| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2007 06:47:23 PM · #1 |
Looking at buying my next Canon lens.
I already own :
50mm 1.8
17-40 f4 L USM
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 06:48:37 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:14:08 PM · #3 |
I only own one and it's my favorite for sure!!
50mm f/1.8
Dream lens would be either 24-70 f/2.8 L or 85mm f/1.2 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:15:52 PM · #4 |
My favorite lens remains the FD 35mm F2 SSC. I love my new digital gear, but man . . . I really miss that lens.
If you are looking to update your current setup, I'd recommend picking up the 100mm f2. Very cool for portraits (even at 1.6x) and I also use it for compressed landscapes. Very close to being the best Canon lens you can get (imho) without shelling out for L glass. (The 50mm f1.4 being THE best.) It would also complement your current setup by giving you a little extra reach.
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 19:22:38. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:16:23 PM · #5 |
| 24-70 F/2.8L It has to be the best walk-around lense. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:18:15 PM · #6 |
Alright I am a Nikon user but this is my favorite of the three lenses I own:
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro
It felt like I had rediscovered photography all over again when I put this on my body. A real great piece of glass!
Now that I sound like a total freak...
Anyways its available for Canon as well.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:19:22 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by b0gdan:
Looking at buying my next Canon lens.
I already own :
50mm 1.8
17-40 f4 L USM |
I own both and if I had to choose one I would choose the 17-40 - but if price was/is an issue there's no doubt: If you compare price/quality the 50 mm wins by a large margin. It's a damn good lens for a damn good price... :) (if you can get the "old" version second hand it's even better)
...and my next lens: probably the 100-400 L or maybe 70-200 f/2.8 L + extender... |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:27:03 PM · #8 |
The 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is my always "on" lens. It continues to surprise me with its versatility, speed and image quality. I'm not a big IS fan, as 99% of my shots are tripod mount. But, occasionally hand-held shots are necessary and this lens does not come up short.
For wildlife shots, I have been pleasantly surprised numerous times with the 400mm f/5.6L USM telephoto. Exceptionally sharp images for a reasonable price (for "L" glass).
I could go on... |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:27:24 PM · #9 |
100-400 L USM I just got this lens from a friend to play around for the
week .. Pretty impressive but damn it's heavy ..
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 19:27:58. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:27:50 PM · #10 |
| Toss up between the 24-105 and the 50 1.4 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:30:45 PM · #11 |
85f1.8 in most cases but 10-22 is close in some situations.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:31:13 PM · #12 |
| 24-105mm f/4L IS USM sounds good but f4 is not that good for low light ..considering I don't like to use flash... |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:34:29 PM · #13 |
| 24-70/F2.8L is a great walkaround lens, highly recommend it! My favorite is the 70-200/F2.8L IS, bit expensive, but LOVE that lens! |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:45:41 PM · #14 |
| 24-105mm f/4L IS VS 24-70mm f/2.8L They both sound good but which one is better ? |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:07:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by b0gdan:
24-105mm f/4L IS VS 24-70mm f/2.8L They both sound good but which one is better ? |
The 24-70 is probably marginally better at f/4, and of course infinitely better at f/2.8 ;-)
For wide angle and live subjects, there's not that great an advantage to IS. Example: I can hand-hold at 24mm, f/4 and 1/25s. With IS, I could get 1/3s, which is great for still life shots, but even 1/25 is pushing it for people. So advantage goes to the 24-70/2.8 where I can open up a stop and shoot at 1/50 :-)
FWIW, the 24-70 is right near the top of my favorites list, along with the 70-200/2.8 IS... oh yeh, and the 15/2.8 fisheye... and the 100/2.8 Macro. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:11:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by b0gdan:
24-105mm f/4L IS VS 24-70mm f/2.8L They both sound good but which one is better ? |
The 24-70 is probably marginally better at f/4, and of course infinitely better at f/2.8 ;-)
For wide angle and live subjects, there's not that great an advantage to IS. Example: I can hand-hold at 24mm, f/4 and 1/25s. With IS, I could get 1/3s, which is great for still life shots, but even 1/25 is pushing it for people. So advantage goes to the 24-70/2.8 where I can open up a stop and shoot at 1/50 :-)
FWIW, the 24-70 is right near the top of my favorites list, along with the 70-200/2.8 IS... oh yeh, and the 15/2.8 fisheye... and the 100/2.8 Macro. |
You don't list this one: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L. Why do you even have it? |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:14:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You don't list this one: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L. Why do you even have it? |
Figures someone would call me on that, LOL!
Seriously, it is an awesome lens, and one that I would not part with, but definitely a special-purpose lens. Were it not for the fact that the 24-70 is so *damn* good, it would see more use, but it mostly sees use for very low-light work and astro stuff (which is the main reason I bought it). |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:45:04 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The 24-70 is probably marginally better at f/4, and of course infinitely better at f/2.8 ;-)
For wide angle and live subjects, there's not that great an advantage to IS. Example: I can hand-hold at 24mm, f/4 and 1/25s. With IS, I could get 1/3s, which is great for still life shots, but even 1/25 is pushing it for people. So advantage goes to the 24-70/2.8 where I can open up a stop and shoot at 1/50 :-)
|
Yes, but one of the advantages of IS is that one can stop down and still be able to hand-hold (too wide an aperture leads to too little DOF, obviously). A plus for building interiors ( for example), not people, I grant you.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:58:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The 24-70 is probably marginally better at f/4, and of course infinitely better at f/2.8 ;-)
For wide angle and live subjects, there's not that great an advantage to IS. Example: I can hand-hold at 24mm, f/4 and 1/25s. With IS, I could get 1/3s, which is great for still life shots, but even 1/25 is pushing it for people. So advantage goes to the 24-70/2.8 where I can open up a stop and shoot at 1/50 :-)
|
Yes, but one of the advantages of IS is that one can stop down and still be able to hand-hold (too wide an aperture leads to too little DOF, obviously). A plus for building interiors ( for example), not people, I grant you. |
Yep, true, everything's a trade-off. Personally, though, give me speed over IS at wide angle any day. DoF @ 24mm is really not that shallow, even at 2.8 or faster. For example, at 24mm and f/2.0 on my 5D, I have 3.5 feet of DoF at a subject distance of only 10 feet (2.4 feet at f/1.4!).
One more point of difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70; the 24-70 has *much* less distortion at 24mm. Distortions mostly correctable in post, so not a big consideration, but still... |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:08:35 PM · #20 |
| Not canon, but what about some extention tubes for macro. Could be fun. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:41:25 PM · #21 |
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Canon 100-400
Canon 10-22
Sigma 105 macro
...roughly in that order. Quite possibly the only lenses I'll ever need (yeah, riiiiight). |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:43:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by robs:
85f1.8 in most cases |
By far my favorite. It takes sharper pictures than any of the L glass I own or have owned.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 02:10:05 PM EST.
