| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2005 05:29:56 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I wish I had a wide angle! I love scenery shots, but the kit just isn't making me happy. It's not as fast or clear as I'd like. I hardly ever use my canon 28-80, but I think it's because it's so crappily fuzzy (imo). I am leaning toward the wider one, because it will be at least a year or more before I can get another bonus (and maybe a good wide angle). So, I am deeply considering the Tam 17-35 (di aspher. IF) right now and maybe the Canon 24-105 $1200 next bonus (next christmas). Any thoughts? |
Yeah. 17mm ain't wide enough on a 20D, is what I think :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 05:42:40 PM · #52 |
Are you still getting the 70-200? The combination of the 17-35 and 70-200 leaves a pretty big hole, and clearly you're unhappy with what's bridging that range now. Conversely, the kit lens should at least do a respectable job at the wide end, stopped down, which covers landscape. A combination of Tammy 28-75 and Canon 70-200 then covers you from 28-200 @ 2.8 with no holes!
As far as the 24-105, its smaller size is a plus, and it is optically very good, but f/4 is not so nice, and IS is not so big a thing at short focal length. Here's why I feel this way... suppose I'm shooting indoors with a 70-200 IS at 200mm, with a full-frame cam. Handheld, I should be at 1/200s to ensure really sharp results, and no way am I getting that in most indoor situations, even at ISO 1600. IS gives me at least 2, possibly 3 stops, so now I can shoot at 1/50s confidently. Big difference; 1/50 @ f/2.8, ISO 800 or 1600 will cover many indoor situations. Now, I switch to 24-105 IS and dial in 50mm; I can shoot down to about 1/50s handheld without IS, with IS I should be able to go to 1/15s! But if I am shooting people, the minumum I really want to use is 1/50s or so, and it will be difficult or impossible to get that at f/4. Where has my IS benefit gone? Bottom line, at about 70mm and below, I'll take speed over IS any day.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 06:59:28 PM · #53 |
Interesting point, Fritz. Hmmm.
So, do you think I am better off with the Tammy 28-75 over the 17-35 though? The kit lens is better than my canon 28-80, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:26:12 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Interesting point, Fritz. Hmmm.
So, do you think I am better off with the Tammy 28-75 over the 17-35 though? The kit lens is better than my canon 28-80, isn't it? |
I think the kit lens is likely better than the 28-80, especially stopped down. It takes a beating in the ratings, mostly when folks shoot it wide open at the extremes of the zoom range, but it can perform quite well in its comfort zone.
It is not an easy choice, but I think there's more need for f/2.8 between 28 and 70mm than below 28mm, so my suggestion is Tammy 28-75/2.8 and hold on to the kit lens... for now ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:45:49 PM · #55 |
The 17-35 is good, but that leaves a big hole.
28 is not wide enough indoors.
Consider: Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC, about $500. 2.8, sharp, more range than the 17-35 and wider than the 28-75.
Or...teh Tamron 24-135 SP. Not 2.8, but brutally sharp.
As to Kirbics thoughts - i disagree with most of what he recomends, usage wise. If you are shooting at 2.8 and ISO of 800 or 1600 you get crappy noisy shots. Sorry, but the noise will be there at that iso, and any lens used at it's extremes will not be working at it's best, so at 2.8 you are losing the sharpness you are paying for.
The biggest advantages to 2.8 or other fast glass is that at f4 it is sharper than an f4 lens at f4, and the contant aperture gives a nice bright image for focusing.
If you want the most from the lens, shoot at f5.6-9, and that will (indoors) usually require a flash, regardless of the lens used. And if you want the best image, shoot at ISO100...again, indoors you'll use flash. If you useing flash then IS is not needed!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 09:06:26 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 17-35 is good, but that leaves a big hole.
28 is not wide enough indoors.
Consider: Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC, about $500. 2.8, sharp, more range than the 17-35 and wider than the 28-75.
Or...teh Tamron 24-135 SP. Not 2.8, but brutally sharp. |
Don't know about the Sigma 18-50, have not seen enough output from it to comment. I agree that at $500, it could allevate the hole, cover the wide end, and meet the price point. More investigation would be warranted.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
As to Kirbics thoughts - i disagree with most of what he recomends, usage wise. If you are shooting at 2.8 and ISO of 800 or 1600 you get crappy noisy shots. Sorry, but the noise will be there at that iso, and any lens used at it's extremes will not be working at it's best, so at 2.8 you are losing the sharpness you are paying for. |
Well, a couple things here. I did not know that I was dong something wrong shooting my Canon 24-70 and 70-200 at f/2.8, I guess my pics just LOOK sharp... seriously, I buy an f/2.8 lens because I want to SHOOT at f/2.8, at least occasionally.
I really did not advocate pumping ISO to 1600 unless that's the only option. That's why I buy f/2.8 glass ;-)
With all due respect, the the 300D and the 20D are in different leagues noise-wise. ISO 1600 on the 20D is darn usable, whereas it is butt-ugly on the 300D (very similar to the butt-ugliness at 1600 on my trusty ol' 10D).
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The biggest advantages to 2.8 or other fast glass is that at f4 it is sharper than an f4 lens at f4, and the contant aperture gives a nice bright image for focusing. |
True, and true, and add high-precision focusing on some cams, more control of DoF, and (see above) the ability to actually use f/2.8 when needed.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
If you want the most from the lens, shoot at f5.6-9, and that will (indoors) usually require a flash, regardless of the lens used. And if you want the best image, shoot at ISO100...again, indoors you'll use flash. If you useing flash then IS is not needed! |
Well, yes, but that REALLY defeats the purpose of fast glass. Some of us make it a practice to do existing-light photography indoors, which is a challenge that can be met, and in some situations, e.g. churches where flash is prohibited, is a good talent to cultivate.
Sorry for the argumentative post, I'm in an ornery mood, long day at work ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:08:39 PM · #57 |
I have a great flash, but I can't always use it. For instance, I like to shoot concerts... you are not allowed to use flash (often). I need great clarity at really low light. I also like to shoot moving targets (so, fast is good).
I also want to help out at weddings, and the lead photographer is usually sync'd with the larger lighting strobes - meaning: I can't use my flash. So, I need a fast lens, indoors, low light, great clarity (wedding).
I am really interested in shooting in low light without flashes. I love natural lighting.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:17:42 PM · #58 |
unless you shoot from a far away, a fast 16/17-35/40mm range lens would serve you better in concerts and such unless you want tight portraits with a 70-200.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 11:00:15 PM · #59 |
I am 100% on the 70-200, but I am 50% / 50% on the Tamaron 17-35 or the 28-75.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 11:54:34 PM · #60 |
Get the Canon 70-200IS, Tamron 17-35, and some cheap set of filters.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:12:07 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by yido:
Get the Canon 70-200IS, Tamron 17-35, and some cheap set of filters. |
Yeah! Spend 2 grand on great glass and put some cheap dime store plastic over the front of them! That makes a lot of sense - NOT.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:13:44 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I also want to help out at weddings, and the lead photographer is usually sync'd with the larger lighting strobes - meaning: I can't use my flash. So, I need a fast lens, indoors, low light, great clarity (wedding).
|
Why not? he has to be wirelessly synced right? The other wedding guests are popping off flashes, right?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:30:20 AM · #63 |
Not during the ceremony, no. They are usually asked to hold it til after (or during the aisle walks).
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:31:41 AM · #64 |
but you got the image degrading cheap filter set right?
:)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:34:03 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Not during the ceremony, no. They are usually asked to hold it til after (or during the aisle walks). |
And they listen??????
I have been told no flash during the ceremony, but OK before or after (by the minister). I prefer not to disrupt the ceremony with flash anyway. But taht doesn't stop all the uncle henrys and aunt mary's from blasting away.
It's easy to get the crowd to behave at the formals, but then it's not likely you'll be shooting then anyway. I figured as a second shooter you;d be at the opposite side of things from the main photog, or you'd be in the back with the 70-200 2.8 (not that an on camera flash would be much good from the back of the church).
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:39:14 AM · #66 |
| I don't know if someone has suggested this combo, just too many responses. But I find the EF 70-200mm 2.8 to be an amazing lense. The 50mm 1.4 is a must, especial for macro, it has great depth of field options for your closeups. Also, the 16-35 2.8 is an amazing wide angle, a little expensive, but worth the money. I rent it myself, own the other two. I think that trio, setting you back at about $2500, or less if you can have patience and find someone selling their 70-200 to get the IS version, they will sell it for well under $1000. Anyway, those are a great kit for just about any shoot, make some money with those, and get other lenses, like the 100mm 2.8 and so on. Good luck and congrats on the bonus. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:49:05 AM · #67 |
A Nikon 600mm mirror reflex lens with a Nikon to Canon adapter,
Peleng 8mm fisheye,
Vivitar 100-400mm zoom
and a Phoenix 100mm manual focus macro on ebay
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 12:54:41 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by yido:
A Nikon 600mm mirror reflex lens with a Nikon to Canon adapter,
Peleng 8mm fisheye,
Vivitar 100-400mm zoom
and a Phoenix 100mm manual focus macro on ebay |
What, no lensbaby?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 01:08:24 AM · #69 |
ok, a lens baby, but the first generation, not that new stuff.
Anyway, I'm just kidding/trolling, as mirdonnay has already ordered the 70-200IS and the Tamron 17-35.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 01:09:27 AM · #70 |
Shamelessly lifted from Mike Johnston's article at Luminous Landscape here.
"Now, obviously, if you were to go overboard in all of these categories, you'd have a bizarre kit indeed. Let's take a quick look:
For macro shooting of the highest order you might have Zeiss's 100mm f/2.8 Makro-Sonnar T* autofocus lens for contax mount:
For a high speed lens, maybe a Leica F/1 Noctilux (I know, this is for a rangefinder. I can't resist. Who in the world has ever actually bought the Canon F/1?):
For the ultimate tilt-shift lens, Canon's coupled Tilt Shift TS-E 24mm f/3.5L lens for perspective control:
For something a little wider than the average 20mm, you might have to search the used market for this little piece of glass, the over-the-top Nikkor 13mm f/5.6.
Want a telephoto to bring the far near? Why mess around ΓΆ€” get a good long one like the Pentax 1200mm f/8. "
Just get adapters for each of them :)
bazz.
Message edited by author 2005-12-06 01:10:12. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 07:03:59 PM · #71 |
Haha, pretty funny bazz. I am set though, at least for this year! :)
Thank you all for your help! As Tom stated, I am getting the:
Canon 70-200 IS USM
Tamaron 17-35mm Di IF Aspherical
I can't wait til they arrive!!!
|
|
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: 09/22/2025 01:26:00 AM EDT.
