| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2005 05:02:00 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
You left off the venerable 28-135 IS USM F4-5.6. At ~$400 it's a good buy. |
This is my walk around lens and I really like it. It is sharp and the image stabilization seems to work well. I can take hand held shots at 1/10 of a second with no blur. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 05:05:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
PS: Few people ever take advantage of the full zoom range of their zoom lens. Their is a tendency with most photographers to shoot at one end or the other. |
A few weeks ago I've made a histogram of the focal lengths I use the most, and I was surprised by the results. Converted to focal lengths for a 1.6x crop factor, I used 24mm and 120mm the most by far (the widest and longest ends of the Sony zoom range, converted to 1.6x), which tells me I need both a wider and a longer lens. In between those extremes, focal lengths I use a lot are 35, 50 and 85mm. I was surprised to see that despite the continuous zoom of my camera, apparently there are focal lengths I like more than others. Anyone else notice this? |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 05:13:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by nicoledb:
I was surprised to see that despite the continuous zoom of my camera, apparently there are focal lengths I like more than others. Anyone else notice this? |
With the 18-70 I shoot a lot at 18mm because that focal length was new to me and fun to experiment with. In normal use I often use 24-50mm.
On the 70-200 I use 90-120mm a lot.
On the 35-210mm of the S602 I was at the extremes all the time, but now that I think about it, that was also because it relatively zooms slow.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 05:40:04 PM · #29 |
There are several things to consider when choosing a single walk around lens. Unless you are also going to walk around with a support (tripod or monopod), then the speed of the lens becomes more important, as most shots will be hand held. Next is the likely subject matter and how close can you get without encroaching on the subjects space. The use of a hot shoe speedlight is also a consideration.
My choice is a Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4
Below are some examples:
 
 
I chose this lens due to its usable speed, usable zoom, and because it mates perfectly with the zoom on my speedlight.
From your list, the 24-70 f/2.8 seems like a good walk around lens, based on my needs. You need to answer those questions for yourself.
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 17:41:21.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 06:00:34 PM · #30 |
| I'd be interested in seeing other 100% crop comparisons of various lenses with no processing, to look at raw sharpness. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 06:12:54 PM · #31 |
It should be noted that Canon's 17-85 IS is an EF-s lens which only mounts to a Rebel or a 20D, and thus will have decreased resale value.
Canon's 85mm f 1.8 is a much less expensive alternative to the 85 f 1.2, almost as sharp at less than a quarter of the cost.
Plexxoid left out another Canon lens that makes a good walk-around in the 28-200 f 3.5-5.6 USM. It has a wide and useful zoom range, has a reasonably fast aperture, focuses fast, and is affordable ($360 at B&H).
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 23:25:03.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 07:33:32 PM · #32 |
| I'm a big fan of the 28-135 IS USM F4-5.6. This is my primary walk around and travel lens. If you can only have one lens this is a good choice. I bought this lens about 10 months ago and have no regrets. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:46:55 AM · #33 |
Someone asked about comparing the performance of the Sigma 18-125 and the Canon 50mm 1.8 V2. These are RAW, ISO 100, Crops at 50mm.
At F5:
 
At F8:
 
Ok, let's play a little game. For each set, which one's the Canon which ones the Sigma? |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:50:47 AM · #34 |
I'll bite...the first one in each set is the 50mm 1.8 II
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:57:12 AM · #35 |
| My 17-40 almost never leaves my body. The 17-40 and the 70-200 F4L makes the ultimate lightweight walkaround combo. A plus is that they're full-frame compatible. Outside, the f/4 is almost never a limiting factor - especially with the high-ISO DSLR capabilities. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 02:01:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by bryanbrazil:
I'll bite...the first one in each set is the 50mm 1.8 II |
I'll wait till we have 4 or 5 guesses before spilling the beans publicly. (Just so others who might want to guess can do it without the clue.) Meanwhile, I answered your guess via email.
Hmmm...maybe I can type it upside down here and you can just hold your monitor upside down to read it. :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 02:23:21 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Ok, let's play a little game. For each set, which one's the Canon which ones the Sigma? |
Lens perfomance compared through the monitor on this computer is not something I would base the purchase of a lens on, though I do see a difference. Focusing on something flat and detailed like a newspaper would be a more objective way of comparing lenses.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 03:52:57 AM · #38 |
I have to agree with scalvert; the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di is hands downs the best bang for the buck walkaround lens. If money is no object then others are faster and a bit sharper while being much heavier but if you get a good copy of this lens it will spend alot of time on the front of your camera no matter what else you own.
nshapiro asked " Maybe I got a bad EFS 10-22mm Canon. Does this look abnormally bad to anyone who has this lens?" about the flower shot, and it does look weirdly soft although this lens seem very funky to me so far. It seems to have a very steep learning cruve. I get a blush tinge and strange distortion on the edges, but am still amazed by the amount of light it can bend onto the focal plane. But it isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 05:04:53 AM · #39 |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 05:21:37 AM · #40 |
Another vote for left side=canon There's going to be a whole lot of us wrong at this rate. :-).
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 07:03:50 AM · #41 |
I'll vote 'left is better', but I refuse to say whether this means it's the Canon :-)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 07:12:15 AM · #42 |
I have the 28-135 IS as my walk-around lens, but I'd take the 24-70 f2.8 if it wasn't so expensive.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 07:59:59 AM · #43 |
A: The left image in both cases is the Sigma!
Surprises me too. I was expecting the Sigma to do well, but not look better than the Canon. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 08:29:29 AM · #44 |
Thanks for the info... I can not believe the difference is that big. But then, my only Sigma, the 55-200 zoom, has done the most incredible sharp pics as can be seen in my portfolio. It also shapes my thinking in terms of my tread on asking advise on a macro lens... Again, thanks. Is this what we call an eye opener?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:22:49 AM · #45 |
I don't think I've seen it here yet, but my walk around lens is the Canon 35mm f/2.0. It is not a USM lens, so it's a little buzzyy, but at f/2.0 it'ss faster than any of the zooms I have seen mentioned, the optical quality is fantastic, it is small and light, and it's inexpensive.
35mm is about as close as you can get to a standard prime with a cameral with a 1.6x crop factor. And while standard primes may not be the common choice these days, a lot of fantastic photography has been done such as lens. You cannot zoom to frame your subject and you cannot rely on perspective to make a shoot interesting. But, the natural perspective will allow people to connect to the image quickly if can capture their attention a good subject, strong composition, and interesting light. If this doesn't make sense, look at some war photojournalism done with a zoom lens and then look at some older work done with standard primes... you connect with the older images quickly because the perspective is natural to you.
Just thought I would add a more traditional option to the thread.
Message edited by author 2005-01-25 12:43:19.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:35:43 AM · #46 |
| I'll throw another vote in the prime lens column. I have the 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 Canons and I love them. No debate intended, but generally speaking - primes take better quality photo's than zooms and they're much less expensive. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:40:40 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by hopper:
... generally speaking - primes take better quality photo's than zooms and they're much less expensive. |
Generally speaking, yes. I've got more credit than brains, though, and am fighting the urge to order the Canon 85mm/f1.2 prime for about $1600. Talk me down, please...??? (FWIW, I am just in the "want to" stage, haven't yet reached "ok I'm gonna do this" :0) |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:49:10 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by hopper:
...primes take better quality photo's than zooms and they're much less expensive. |
The $369 Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di is sharper, quieter and focuses faster than a 50mm f/1.8 prime, and gives you the flexibility of a zoom with good range. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:54:09 AM · #49 |
| While a 35mm lens would be the most suitable prime for a walkaround; But with any prime, you'll want another lens for a different focal length. I don't think needing a second lens with you qualifies either one as a walk-around. An ideal walk-around zoom has decent wide-angle, standard, and medium telephoto focal lengths. A wide aperture also helps, but certainly isn't economical. I think the 17-85 IS is the only lens that can be considered ideal for a walk-around in the focal range aspect. F2.8 and sharper optics would be awesome if it weren't for the price that would come with it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:07:54 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by nova:
Originally posted by hopper:
... generally speaking - primes take better quality photo's than zooms and they're much less expensive. |
Generally speaking, yes. I've got more credit than brains, though, and am fighting the urge to order the Canon 85mm/f1.2 prime for about $1600. Talk me down, please...??? (FWIW, I am just in the "want to" stage, haven't yet reached "ok I'm gonna do this" :0) |
Try the 85 1.8 first, I have one and am pleased with it's sharpness. It rates higher by a score of 4.45 to 4.12 on PhotoZone's Lens Test Guide which is based on test results, not users reviews.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 11:26:14 PM EDT.
