| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2004 07:04:40 PM · #1 |
Rather than building a selection of lenses over a period of time and spending loads of money, would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket with a Canon EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6 L USM . I may be in dream world here but can see me spending £400+ on (maybe) 3 lenses and still wanting that little extra (better lenses and the 10D etc etc)
Message edited by author 2004-05-12 19:08:48.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:19:24 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:25:27 PM · #3 |
| Both of those lenses are rather large and bulky. Would you want that as an only lens? |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:27:45 PM · #4 |
Doesn't the 300D Rebel come with a lens? If so, this wouldn't be Ecce's only lens. It would be the only lens bought separate. Right?
Anyhow, I'd want a superb quality lens with an image stablizer!!! Not sure which since I can't afford it and haven't looked due to lack of funds. :) |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:30:49 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Both of those lenses are rather large and bulky. Would you want that as an only lens? |
LOL, When I was shooting film with my Elan II I had a Tamron 28-300mm f/4.5-6.3 zoom lens, and I went on a 1 month camping trip in Southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana and Namibia. And I tell ya, was I ever glad I had to carry only one lens! Conditions ranged from 100% humidity in the Okavango delta to blowing sandstorms in the Namib desert. You DON'T want to have to change lenses under these conditions.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:49:53 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 07:55:06 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by TLL061:
canon 70-200 2.8 |
I wouldn't want to have 70mm as my minimum focal length. Pretty restrictive.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2004 08:15:12 PM · #8 |
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro.
Yeah, I'm crazy! ;-)
:)atwl
|
|
|
|
05/12/2004 08:42:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
Originally posted by TLL061:
canon 70-200 2.8 |
I wouldn't want to have 70mm as my minimum focal length. Pretty restrictive. |
Well, there is range, and there's quality. I have a feeling that's what TLL061's priority is.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2004 08:45:15 PM · #10 |
| There is no such lens which will cover useful range with high quality,just buy an Sony 717! |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 08:52:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Rather than building a selection of lenses over a period of time and spending loads of money, would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket |
No! Why did you buy an SLR? The whole purpose is to have the ability to mount lenses with specific purposes in mind. Whether they be Prime's or Zoom's. Buy a point and shoot................
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 12:54:06 AM · #12 |
Just ONE?!?!
OK then, 35mm f2.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 01:07:19 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by DJLuba:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Rather than building a selection of lenses over a period of time and spending loads of money, would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket |
No! Why did you buy an SLR? The whole purpose is to have the ability to mount lenses with specific purposes in mind. Whether they be Prime's or Zoom's. Buy a point and shoot................ |
Exactly, Why buy a DSLR? If I had to make a choice I would go for the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM pointed out by DrNick.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 01:20:09 AM · #14 |
Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5 is a good start-up lens $310
Arizona photos with Sigma lens |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 02:15:20 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Rather than building a selection of lenses over a period of time and spending loads of money, would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket with a Canon EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6 L USM . I may be in dream world here but can see me spending £400+ on (maybe) 3 lenses and still wanting that little extra (better lenses and the 10D etc etc) |
Iâve been using my Canon 35-350 since March, and I think itâs a great lens. It is a bit heavy, but thatâs because itâs built like a tank. Until I got my macro lens, it was the only lens I had. It is nice not having to switch lenses. Just remember the focal length multiplier of your camera (if any) will crop the field of view. On my Canon 10D, the multiplier is 1.6x, so the 35mm focal length of my lens actually provides the field of view of a 56mm lens.
--Mick
Message edited by author 2004-05-13 02:16:31.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 01:10:30 PM · #16 |
Well, maybe I imbibed just a little too many hops last night!
The question was an open one and it got some decent responses but maybe one or two didn't quite get the question? (more likely it was badly phrased). Maybe utopia would be £10k worth of prime L glass and 2 people to carry it around for you. I,like many/most here are on a fixed budget and as amateurs cannot afford the best of everything.
Remember I was asking what I felt was a valid question. The answer to "would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket with a ..." would have been more wisely put with a No rather than "stick with a point and shoot" If you can show me a p/s that has the ccd, range and quality of a 300D with a 35-350 L lens then yes, maybe I should stick with one! I'll probably go for the 75-300 USM IS lens and wait a while before filling the gap between the kit lens and zoom.
Why did I upgrade to a dSLR? maybe this helped somewhat.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 01:26:42 PM · #17 |
I have owned this lens and have found the optical quality to be quite respectable. There are some serious limitations to this lens though. First of all the aperture range is pretty slow and the lens does not have IS. Second this is quite a big and heavy 35mm lens (compared to something like the 35mm f/2 or a 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6â¦). Also, on a 1.6x crop camera 35mm isnât all that wide, it is more of a normal focal length. The lens is pretty big and itâs white so you will attract a lot of attention with it. I have found that when I am taking pictures of people they are a lot less intimidated when I point a small black lens at them than they are when I point a big white lens at them. People immediately say things like, âOh you canât take a picture of me with that thing! It will shot every wrinkle!!!â On the long end I would MUCH rather have a lens with IS and. If it were me and I was dead set on having only one lens I would really look hard at the new 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM. It looks like it is going to be very expensive but it should be a much better solution to the all-in-one question.
Greg
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Rather than building a selection of lenses over a period of time and spending loads of money, would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket with a Canon EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6 L USM . I may be in dream world here but can see me spending £400+ on (maybe) 3 lenses and still wanting that little extra (better lenses and the 10D etc etc) |
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 01:39:49 PM · #18 |
Hey Ecce
I have the 35-350 right now and its a love/hate relationship. My ONLY problem with the lens is that it doesn't have IS. That means that at the long end I have to try for fast shutter speeds to keep the blur down, and I need to work on my technique for steady hand holding. Other than that issue I love the lens. Optically its awesome, focus is very fast usually, sharp (unless like I said you get shakey), its not as big as some other lenses, and the 35-350 range is unbeatable. I knew I wasn't going to be able to afford the new 28-300 so this was my option. It stays on my camera almost all the time. I shoot mostly journalistic photos...
I also have the 16-35L, 50 1.8, and 100 Macro.
If its possible I'd go and try one of the 35-350s out at a store or rent it or something and see how you feel with it.
Best of luck
Dave |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 02:39:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Remember I was asking what I felt was a valid question. The answer to "would it be a wise thing to put all your eggs in one basket with a ..." would have been more wisely put with a No rather than "stick with a point and shoot" If you can show me a p/s that has the ccd, range and quality of a 300D with a 35-350 L lens then yes, maybe I should stick with one! I'll probably go for the 75-300 USM IS lens and wait a while before filling the gap between the kit lens and zoom.
Why did I upgrade to a dSLR? maybe this helped somewhat. |
//www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/index.html isn't far off what you are asking for...
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 02:54:22 PM · #20 |
Edit: This was typed before I read the second post that you wanted a lens in addition to the kitlens. So if anyone wants a 10D and only one lens get the:
If I could only buy one lens for say 500 dollars, I think I'd go for the new Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX DG lens (check announcement here). But, a big but, I would want to see it perform before I buy it. Because it isn't available yet I haven't read anything about the optical quality.
Why?
Its allround, the focal lengths can be used for a lot of things (it sees like a 38-96 lens on the 300D).
This line of Sigma lenses usually has good quality.
It has a constant wide (F2.8) aperture and that also makes it usable in low light (higher shutter speed, shallower dof, better AF performance).
Minimum focussing distance is 38cm, very useful.
I think it will be in good weight balance with the camera body, especially the 300D.
It is easy to carry around and doesn't draw a lot of attention at 87mm long.
Nine blade diaphragm, the usual rule for good bokeh is: the more blades the better. Nine is good.
It is a good middle lens for future extension of your lens collection, you could add the Sigma 12-24 and 70-200 later and have the full range covered.
Another thing to think about is:
It is very hard to get wideangle with a telezoom lens. The perspective will always be compressed. Sometimes it is very hard to step back to get a wider view (like a wall or a river).
It is a lot easier to 'get' 'telezoom' from a 24-60 (38-96 for you).
a) you add a teleconverter
b) you physically get closer to the subject (not always possible)
The only thing you will miss is perspective compression.
I don't know what you want to use the one lens for, but give it some good thinking. Personnaly I'd feel very restricted with only a long telezoom and such a slow aperture at the tele end.
Message edited by author 2004-05-13 15:58:34.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:15:45 PM · #21 |
If you want one lens to do it all.... sell the SLR. After all you haul around that bulky box so you can slap different lenses on it for different needs. Of course the fact that it is an impossible question to answer dosen't mean I have no opinion.
If you are strong like superman and shoot wildlife or sports, the Bigma is tough to beat for pure zoom range, at a decent quality. Too bad you need arms like Popey to use the thing for more than an hour if you are hand holding.
For walkaround work I love the Tamaron 28-75 XR Di is a real pleasure and tack sharp.
You mentioned the 75-300 IS which I belive to be the best deal for a "do everything" in combination with the kit lens. You mentioned getting that and waiting to fill in the 55-75 range for later, trust me you won't miss that range really. With the crop of 1.6 you are talking the renge between 88mm and 120mm not a range I use too much. What you will miss is something that can shoot faster than f4. The 50mm 1.8 for sixty bucks fills the hole pretty well.
If there was one lense that I would have to leave on my camera and use it to the end of my days I would buy the 70-200 2.8 L IS. Perhaps the perfect lens.
Four answers to "what is the one lens". Not much help I guess
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:22:41 PM · #22 |
To refine my previous post...
I know several photojournalists who use the 35-350L almost exclusively, myself included. For what it is, what it does, and what it cost it is the best lens (that I've seen) for the job (ie, all in one).
If this lens had IS it would be perfect, but as-is it still kicks butt. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 03:38:26 PM · #23 |
If I could only have one it would be the 35mm f/1.4L.
I know a lot of people don't believe in the "standard" lens these days, but I believe that perspective can have the most impact if used well. I know it's not right for all situations, but if I can only have one the speed is more important to me than the zoom range.
Now as to why buy a dSLR for only one lens.
-> Fast shutter response
-> Large sensor
-> Usabe usable viewfinder (usable if you can affort the full frame)
-> It feels like a camera
|
|
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: 09/11/2025 05:50:01 PM EDT.
