Need a wide fast lens - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/04/2007 03:04:23 AM · #1

Does anyone have a lens that they can recommend. I am selling the 85mm 1.8 and need something wide with either 1.8 or 1.4. I would like 24mm or wider

Any help would be great

Thanks
Lisa

mist

Canon EOS-60D

04/04/2007 03:10:55 AM · #2

Canon have a 24mm f/2.8 and a f/1.4L USM and various other fast primes. I guess it depends how much you have to spend.

04/04/2007 03:15:45 AM · #3

I guess essentially I want to sell the 85mm and hopefully get something similar in price.
Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 20mm 1.8?

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

04/04/2007 07:26:11 AM · #4

bump

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

04/04/2007 12:36:47 PM · #5

Don't sell the 85mm lens. It may not fit your desired application, but it will be useful for other things.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

04/04/2007 01:20:33 PM · #6

I believe sigma makes a 20mm 1.4 or 1.8 i can't recall which.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/04/2007 01:25:42 PM · #7

Sigma EX lenses are generally pretty good.

Sigma site

Message edited by author 2007-04-04 13:27:58.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/04/2007 01:31:49 PM · #8

Tamron makes a very good 17-50 that costs just a little more than Canon's 85mm, but it's f/2.8 :-(

mobster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/04/2007 03:09:57 PM · #9

off topic, how much are you wanting for the 85 f1.8? I'm in the market for one.

04/04/2007 04:57:51 PM · #10

mobster I am still debating whether to sell it or not.
I do love it very much, it is a fantastic lens.

I am going to do some more research today on the 20mm 1.8 that Sigma has

Anyone else have ideas?

mobster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/04/2007 07:43:36 PM · #11

Originally posted by lentil:

I am still debating whether to sell it or not.

thats cool, just please let me know if you decide to sell

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/05/2007 06:33:11 PM · #12

bump

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

04/05/2007 06:33:40 PM · #13

Canon 17-55 2.8 :D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/06/2007 06:59:02 PM · #14

one last bump

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/06/2007 07:06:27 PM · #15

Really the only lenses faster than f/2.8 in the wide angle range are the Canon 24mm f/1.4L ($1120) and the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 ($410). There is a Canon 28mm f/1.8 lens, but you said you wanted 24mm or wider. If you are willing to go with an f/2.8 lens, that opens up many more choices that are both wider and cheaper. Most of these new choices are also zoom lenses so you get both a wide and telephoto lens.

inshaala

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

04/06/2007 07:34:13 PM · #16

i hear the 16-35mm L is a great lens but i think that is well out of your price range... if you havent got the "nifty fifty" (50mm 1.8) yet then i would recommend you get it... it is wider than the 85mm obviously and isnt as wide as what you want, but it is a really good lens and well worth it...

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/06/2007 07:41:24 PM · #17

the more I look the more confused I am getting :(
I dont mind anything 2.8 at all, obviously 1.8 or better would get great.
i am beginning to love primes but I think at a wedding I would be better off with a really good zoom

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/06/2007 08:01:46 PM · #18

Originally posted by lentil:

...I dont mind anything 2.8 at all, obviously 1.8 or better would get great...

Ok, well in that case I would make the following reccommendations:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L - Wonderful lens if you can pony up the $1600 for it.
Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS - Also a wonderful lens that packs IS, but pricy at $1000.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX - Getting into the affordable range at $400ish.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP - Little more than the Sigma at $450

The other example in this category would be the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and the Canon 17-40mm f/4L, but they are slower than the other lenses. However, a wide lens is not as prone to camera shake as a tele lens, so fast wide lenses are hard to find. Tokina is supposed to be coming out with a 16-50mm f/2.8 lens sometime soon, but it won't be cheap.

Edit to add: If you need that extra stop or two, you can always bump up the ISO (if you haven't already done so). The 400D can take very usable shots at ISO1600.

Message edited by author 2007-04-06 20:02:47.

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/07/2007 07:46:07 PM · #19

Originally posted by lentil:

I'd recommend the 24-70L f/2.8 (used for about $1000) with the sigma 14mm prime (used for about $600) for wide angles. The combination should cover almost everything but your telephoto which I'd recommend the 100-400 (used for about $1000) but clarity lacks compared to a prime.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/07/2007 08:30:18 PM · #20

Originally posted by lentil:

Lisa,

f/2.8 will work just fine for weddings. You'll probably want to add the 16-35 range and a f/2.8 telephoto like the 70-200 for weddings.

Tamron has an SP series 17-35

Personally, I'd try to keep the 85 around, it's a great portrait lens, though the 70-200 could take over it's duties.

edit - that is to say, sell the 75-300 and the kit lens intstead, and make the investment to make sure you get the shots.

Message edited by author 2007-04-07 20:32:05.

Prof_Fate

04/07/2007 08:30:21 PM · #21

Is this for weddings?

a) you'll find a 30D better than a 400...better ergonomics and focus.
b) your 85 1.8 is probably your best lens. the tamron 28-75 is also very good.
Get the canon 10-22 3.5-4.5. It's very wide (the 1/6 crop version of the 16-35 2.8) and it's very low on distortion. The tokina 12-24 F4 would be my second choice. The canon is faster, sharper and has better resale and probably better build quality.

Very wide lenses have great DOF even wide open, so fast gets you very little benefit, but the cost and size goes up. Remember, at 10 mm 1/10 second is plenty shutter speed to avoid camera shake.

Sell the kit lens.
sell you long tele zoom as soon as you can afford a 70-200 2.8 of any kind (or the newer 50-135/150 2.8 zooms). I love my 70-200 and plan to get teh canon IS version next year.

I recently got the canon 17-55 2.8 IS and it's amazing. There are times where 17 isn't wide enough, but that's mostly for panoramic style church shots and the like, scene setters/background for the album stuff. I bet 60% of my 1100 shots last week were with the 17-55 and NOT ONE shot was bad focus/camera shake - a big improvement over the sigma I had been using.

If you weren't on the other side of the planet i'd make you an offer for the 85 1.8 - i'm getting one next month - as soon as I can find one in stock or used.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/08/2007 07:04:05 PM · #22

well.. i shot a wedding yesterday and only used the tamron and the 85mm. i have 789 shots to go through and found that the 85 was great yesterday as I had much more room in the reception area to move around. I know that wont always be the case :)
Pro_fate: i only just bought the 400d, I have no plans of buying another camera yet.

Will show some pics when I have gone through them

Thanks for all your help
Lisa

Prof_Fate

04/08/2007 07:22:37 PM · #23

I moved from the 300 to the 30 and the difference...wow. I immediately sold the 300 and bought a used 20D as backup/second body. It cost me an extra $500 but was well worth it.

In theory it's the photographer and not the equipment, but as a working pro you have a need to get the image, the best image, every time, regardless of the conditions. Too dark? sorry, you gotta get the image anyway. Raining? Camera dies? If you're paying a pro you don't want excuses, but results, be that the guy cutting grass, cooking steaks, fixing your car or your hernia. And in marginal conditions better equipment wins over the cheaper consumer gear every time.

More lenses means more variety of images and more images to sell, and overall an higher end look - and that look then lets you charge more money so the investment does pay off.

I want the 85 for the look I get with it-= the exremely shallow DOF as I want to pursue the PJ look - I like it and it's not widespread here so it sets me apart. I live in a VERY traditional area - 90%+ of the weddings could run off the same script, and 75% of the competition does just that, shooting the same way as 30 years ago - one body, one lens, one ISO, etc. Boring.

I was torn between the canon 10-22 and tokina 10-17 fisheye - but the fish wasn't out last fall when I wanted to get a lens. At the time, the 10-22 was the most expensive lens I had purchased. Now the 17-55 2.8 IS is that lens, and next year it'll be the 70-200 2.8 IS - and then that one lens will be the single most expensive piece of gear I'll own!

The hardest money I had to spend was on my sigma flash - $170. It was bought solely as backup - $170 out of my pocket for something i had no intentions of using. Yuk!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/08/2007 07:31:17 PM · #24

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

In theory it's the photographer and not the equipment, but as a working pro you have a need to get the image, the best image, every time, regardless of the conditions. Too dark? sorry, you gotta get the image anyway. Raining? Camera dies? If you're paying a pro you don't want excuses, but results, be that the guy cutting grass, cooking steaks, fixing your car or your hernia. And in marginal conditions better equipment wins over the cheaper consumer gear every time.

Then why are you not using 1D mkIII and 1Ds mkII bodies? Of course, you should be using a 33MP Leaf back for any formals too.

For that matter, why don't you have all "L" glass?

Aren't you shortchanging your clients by using less than the best?