 |
 | 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 / May 2008Lens recommendation ???
I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. What lens would give me the most bang for the buck. I'd like to retain the auto focus features. Image stabilization isn't necessary. Thanks Paul Anton >I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. > I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul Anton Tamron 17-50/2.8 XR............... -- www.dicasa.nl Something like a 10-22 would be 35mm equivalent of 16-35, which could be an option. Or are you looking for a lens to replace your 28-135? >I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. > I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul Anton >I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. > I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul Anton I love my new 17-40 f/4 L (http://www.tfrog.com/digitals/lenses/17_40L/17_40L.htm), which I bought to replace my own 18-55mm kit lens. The 17mm wide angle would be approximately equal to your 28mm film lens scenario. And the price was a major draw, too. dwight www.tfrog.com >>I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. >> I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And the price was a major draw, too. I second the suggestion of the 17-40 f4 L, excellent lens. Jean >>I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. >> I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > dwight > www.tfrog.com Tokina 12-24mm/f4.0. Excellent performace and build quality. >I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. > I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. > > What lens would give me the most bang for the buck. I'd like to retain the > auto focus features. Image stabilization isn't necessary. The 17-85 is pretty good. Has IS, but the price is good. 17=27.2mm at 35mm equiv.  SignatureFocus >>I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. >> I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The 17-85 is pretty good. Has IS, but the price is good. > 17=27.2mm at 35mm equiv. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better. I use it myself. Razorsharp en good colors. Some pictures from the Tamron I shoot: http://www.dicasa.nl/Detail/ http://www.dicasa.nl/Herfst/ Price: 377 Euro in Holland: http://www.fotokonijnenberg.nl/product_details.php?id_product=18027 -- www.dicasa.nl There 18-55mm "Kit" lens is likely the most bang for the buck. Perfect it is not, but it is not bad. Many people hate it, because they pick it up and it is light, and feels cheap. That could be good for you because you may be able to find one that someone got and they are more concerned about how the lens feels than the images it produces. Even if you pay full price for it, you will get a good buy. > I am a new user of a Canon 40D. I purchased a kit with a 28-135 Zoom. > I need a wide angle possible equivalent to a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Paul Anton SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > There 18-55mm "Kit" lens is likely the most bang for the buck. > Perfect it is not, but it is not bad. Many people hate it, because > they pick it up and it is light, and feels cheap. That could be good > for you because you may be able to find one that someone got and they > are more concerned about how the lens feels than the images it > produces. Even if you pay full price for it, you will get a good buy. I agree with that. It's not an IS lens, but at the focal lengths you presume to use it at, thats less useful, though it IS useful, despite what some trolls say. It is slightly prone to lateral chromatic aberration problems, but shooting in raw and using Canon's (or Adobe's for that matter) converter easily fixes that, making it quite sharp when stopped down to f/5 or so (at the short end of course). This lens gets an undeserved bad reputation. And it is light! If you like wide angle, it is a good "walk around" lens that won't help your arm workouts like, for example, the 24-105 f/4L will. I use the latter, but then, I walk around alternating hands for the camera, continuously doing curls. Doug McDonald |
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.