| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2005 07:20:30 PM · #1 |
I am looking at some of these lenses (to start saving for once I get a new job). For those of you who own these, what do you like/dislike about them AND what subject(s) do you shoot (mostly)?
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4 - 112mm on my 20D)
Canon Wide Angle EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4mm on my 20D)
Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens (44.8mm on my 20D)
Canon Wide Angle EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (56mm on my 20D)
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens (80mm on my 20D)
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens (112-320mm on my 20D)
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (25.6-56mm on my 20D)
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:30:16 PM · #2 |
When I was using my D-Rebel the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L lived on it, being my walk around lens.
D-Rebel with 16-35mm f/2.8L ISO 400, handheld 
Now with my 1D II (1.3x crop) the 24-70mm f/2.8L is the one living on my camera, being my walk around lens.
1D II with 24-70mm f/2.8L 
The 50mm f/1.4 is a very sharp very fast very light lens, amazing bokeh and greatr for low light shots. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is my favourite short telephoto, it's the best zoom lens Canon knows how to make, great for portraits and candids.
1D II with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS:
   
 
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 07:42:37 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I am looking at some of these lenses (to start saving for once I get a new job). For those of you who own these, what do you like/dislike about them AND what subject(s) do you shoot (mostly)?
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4 - 112mm on my 20D) |
Outstanding, 'nuf said. Colors, contrast, sharpness, everything. Wide open it's still quite sharp, with just a little softness at 70mm and f/2.8
I shoot portraits, landscapes, panos, well, just about anythign but macros with this thing. Oh wait, it focuses to 15", 1:3.8 magnification so near macro too!
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Wide Angle EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4mm on my 20D) |
I don't own this one, and from what I've read I would not choose it. It does not get reviews in keeping with its price.
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens (44.8mm on my 20D) |
A better value than the 24/1.4. Decent choice for a "normal lens" for a 1.6-crop cam. I don't own this one.
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Wide Angle EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (56mm on my 20D) |
Always gets fabulous reviews. It's one that I plan on renting soon. Maybe the perfect normal lens for 1.6-crop cams. Well, except for the $$$$ price. Wish I owned this one ;-)
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens (80mm on my 20D) |
A sharp, fast lens at a decent price. Cons are build quality (for the price) micro-motor USM (not ring motor, but still has full-time manual focus), and the front element extends :-( but doesn't rotate :-) when focusing. I'd prolly sell mine when/if I bought the 35/1.4
Since I bought the 24-70L, the 50/1.4 only sees work when I need a very fast lens in that focal length. My 10D and this lens seem to have a focus problem, it may be the lens, or it may be that the 10D's focus system is just not that accurate at f/1.4.
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens (112-320mm on my 20D) |
Again, outstanding. Many claim it's not a walk-around lens because of size/weight, but I have shot all day at the zoo with it and not been fatigued. Stellar sharpness, colors & contrast, nice bokeh (IS off), fast, and IS is icing on the cake.
I love shooting candid portraits with this lens. In good light, it will even handle the Canon teleconverters pretty well (though the 2.0x give some softness wide open). Maybe my favorite lens, every tme I shoot with it I am amazed at what comes out. Wish I hadn't left it in Glendale on April 12, it would have come in handy for a certain reptile!
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (25.6-56mm on my 20D) |
This one is on my short list, but I'd really rather have a very fast, wide prime. I'm actually considering the Sigma 20/1.8, and for ultra-wide I already have that sweet little Canon 15mm fish and the 8mm Peleng fish, both of which you've shot with :-)
I'd love it if Canon came out with something like a razor sharp 18/1.8, if they did I'd be there in a heartbeat.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 19:49:11.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 10:48:44 PM · #4 |
Wow, thank you all for your reviews and samples! I am impressed! I have some ideas now and would love to hear even more reviews. I am starting to save after I start my new job. So, I should have a new lens in less than 5 months if all goes well!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 10:52:01 PM · #5 |
Seeing as most of us have financial limits and to muddy things up a bit, I've some alternative thoughts as well.
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1150)
Alternative: Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di ($400, 6 yr warranty)
Bob Atkins test show better performance than a Canon 28-135IS, is near L lens quality by most. Course it's not equal to the 24-70L, but is the L lens threee times better?
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300)
Alternative: Canon EF 50mm f1.8 ($70)
Yes it's slower, but is 0.4 difference worth triple the price? Especially when the 20D is realtively noiseless to ISO 1600. Plus, as the aperature gets wider, softer the image, right?
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ($1600)
Alternative: Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, especially DG version. ($800?)
No IS here but very similar optics, Britain's Practical Photography rates this above the Canon in their comparison. Is the Cannon twice as better???
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L ($1400)
Alternative: Tamron 17-35 XR Di f2.8-4 ($450)
Once again, not as good as the L lens, but is the L lens three times as good? Bob Atkins site rates this lens pretty good as well.
The difference in price would be about $2700, and would be enough to pay for a lens or two.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:06:38 PM · #6 |
Great thoughts Tom! I am looking for wedding quality lenses that have to be the best of the best. They may be expensive, but I can't skimp on quality when it comes to people's most special day. I am interested in looking at the options you noted here though. I'll read more about them! :)
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:07:04 PM · #7 |
Arie:
You didn't say what your needs are in terms of lenses (ie wide angle or telephoto). You cover a large range with that list and many of them are top notch. I think it comes down to your needs.
I have the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200. I love the 70-200... by far my favorite of the three. what a great lens! However, the truth is, it is not one which is easily carried around for general photography (both because of size and focal range). The 24-70 is also bulky, but a much easier general purpose lens.
Next outing I get to, you can feel free to try them out.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 23:15:22.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:47:33 PM · #8 |
Chuck, do you have the IS version of the 70-200?
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:47:48 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by yido:
Chuck, do you have the IS version of the 70-200? |
Yup.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:52:42 AM · #10 |
I own 3 of the lenses you are looking at, the 24-70, 70-200, and the 50. Without being quite as detailed as Kirbic, I can tell you I am very pleased by all 3, the 24-70 being the one most used. It lives on my camera, and is the one most daytrips involve. I find it hard to imagine a better GP lens.
Incidentally, I do mostly landscape and architecture photography, and things rather than people.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 12:58:45 AM · #11 |
//cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7507480384&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1
Not as sharp as the 16-35 wide open though. The tamron 17-35 actually can beat the 17-40 canon in sharpness... but definately not focus speed. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 03:34:54 AM · #12 |
Wow, thanks everyone!
I was just wondering what you like and what you use them for, Chuck. For me, I need something VERY VERY sharp! I need something pristine for weddings and portraits. I am getting into that more and more and I want the best clarity I can get. I love shooting macro, but I will have to put off getting a macro til after I get a really great portrait/wedding lens. I need a great all around lens that has the best glass and clarity possible. So, I am looking at some of these...
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 07:20:56 AM · #13 |
Rather than starting a new thread I was hoping you wouldn't mind... :)
I am looking for a superwide for my canon. I have around $600 in play money thanks to the US gov't.
Some I am considering:
Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital Cameras
Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DI II f/CANON EOS
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens
Anyone use these or have experience with a another option?
I could use the $600 for PS-CS but I have PS6 (no cds) and would rather get a new lens.
Any help appreciated!
d
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 08:15:23 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Wow, thanks everyone!
I was just wondering what you like and what you use them for, Chuck. For me, I need something VERY VERY sharp! I need something pristine for weddings and portraits. |
the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L USM would probably be sharpest tool in the shed if you want a zoom, and it covers a good range for most wedding type work. At F/4 or smaller it's simply stunning from 24 to 70. at F/2.8 it's very slightly soft at 70, but it's all a relative thing. This is an amazing lens, as it would want to be for the asking price.
Possibly the 16-35 or 17-40 as well to cover the possibility of inside group shots, and the wide end is good for the more 'jounalistic' shots like the 'getting makeup on' shots in the mirror etc.. IMHO the cost difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 isn't justified for 1 stop and 1mm. I used both borrowed before deciding on the 17-40.
And if you're doing head shots and/or candid work one of the 70-200 F/2.8's (IS or non IS depending on your budget).
Having said that...
I would debate the need for 'VERY VERY sharp' images for wedding work. Most wedding prints are 8x12's or smaller, at that size with the 20D you're going to get great results with the higher end non-L lenses, and with many of the third party F/2.8 zooms.
Yes, you can get great images from L glass, but it's gonna cost you some serious money, and if you're not full time at it, or have the money to burn, it's hard to justify. Your customers will not analyse the images for pixel level sharpness, aberations or acuity of diagonal lines.
They'll generally be interested in the moments, recording the mood of the event as a whole, memories of the day and the friends and family who came.
Don't fall into the trap of concentrating on the technical aspects of the job rather than the very personal and emotional event you're recording for the couple.
edit: Oh, and if you're 'going pro' the first thing you need is another 20D, not L series glass... It's handy to carry two lenses 'ready to go' but more imporantly you _need_ to have two bodies for the lousy day that one dies, or you drop one on the stone floor of a churh! Not having a working camera at all will make for a far worse wedding album that slight softness around the corners of a group photo.
Just my $0.02 worth...
Message edited by author 2005-04-12 08:22:13.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 08:21:10 AM · #15 |
I've found this to be the most usefull site when looking at lenses
link
He's got page long reviews of practically every canon lens.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 02:57:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Rather than starting a new thread I was hoping you wouldn't mind... :)
I am looking for a superwide for my canon. I have around $600 in play money thanks to the US gov't.
Some I am considering:
Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital Cameras
Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DI II f/CANON EOS
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens
Anyone use these or have experience with a another option?
I could use the $600 for PS-CS but I have PS6 (no cds) and would rather get a new lens.
Any help appreciated!
d |
Go with either the tamron or a used 17-40L. You can't go wrong with either. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 03:01:10 PM · #17 |
I own, and almost exclusively use the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM, especially now that I have a FF camera. I have a 16-35L 2.8 USM, but with the FF it's just to wide. so my next lens is the 24-70L 2.8 USM.
The 70-200 is the sharpest, fastest and most precise lens I have ever used or seen....outstanding, however, the price is prohibitve. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 09:24:20 PM · #18 |
Keybosh,
I just got the Tokina 12-24 two days ago, so far so good. As expected, barrel distortion at 18mm, very little CA, no vinette even with a regular filter on. Pretty sharp in good light, even around f4 or 5.6 to me at 100%. Colors are a bit colder than with Canon lens, fast and quiet to focus, mine feels a bit loose in the mount (if I twist it, I can feel a little give-doesn't seem to bother the optics though).
I'd recommend it. Bought it for $500 at B&H.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 12:31:07 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L USM would probably be sharpest tool in the shed if you want a zoom, and it covers a good range for most wedding type work. At F/4 or smaller it's simply stunning from 24 to 70. at F/2.8 it's very slightly soft at 70, but it's all a relative thing. This is an amazing lens, as it would want to be for the asking price.
Just my $0.02 worth... |
Thanks for your ideas. I actually won't need a back up as I am the back up. I am apprenticing with a friend and I am the assistant. I had very soft photos last time and I cannot let that happen again. Plus, my f3.5 kept me at a 1/60 without a flash and that caused too much blur. I need something clear, something fast and something that I will love on my own (outside of weddings) for nature photography to sell as art (poster sized)! So... I want something great. I don't have the money, but I am going to start saving. I like your ideas. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 12:32:30 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Rather than starting a new thread I was hoping you wouldn't mind... :)
d |
Go for it :)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 01:00:24 AM · #21 |
I've been going the slightly cheaper route
17-40 F4L for a wide angle. I don't do much shooting with it wide open (normally its on a tripod, stopped almost all the way down) so I don't care much about the f2.8
50 f1.8 rather than the 1.4 $60. hard to beat. Very crisp/ sharp.
70-200 F4L Again, I don't do much indoor/ low light telephoto shooting, so don't care about the 2.8. No IS, but not shooting low light :)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 01:40:41 AM · #22 |
I have had all of these lenses at one time or another.
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4 - 112mm on my 20D)
I found this to be an excellent lens. It is a bit big and heavy but optically it is excellent and it handles very well on a 1-series body (which is what I was using it on). I used it mostly for weddings/events.
Canon Wide Angle EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (38.4mm on my 20D)
This is probably my favorite lens of the bunch. It is one heck of a sharp lens with very good contrast. This is my #1 choice for weddings and events or any low-light app that requires a widish lens. I used this lens mostly on a 10D and 20D. The only drawback I found with this lens was that on the current digital bodies it tends to yield plenty of purple fringing when used in strong light at or near wide open. This lens gets a lot of trash talk about it and after using one for several years I can̢۪t figure out why. I ended up dumping my 24-70 L in favor of this lens.
Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens (44.8mm on my 20D)
This is a decent lens. Not quite up to the performance or build quality of the 24mm f/1.4 but works OK if you don̢۪t want to shell out the cash for the L. I would probably go with one of the Sigma f/1.8̢۪s over this one. This lens was fairly quickly sold off as I strongly preferred the 24 f/1.4.
Canon Wide Angle EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens (56mm on my 20D)
This is a very nice lens. Almost as sharp as the 24mm f/1.4 but doesn̢۪t suffer nearly as bad from the purple fringing that the 24mm f/1.4 can. It can make for a good walk around lens but in my opinion isn̢۪t nearly as good of a value as the 35mm f/2 is.
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens (80mm on my 20D)
I bought this lens because of reading praises about it from everyone and his dog. I never really used it much though it is decent for portraits on a 1.6x crop body. From the several that I tried out I wasn̢۪t terribly thrilled with its performance wide open. I found that I could do just as well with the f/1.8 II so went with that for the rare occasion that I want a 50mm lens.
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens (112-320mm on my 20D)
This is a very nice lens. I bought it for taking sports pictures and for shooting wedding candids. I can̢۪t think of any complaints about it. I ended up selling mine when I started concentrating on nature photography.
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (25.6-56mm on my 20D)
This is another lens that I believe gets an undeserved bad reputation. I found the lens to be excellent on both the 1D mk2 and 1Ds at all apertures. On a full-frame body it is almost freakishly wide. I bought it for shooting landscapes but never really got into that type of photography. On a 20D it could make a nice walk around lens.
I hope this helps.
Tom
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:29:47 AM · #23 |
I have a similar setup to Gordon. 17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L as well as a 28-105 that I rarely use, and a 28/2.8.
I do most of my photography outside and price was a factor for me, so I went f/4 lenses. Still, if I were wanting to do weddings I'd want low-light capability. f/2.8 isn't ideal for very low light conditions, but the 70-200 with IS is going to help.
If I were shooting weddings I'd add the 35/1.4L and either the 100/2 or the 135/2L to my collection for inside work. Matching a zoom with a bright prime in its focal length ensures you're getting coverage.
The *best* setup would be:
16-35/2.8L
35/1.4L
50/1.4
70-200/2.8L IS
135/2L
A more portable 'budget' (but effective) setup:
17-40/4L
28/1.8
50/1.8
70-2004L
100/2
plus maybe a fisheye or 10-200for really wide, creative stuff. If I had the 20D I'd definitely pick that 10-22 up.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 10:32:56.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 04:45:22 PM · #24 |
Great suggestions Jimmythefish! I will look into those too!
|
|
