| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2003 01:55:12 PM · #26 |
The selection of Canon wide-angle primes isn't all that great in my opinion. The 14mm is so expensive that I never really considered it. I had the 20mm for a while and didn't like it all that much so I sold it. I also have the 24mm T/S-E, which I like very much. The 15mm fisheye is a super lens (very sharp and great color) but it is expensive and has limited usefulness. I had the Sigma 15-30, which was a good lens to say the least, especially for the money. I eventually sold it to get the 16-35L, which I have been extremely happy with. The first few days I had the 16-35 I was very disappointed with it and felt like I had made a huge mistake selling the Sigma. After using it some more I started seeing what the 16-35 was really capable of (real world shots instead of newspapers...). I would say if you have the money and this is a range you think you will use a lot go for the 16-35. I expect that the 17-40 will be similar in quality so this one will probably be a very good choice also (looks like it is going to be nearly $800!). If you don't want to spend the money on the L glass the Sigma is a VERY good substitute. I certainly have no hesitation recommending it, especially to someone using a camera with a 1.6x crop factor.
Greg
|
|
|
|
04/07/2003 02:04:01 PM · #27 |
That's ok, i'll skip the Rebel :-)
That's a good question -- the issue is that we're here spending money to COMPENSATE for the 1.6 factor but in 2-3 years, i am sure we'll have consumer DSLR's for full frame. Then what do we do with these extra wide lenses? 24mm for all intended purposes is probably enough on the wide side....
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
If the 17-40mm L gives decent results i might buy it, but I can probably live with 24-85 mm lens as a "generic" lens, and a 20 mm wide angle for scenic shots, and the 50 mm and 70-200mm will complement for the shots taht I want to be done "right".
|
I also thought about getting just a prime for the wide angle end of things The 20mm prime is okay, but isn't actually very wide (32mm effective). These shots were taken with a rented 20mm lens. I think I really want something closer to the 15mm end of things to get something acceptably 'wide'.
Although I did find a pretty cheap solution to the 1.6x multiplier - a Rebel Ti |
|
|
|
|
04/07/2003 02:13:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by paganini:
That's a good question -- the issue is that we're here spending money to COMPENSATE for the 1.6 factor but in 2-3 years, i am sure we'll have consumer DSLR's for full frame. Then what do we do with these extra wide lenses? 24mm for all intended purposes is probably enough on the wide side....
|
True... but we are also saving money on the long end - so that a 70-200mm has an acceptable reach with the multiplier, when it is probably a bit short otherwise. Horses for courses. (the Rebel's a horse for a darkroom course some time soon :), but it works for landscape shots where I want the 24mm too) |
|
|
|
04/07/2003 02:20:37 PM · #29 |
Interesting: //www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/
Check out the result at 24 mm, your Canon 24-85 lens beats the wide angle L lens......
I think wide angle lenses are a lot harder to construct, especially the super wide angle zooms. So I might end up just getting a 20mm lens. Sure, only 32 mm equivalent, but that's good enough for a lot of landscape shots, not quite good enough for architecture.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
That's a good question -- the issue is that we're here spending money to COMPENSATE for the 1.6 factor but in 2-3 years, i am sure we'll have consumer DSLR's for full frame. Then what do we do with these extra wide lenses? 24mm for all intended purposes is probably enough on the wide side....
|
True... but we are also saving money on the long end - so that a 70-200mm has an acceptable reach with the multiplier, when it is probably a bit short otherwise. Horses for courses. (the Rebel's a horse for a darkroom course some time soon :), but it works for landscape shots where I want the 24mm too) |
|
|
|
|
04/07/2003 03:05:40 PM · #30 |
The 24-85 is supposed to be very sharp and the 17-35 is supposed to be one of the least sharp L lenses. When I tested the Sigma 15-30 against my much more expensive 16-35L shooting newspapers I was quite dissappointed with the L lens. It wasn't until I actually went out and took some real-life shots with the 16-35 and 15-30 that the L lens showed its optical superiority. The pictures from the L do have a particular look about them that is appealing.
I think this link might have the beginnings of an explanation for this.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml
Greg |
|
|
|
04/07/2003 03:30:47 PM · #31 |
it may have much better ability to resolve luminosity values, versus just straight black and white ability which is what MTF tests are.
Problem with Wide angle is that you're expecting to have both :) i think i'll stick with 20 mm prime, and add the 24-85 mm for "travel" purposes. $700 total. Hmm, maybe i should just buy a 17-40mm for that price :-) hard decisions!
Originally posted by dadas115:
The 24-85 is supposed to be very sharp and the 17-35 is supposed to be one of the least sharp L lenses. When I tested the Sigma 15-30 against my much more expensive 16-35L shooting newspapers I was quite dissappointed with the L lens. It wasn't until I actually went out and took some real-life shots with the 16-35 and 15-30 that the L lens showed its optical superiority. The pictures from the L do have a particular look about them that is appealing.
I think this link might have the beginnings of an explanation for this.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml
Greg |
|
|
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: 09/05/2025 07:01:24 PM EDT.
