Good landscape lens... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/11/2005 05:31:17 PM · #1

i know i need for sure and really want a prime lens.. the probelem is budget and which one to get..

50mm 1.8 ii or should i get 50mm compact macro f\2.5?

coz i dont really want just a lens for low light as the 1.8.. i read some review about 50mm compact macro that gives a great landscape photoes?
really?

coz if so.. and the color/contrast is so good as they say then im gonna go for it for sure..

what do you think?

another plus is the macro... but its just 1/2 mag.. is it any good?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/11/2005 05:39:00 PM · #2

if you want a landscape lens, your best bet is something in the 20mm range.

Tranquil

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

08/11/2005 05:41:55 PM · #3

I prefer a fast medium telephoto zoom lens for landscapes. This proves most versatile for both wide-angle and telephoto landscape photography. Something like the 28-135 IS USM or the 17-40 f/4 L are both excellent choices.

Lee

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/11/2005 05:47:03 PM · #4

I thought a 50mm prime suppose to be sharper then tele lens...

am i right?

will glad to get an answer from sombody that have both..

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

08/11/2005 05:49:39 PM · #5

The 50/1.8 prime (and in fact nearly all primes) is very sharp.

There's some pretty good results on the lens page for the 50/2.5 macro.

Either 50 is a nice lens to have, but it's not a landscape lens really.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/11/2005 05:50:27 PM · #6

The reason lenses other than 50mm have been suggested is that 50mm on a digital slr is more like short telephoto rather than a normal lens.

For landscape you would probably be better off with a wideangle lens. Wide angle primes are available.

Yes, primes tend to be sharper than zooms.

17-40 is not much of a zoom but it is L glass and is highly regarded.

08/11/2005 05:53:41 PM · #7

ow man.. im so confuse...

i so want something new.. and i know the l series is the best.. but i cost so much.. damn i want to be a rich guy..

o.k il cut the bulshit..

so what do yuo guys think will be a better choich.. how important is the 1.8 to 2.5? coz i can do some semi macro work with this which i cant do with the 1.8..

man im confuse..

maybe ill put more money and get the 17-40 L?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/11/2005 05:54:38 PM · #8

It really depends! I've seen fantastic landscape pictures from the 10.5mm fisheye to 500mm superteles. Depends what you want to do. Fisheyes will pull things apart and make them look distant, teles will squish a scene together and make things far away look close.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

08/11/2005 05:56:45 PM · #9

Can we ask how much you've got the spend?

08/11/2005 05:56:57 PM · #10

Touching only on the 50 1.8 vs 2.5 macro... the 2.5 is a better lens all around. It's sharper, tougher, less distorted, focuses closer, and has better bokeh. If you're not going to use the extra light, then get the macro, hands down.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

08/11/2005 06:01:38 PM · #11

For macros and landscapes you don't need fast lenses. You'll probably will be shooting both from a tripod anyway and to get a bit of decent depth of field you'll stop it down the f/8 anyway.

08/11/2005 06:03:44 PM · #12

I live in Isreal so i cant just go to the store and change a lens..
the selection here for canon is not so good and prices are really high..

iv got a chance coz somebody i know is coming from the states.. so i thought to take advantage of it.. .. i saw you guys has strong arsenal of lenses.. and i liked your answer kyebosh.. coz i am searching for quality..
bye the way i saw you guys dont own only canon lenses.. i thought that its the best to go with the brand name.. do you have something to pull out of the hat for a "must have lens"?

and thank you for the advice..

i really appreciate it..

08/11/2005 06:05:58 PM · #13

The tamron 17-35 and 28-75 lenses are pretty much as good as the canon lenses. Not quite, but pretty close. I believe the 20mm and 30mm sigmas are very good as well.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

08/11/2005 06:06:04 PM · #14

i must say.. im not looking for just lanscape.. is just that im sure that a photo look different by the optic you use.. and for sharp images you need prime lens no??

so i thought to get "the two birds in one shot" and get good quality lens and some semi macro..

thats y i think about the 2.5 compact macro..

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

08/11/2005 06:22:49 PM · #15

Sigma 30mm

Here is something just out. Some macro ability and would be approx true 50mm on your Rebel. This is a very interesting fast lens.

As for Canon 50mm 1.8 vs. 50mm 2.5 the best choice is the 50mm 2.5 - no contest.

Message edited by author 2005-08-11 18:35:02.

08/11/2005 06:39:50 PM · #16

YE... IT CAN ANSWER MY NEEDS.. 30 MM MIGHT BE BETTER...

HOW ABOU THE QUALITY.. DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN CANON 50 2.5?

08/11/2005 06:41:15 PM · #17

I don't think we can pick a focal length for you... but i'd say either one is a great choice.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

08/11/2005 06:55:57 PM · #18

i think i got it finnaly..

im gonna get the SIGMA LENS 50mm f2.8 EX Macro 1:1 Lens for Canon SLR

coz it has 1.1 and its the same price for the canon 1:2 2.5

on the road.. i think ill buy the 1.8 ii for canon.. its only 70$..

so i think i can afford that..

thx for everyone that helped.. and tell me what you think..

(im gonna be a very poor student this year.. but iv learned once you have good pic.. you forget about the money...)

nsbca7

08/12/2005 03:34:00 AM · #19

Originally posted by jellyoooo:

...damn i want to be a rich guy..

08/12/2005 04:09:29 AM · #20

Hey M.A...

if you knew how much all this coins worth... ha ha ha..

that was funny man..
thx

Zed Pobre