| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2004 07:59:58 PM · #1 |
I'd like to get a fast lens to help me take better pictures of my tropical tank and was looking at the canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (£199) anybody have this lens or suggest others? Most of my fish are either mainly silver (very reflective) or black (doh!) so flash is really out. The light in my tanks is not very bright (1.5 watts per gal in 1 tank and 2 watts per gall in the other) so am looking for a faster lens to capture decent images without flash. I was considering the 17-40 f4L but thought the saving of £250 might help towards the upgrade the old pc!
any advice/suggestions would be much appreciated.
current arsenal
kit lens 18-55
28-135 IS
75-300 IS
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 10:27:54 PM · #2 |
The 50mm f1.8 is hard to beat...
Costs about $70
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 11:06:46 PM · #3 |
Ecce....
Looking at your current stable, you are on the right track in considering a 50mm. Gordon's suggestion of the f/1.8 instead of the f/1.4 is the way many have gone that enjoy saving some money. Many photography teachers recommend that the FIRST slr lense is a 50mm.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 11:45:23 PM · #4 |
Another possibility would be to consider the Sigma 24mm F/1.8 Aspherical Macro. It is more expensive than the 50mm F/1.8 at about $299, but it has potential advantages to the 50mm for shooting fish in an aquarium:
It is wider, allowing you to get closer to the glass and limit reflections, and it also has a much shorter minimum focusing distance (7.1") than the 50mm F/1.8 (18").
I do not own the lens, but it has gotten some decent reviews. I bought one over a year ago but had to return it due to a sticky aperature, and I ended up looking at other lens options. But the images it produced were pretty good. Anyway, just something else to consider.
PS - I would still buy the 50mm F/1.8 on general principle - best bang for the buck out there. A very useful lens, and one I use quite often.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2004 11:54:18 PM · #5 |
Don't discount that 50/1.4. If you can afford the extra cash, it makes a difference. I have it and love it. It's extraordinary sharpness, and 1.4 aperture, not to mention the USM motor, internal focusing, and higher build quality. If you can't afford it, go for the 1.8, btu the 1.4 is indeed better if you want to sport the cash. I have the 1.4 and love it. It's my "photographers" lens.
-Will
|
|
|
|
07/15/2004 03:19:51 PM · #6 |
Thanks for your help peeps, the 17-40 f4l is still my favourite choice (isn't it everybodies?) but will probably get something else to keep me going while I save my pennies :)
|
|
|
|
07/15/2004 08:43:50 PM · #7 |
I was actually looking at the same lens (Canon 17-40 f/4) but then I found the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 for about $460. That's the next lens I'll probably buy. It has their equivalanet of the USM motor and is aspherical. OK, my first choice is the Canon 16-25 f/2.8 but I don't have an extra $1300 sitting next to me.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2004 08:55:58 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Thanks for your help peeps, the 17-40 f4l is still my favourite choice (isn't it everybodies?) |
Not mine, I dream of Canon 16-35 f/2.8 :)
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 11:35:35 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I was actually looking at the same lens (Canon 17-40 f/4) but then I found the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 for about $460. That's the next lens I'll probably buy. It has their equivalanet of the USM motor and is aspherical. OK, my first choice is the Canon 16-25 f/2.8 but I don't have an extra $1300 sitting next to me. |
Thanks for the inputs :) I did read some reviews on the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 and they were not very good quality optically. My local camera shop suggested a Canon 35mm f2, the guy said he gets them in sometimes. As for the 16-35 f2.8 I couldn't even dream of spending that much money on 1 lens.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2004 01:37:37 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Thanks for the inputs :) I did read some reviews on the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 and they were not very good quality optically. My local camera shop suggested a Canon 35mm f2, the guy said he gets them in sometimes. As for the 16-35 f2.8 I couldn't even dream of spending that much money on 1 lens. |
I've already done that with my 24-70 f/2.8 L and that set me back about $1200. But I tell you what, that lens is on my camera 99% of the time and I love it and I highly recommend it. If the 16-35 f/2.8 is the same, I would not hesitate for one minute spending that much on a lens. So I guess you helped me make my choice between the Sigma and the Canon.
|
|
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 05:24:19 PM EDT.
