early releases of the 24-105 lens were somewhat defective. > Lenses up to UT1000 exhibited excessive flaring problems and Canon was > replacing the 24-105 lens with new lenses. What's puzzling was when I had > heard about the problem I tested my lens, using a hood, with the sunlight > just at the brim of the hood and edge rays entering the lens and saw no > flaring. That is rather worrying for an L lens. > I called Canon tech service and made inquires and was told not all lenses > below UT1000 were defective however, since it is believed the majority of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > received so much better tech service from Canon than I ever did from > Nikon. Compared to Canon, dealing with Nikon is a PITA. I heard similar horror stories from someone owning a nikon coolscan III. it was when i was making my mind up between the nikon coolscan iv and the minolta dimage scan elite II. The after service horror stories are what clinched the deal. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.