| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2005 10:43:24 AM · #1 |
Really unsure whether to invest in a 24-70 L canon lense. Do you think maybe these zoom lenses are more for the pro looking to grab a photo quickly with some good quality, rather than getting the best possible crisp/sharp colour perfect photo with patience going for a fixed focal length lense.
Message edited by author 2005-06-03 10:49:43.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 10:53:00 AM · #2 |
Have you looked at the Tamaron 28-75 F2.8 (fixed)? Have a Look at the reviews at www.fredmiranda.com its a corker of a lens, and a hell of a lot cheaper.
Cheers
MARK |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 10:59:11 AM · #3 |
How can a 28-75 be fixed focal length?
Do you mean fixed aperture? In which case - that's quite good... |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:02:49 AM · #4 |
He means the fstop if constant 2.8 at all apertures.
I got a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC for $420, new. On a 1.6x camera that is like a 28-80 on a 35mm film camera. nearly as good as the 17-40L canon lens for less moola, and LOTS less than the 16-35.
L glass is "pro" glass. Besides better glass they are more ruggedly built and weather sealed. A pro needs this extra stuff, an advanced hobbyist can be fine with a third party lens at 1/2 the cost.
Pro...that covers LARGE range of photographic jobs. A pro sedding photog needs one type of lens, a pro sports photog something different.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:05:03 AM · #5 |
no I mean fixed length. Like a 50mm 1.4 canon lense. Heard and seen stuff where the sharpness seems to blow away zoom L lenses.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:13:08 AM · #6 |
well... yeah the primes are generally better, but good luck finding primes throughout the range of the zoom. The 24-70L is one of the best zooms around if you get a good copy. If you only care about optical perfection... you should stick to primes. There is a gap between 60mm and 85mm however. The sigma and tamron similar zooms are very good and worth taking a look at. I hear so much about the tamron but you lose 4mm, the sigma macro version looks like a winner to me.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:33:12 AM · #7 |
so is the sigma 24-70 macro a "normal lense" as well as macro? if it is sounds v.good
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:46:55 AM · #8 |
| Sorry dood! you meant primes, I got my wires crossed...half-asleep ;P |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:48:21 AM · #9 |
The term 'macro' is used very loosely on lenses. It just means there is a close focusing mode on the lens, how close depends on the lens.
Only certain lenses are true macros.
Message edited by author 2005-06-03 11:48:46. |
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:50:45 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
no I mean fixed length. Like a 50mm 1.4 canon lense. Heard and seen stuff where the sharpness seems to blow away zoom L lenses. |
Yes, but you'll never tell the difference i bet. Perhaps on a 1Ds Mk 2 at 16.6Mp but not likely on a rebel.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:53:11 AM · #11 |
The sigma Macro 24-70 is not going to give you 1:1 or even close magnification (it gives 1:3.8). It can focus for a zoom however, 1.3 feet. They used the macro term too loosely for it. However my understanding is that this is the newer improved version of their 24-70mm. I've seen test shots from it that look very very good and I might pick one up down the road when I get the cash.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 02:55:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
24-70 L canon lense. Do you think maybe these zoom lenses are more for the pro looking to grab a photo quickly with some good quality, rather than getting the best possible crisp/sharp colour perfect photo with patience going for a fixed focal length lense. |
The 24-70/2.8L will take photos pretty comparable to primes.
Canon's old 28-70/2.8L gets a score of 3.9 onPhotoDo, compared to the 50/1.4 that gets a score of 4.4. Bear in mind anything around the 4.x range is very high quality. A lot of primes are low 4.x.
Incidentally, pro's don't take "good quality quick shots", they take high quality quick shots. That's why the 24-70/2.8L costs $1100+ and the non-L equivalents cost about a third of that.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 04:27:07 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
Really unsure whether to invest in a 24-70 L canon lense. Do you think maybe these zoom lenses are more for the pro looking to grab a photo quickly with some good quality, rather than getting the best possible crisp/sharp colour perfect photo with patience going for a fixed focal length lense. |
In the past the conventional wisdom has always been that primes are better than zooms. But high quality modern zooms are, in many cases, as good as the best primes. The difference no longer breaks down along the traditional lines of primes vs zooms. Nowadays there are excellent quality lenses in both categories, both from the camera makers like Canon, Nikon, and Olympus, as well as from the third party lens makers like Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina.
Your decision about a prime vs a zoom should be based on other factors instead of just thinking that one category is better than the other. What kind of shooting are you planning to do with your new lens? Do you want to go for the sharpest possible lens? or do you need a fast aperture? or perhaps sacriface a bit of sharpness for the convienience of not having to change lenses as often? What are your needs?
|
|
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: 09/17/2025 02:25:03 PM EDT.
