HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 22, 2008, 10:45 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
Post Canon lens discussions

So I know alot of you guys on the forum use either Nikon or Canon DSLR's.

Personally I use a Canon 30D. For those of you using Canon (the 1DS, 5D, 20D, 30D, 350D, Rebel, etc)...what lenses would you recommend and which ones have you used?

I have the following lenses:
Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS (great walkaround lens)
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS (great for long distance and detail shots)

Those lenses pretty much give me a full focal range for walkaround shooting and I use the 50mm for portraits and family photos, etc.

Recently my 17-85 lens took a dump and I had to send it into Canon. Last week while in Phoenix I rented a Canon 24-70mm f2.8L lens. Luckily my 17-85 came back today apparently as good as new.

I was really excited about using an f2.8 lens, but honestly I was kind of disappointed with it. I didn't care for the 'soft' edges between say 50mm and 70mm. It also doesn't have image stabilization and thus many of my photos came out a little blurry.

I've been looking at upgrading to some sort of f2.8, but now I'm not so sure about this one.

Does anybody use Tamron lenses with their Canon bodies? I was told recently that the Tamrom 28-300mm f4-5.6 is an incredible lens at 1/4 the cost of a similar Canon lens I've been looking at.

Is 'L' glass really worth the money?

I know I'm kind of rambling, but I'm just curious what lenses the Canon users have and what their experiences have been.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 12:11 AM
Don B. Don B. is offline
...
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,184
L-glass is nice, but you pay for it. Dearly, I might add.

I have:

EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 USM L-series wide angle lens
EF 28-70 mm f/2.8 USM L-series zoom lens
EF 2x extender

Love the two L lenses a lot. These I will never get rid of.

Most zooms tend to be a little soft at the upper end of the zoom range. Without IS, you need to be sensitive to camera shake. I usually jack up the ISO to compensate for low light or fast moving object conditions.

I won't use Tampon lenses or any other off-brand.

--don
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 3:19 AM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
I use Nikon, but I would love to have a f2.8 lens. Plinko, were you using wide apertures when you got the soft images? Because the depth of field will be very shallow zoomed in at f2.8, a lot could be slightly out of focus.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 4:13 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,833
am i the only pentax guy her? has a bunch of old canon fd glass in the closit though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 9:30 AM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: File 13
Posts: 13,984
Rambling is good plinko. It's a good way of sorting out what's important to oneself. I've been thinking of getting a new piece of glass in the zoom range, but for Nikon and will have many of the same questions. I haven't really found anyone who thought they went wrong build quality-wise with the higher end lenses from either Canon or Nikon. Other parties, your mileage may vary. I've got a Tokina 12-24mm that I love, although given unlimited resources the Nikon would be with me, but an extra $600 didn't cover the differences enough to me and that's almost half the investment towards a pretty decent 28-70 F/2.8 for me.

There's lots of comparisons out there of the older L series and the new 2.8 lens which give it pretty high marks and I read something about the lens only not being given an L-status due to weather-sealing so depending on your usage and handling it may not be a big deal.

And you probably know that a tripod is the best way to improve general blurriness. I should probably take that advice more often, but I'm lazy. Supporting yourself properly is one thing, but with larger (longer) lenses it is more difficult.

Now to go look at sticker shock Canadian prices for Nikon F/2.8 lenses.
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 9:49 AM
JustinL's Avatar
JustinL JustinL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Winnipeg / Stuttgart
Posts: 186
I've got a 350d and use a tamron 17-50 f.2.8 for most of my walk around shooting. Incredibly sharp even at 2.8 wide open at the wide end. Incredible lense for the value.

I also have the nifft fifty f1.8, a super sharp fast lense. It doesn't get much use since I have the tamron, but every once and awhile that extra bokeh comes in handy.

Lastly, i have a budget telephoto, a Sigma 70-300, f4-5.6. Would only reccomend this to those on an extreme budget, as above 200mm it's very soft, and I tend to need manual focus alot on it. Still, I've got some nice shots out of it.

I really want to get an ultra-wide angle lense, but can't really justify the price...I'm on the verge of splurging.
Samples:
Tamron


50 f1.8


Sigma 70-300
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 4:22 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
I use Nikon, but I would love to have a f2.8 lens. Plinko, were you using wide apertures when you got the soft images? Because the depth of field will be very shallow zoomed in at f2.8, a lot could be slightly out of focus.
I hadn't thought of that. I'm not a professional photographer or anything so alot of my time is spent experimenting with different settings till I get what I want. I honestly figured that a fixed f2.8 lens would get me as sharp a photo as 70mm as it would at 24mm. Interesting. So the only real advantage to f2.8 is shooting in lower light? I didn't do any late evening or night shooting over there.

HIMS - My hands aren't super steady so IS seems to be something I need. I have a very nice tripod but I rarely carry it around because I just don't like to. I do need to buy a monopod though. That might be more helpful.

Don - I can afford the Canon lenses, it's just hard to justify if I can get essentially the same thing at 1/3 or 1/4 the price.

Does anyone have the Canon 28-300mm f4-5.6L lens? I've been told it's a dust magnet (and given that the 30D doesn't have auto sensor cleaning I could see this as a problem)?
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 5:06 PM
JustinL's Avatar
JustinL JustinL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Winnipeg / Stuttgart
Posts: 186
Plinko - I'm no professional either, but another great advantage of a fast lense what can also be a disadvantage to a point-and-shoot photographer: narrow depth of field. It can really make a beautiful photo though, when you isolate a subject from a bokeh'd background. The other advantage would be if your shooting in low-medium light and you need to freeze something in motion, like indoor sports.

I personally don't think IS is needed except in low light, or at extremely long focal lenghts with high F-stops. I usually just turn up the ISO a bit. I don't have steady hands either, but I don't need IS if the shutter is only open for 1/1000 of a second Try looking at your shutter speeds, If it's less than your focal length...your likely going to get a blurry picture. I often try to double it on my telephoto shots, for insurance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 6:37 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
Fast lenses have many advantages, but can be more difficult to use effectively. Look what giallo can do with an 85mm f1.4
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136199
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.