Selling two lenses, buying two lenses.Suggestions?

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

03/11/2006 04:57:52 PM · #1

As soon as I dig out the boxes, I plan on selling off two of my lenses that I no longer use and use that money to buy lenses that will not collect dust. I am thinking I will probably have $850 +/- a few bucks to play with from the sale plus $100 from photo sales for a $950 budget.

I want a macro lens as well as a wide angle. I DO NOT want an EF-S lens for either one. If I can only get one lens for now, that is fine too. I DO have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens from my Rebel and that is the widest I have. Honestly, I have not pulled it out to try it because I use my 24-70L so much. (I am almost chicken to use anything other then my L lenses right now because the difference has been amazing as far as sharpness goes)

Here in Guam, I am having trouble fitting the full palm tree into my frame without backing up far enough to ruin the picture.

The macro I will primarily use it in a studio setting for young kids and babies as well as DPC entries with products. I want to be able to shoot within a foot of my subject if I want too.

I am not very familiar with lenses other than Canon when it comes to quality. I do want top quality lenses so I am willing to sacrifice getting 2 lenses if I have too.

Thanks :)

yido

Canon EOS-5D

03/11/2006 05:19:06 PM · #2

Only wide L lnes for under $950 is the 17-40L. But with a crop factor, that's not that wide. Another option is a 14mmL, but that's about $1800.

For macros, if you like Canon's the 100mm f2.8 macro is a good way to go.

03/11/2006 05:25:04 PM · #3

Thank you. I am thinking that the 17mm wouldn't be wide enough. I am also thinking a fixed focal length wide angle wouldn't be bad either. $1800 is a bit extreme for me right now...LOL

Thanks for the tip on the macro. :)

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

03/11/2006 05:36:37 PM · #4

Your 24-70L will focus as close as 1 foot 3 inches... the 17-40L even closer at just under a foot. Of course neither is a macro lens... but I'm wondering if you really need one, considering how you said you will use it. I actually like my 17-40 better than the 24-70, which I sold. I'm sure I'm in the minority by holding that opinion, though.

For what it's worth, why not dig out the 18-55 kit lens and compare landscape type shots at 18mm vs. 24mm, not for quality (no comparison) but for wideness. Just a thought.

By the way, what lenses are you selling?

Good luck!

03/11/2006 05:58:20 PM · #5

I just gave it a try and you are right about the 1ft. I think I am having trouble getting closer than that and I often want too. Maybe then the 100mm is the way to go for more detailed shots. I will play a little more.

I think I will whip out the 18mm for some test shots. :)

I am planning on selling my:
Canon 28-135IS w/ lens hood and polarizing filter
&
Canon 75-300mm IS w/ lens hood (an possibly the polarizing filter, depending on what I decide to do with my 18-55mm lens)

I have not touched either one since November when I purchased my 24-70 L and my 70-200mm L!

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

03/11/2006 06:17:00 PM · #6

sounds like you need a fisheye. There are a number, the canon 15, the sigma 15, the peleng 8 (also the much more expensive sigma 8), and the zenitar 16. If you hate fisheyes you could get the canon 14, the sigma 14 or the sigma 12-24mm. I would say you could get one of the first two and the peleng and that's only around $750usd. You can throw in a canon 100, sigma 105, or tamron 90 macro lens for $350-450 more. $1100-1200 total.

03/11/2006 06:20:00 PM · #7

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I have seen some really cool pics taken with a fisheye. Correct me if I am wrong, though, that they have limited use? I really don't want a lens with much distortion from what I see.

Thanks for the recommendations!

kyebosh

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

03/11/2006 06:25:08 PM · #8

any super wide lens will have an extreme perspective, the fisheyes do have a lot of distortion but you can fix it somewhat in post processing. The 8mm lenses are a full 180 degrees in every direction so you can imagine how much distortion there would have to be. Honestly, if you need to fit something in, and 18mm isn't cutting it, you might need a fisheye or something around 10-12mm. The sigma 12-24 will work on full frame btw. Oh and i don't own a fisheye, but i've been dreaming of that peleng for awhile 8-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/11/2006 06:42:27 PM · #9

Why are you disallowing the EF-S lenses? there's no better way to go wide on a 20D than the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens. And if you ever upgrade to FF sensor, you can resell that for a large fraction of its cost new. It's a VERY fine lens.

R.

03/11/2006 06:52:46 PM · #10

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, I am worried about not being able to use it without a 1.6 crop camera. You truly think the resale value will still be pretty high then? The price is so right on that lens, but I shyed away from it because of the EF-S.

I know with the two lenses I am selling I can get a large fraction of what I paid for them back. I just wonder as the prices come down with FF sensor that the EF-S lenses will lose their value also.

Then again, when I do replace my 20d it will still be my back-up camera.....which means I can still use EF-S. Hmmmmm.....I never thought of that till just now. I know, I am slow ;o)

Rob, you are genius...LOL

xcharrier

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/11/2006 06:55:57 PM · #11

I personally use my 15mm for a lot of my landscape and wide angle shots... and as long as they are composed correctly, they are fairly easy to de-fish. Here is one that I took with my 15mm fisheye and then corrected:

I'd also suggest the Sigma 105mm macro... probably my favorite lens. You can get the 105mm and the 15mm for about $350 each.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/11/2006 07:34:44 PM · #12

I'm on board with Row_Bear's thinking... the 10-22 is a great choice for the 20D and matches so well with the 24-70, almost no gap at all. It is a great performer that won't let you down in optical quality and I'm sure it will hold value, since 1.6-crop is here to stay.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/11/2006 07:45:53 PM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

Thanks for the reasurrance.

I plan on upgrading whenever Canon's successor to the 1d Mark II comes out (if ever). I am hoping they keep it a 1.3 crop. I didn't want to buy a lens that I couldn't use after an upgrade. Then I was typing my response to Bear, it hit me that I would still have my 20d and therefore could still use the lens.

I think I am going to go for it and maybe the 100mm Macro.

Now to find them darn boxes deep in my closet under the stairs!

dpatterson

Canon EOS-40D

03/11/2006 07:46:52 PM · #14

I agree with Kirbic. I wasn't sure of the 10-22mm either but had heard great reviews about it from my boss. I went ahead and ordered it. I'm so happy I purchased that lense. It is simply amazing. Many consider it's optics 'L' quality. Plus with the 20D you will beable to capture nice wide shots. With the 17-40L on the XT, 20D, and 30D you won't beable to get as wide because of the 1.6 crop.

03/13/2006 05:56:03 PM · #15

Update:
Went ahead and purchased the Canon 10-22mm and the Canon 100mm Macro :) I am so excited. Of course, I have to wait for them to get to my mom's in Colorado and she will ship them to Guam. The things I will do to get the best price..LOL

Selling my other two lenses seems to be pretty easy. I've already sold the 75-300mm IS and someone else is interested in the 28-135 IS :)

Thanks for your help, everyone!

Prof_Fate

03/13/2006 06:36:49 PM · #16

A couple of thoughts before I recomend a lens...
If you want a FF camera, fine. Some at canon have said the 1.3 crop sensor is a dead end path. Of all the dSLRs on the market (about 14 models) only 2 are FF, and both canon. So there is not a big rush to FF sensors - I have to ask why you want one? What benefit do you see for yourself?

Your 24-70 on the 20D is acting like a 38-105 will on a FF body. If you get, say a sigma 12-24 (works on FF) then on the FF it IS a 12-24, on the 20D it's like an 18-38. I guess what I'm trying to say is, on te FF you may not need a wider lens than you have now, so the wider one you want IS for the 20D and e-FS/APS or similar works on it.

Tokina 12-24 f4. extremely nice lens, and 1/2 the price of the canon 10-22 and faster too. it will work on a 1.3 crop camera from 14mm on up.

macro: canon 100 2.8. perhaps one of the third party lenses as i hear they are all very similar, but similar in price too, and I've used the canon.

BTW, there is a difference between E-FS and third party APS lenses - the E-FS is canon only, and only works on the 300/350/20/30 camera bodies. Teh APS lenses from everybody else will 'work' on all canon bodies, you may get (ok, will get) vignetteing on 1.3 and FF bodies. The E-FS lens will not let the mirror move, so they physically don't work and may damage the camera.

If you have to have wide and FF, the only option I'd consider is the Sigma 12-24. Very nice lens, but not quite as nice as the tokina, but it works on FF.