| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2005 10:11:16 AM · #51 |
no arguement, but my 28mm and 50mm combined was $140.00 cheaper than yours and there are times when the 1.8 is needed over a 2.8, but your point is well taken.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hopper:
...primes take better quality photo's than zooms and they're much less expensive. |
The $369 Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di is sharper, quieter and focuses faster than a 50mm f/1.8 prime, and gives you the flexibility of a zoom with good range. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:13:55 AM · #52 |
Thanks for the link, Coolhar. I knew I had seen those ratings before, but I couldn't find them.
Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM LÂ 4.15 (5) = very-goodÂ
Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP 4.14 (3) = very-good |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:19:26 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
While a 35mm lens would be the most suitable prime for a walkaround; But with any prime, you'll want another lens for a different focal length. I don't think needing a second lens with you qualifies either one as a walk-around. An ideal walk-around zoom has decent wide-angle, standard, and medium telephoto focal lengths. A wide aperture also helps, but certainly isn't economical. I think the 17-85 IS is the only lens that can be considered ideal for a walk-around in the focal range aspect. F2.8 and sharper optics would be awesome if it weren't for the price that would come with it. |
"F2.8 and sharper optics" are available at about half the price if you are willing to sacriface 11mm of focal length at the bottom end of the scale. See the previous posts about the Tamron 28-75.
Plexxoid, are you just automatically disregarding any lens that isn't made by Canon? Most of what I've read questions the value of IS for a zoom in the range of the 17-85, with many saying it is a way Canon can charge more without having to deliver fast apertures. Have you considered the 28-200 with it wider range, faster apertures, and lower price?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:31:53 AM · #54 |
I realize I am disregarding third-party lenses, I'm sure there are some good ones. I'm not very knowlegeable on these, I should get researching...
The 10 millimeters of wide-angle are especially what I'm concerned with. 28x1.6 is almost equivalent to a standard lens, the 17-27 range is very valueable to me. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:54:54 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
While a 35mm lens would be the most suitable prime for a walkaround; But with any prime, you'll want another lens for a different focal length. I don't think needing a second lens with you qualifies either one as a walk-around. An ideal walk-around zoom has decent wide-angle, standard, and medium telephoto focal lengths. A wide aperture also helps, but certainly isn't economical. I think the 17-85 IS is the only lens that can be considered ideal for a walk-around in the focal range aspect. F2.8 and sharper optics would be awesome if it weren't for the price that would come with it. |
Umm why do you need a second lens if you are using a prime?
That's why you have feet.
Also, on a 1.6 factor camera, a 28mm lens is as close to a "normal" focal length lens as a 35mm lens.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 11:31:45 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
A: The left image in both cases is the Sigma!
Surprises me too. I was expecting the Sigma to do well, but not look better than the Canon. |
The focus point from the image on the left to the image on the right is different. On the R imgage there is more back focus then the L image that is why the L image looks sharper on the flower.
This is the left image:
Look at the flowers in the back and look at the red leaf coming down from the top left corner.
This is the image from the right:
The subject flower looks less in focus on this one, but the redish leaf hanging down from the top left corner, the smaller yellow flower in the back and the patterns on the red flowers in the back are all more in focus in the image taken with the 50mm.
This does not mean one lens is sharper then the other. All it says is that the focus point on the right hand image is farther back by a few mm. This may ideed be the fault of the lens giving false signals to the camera or the way the camera reads the scene through a different lens. Or it may have been an error in the way the lenses were set up. That is why when testing the sharpness of a lens or comparing one to another, to be objective, a flat detailed surface is most often used.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 11:36:06 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by insteps:
I'm a big fan of the 28-135 IS USM F4-5.6. This is my primary walk around and travel lens. If you can only have one lens this is a good choice. I bought this lens about 10 months ago and have no regrets. |
I bought this lens with my 20d instead of getting the other kit lenses and I really like it. It's not as wide as I'd like with the 1.6 factor, but otherwise good range and the image quality seems pretty sharp. Saving now for the 70-200 2.8L IS with extender, and maybe pick up the 50mm 1.8. And then eventually a wide zoom. ...And then the 180mm macro... it never ends. |
|
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: 07/18/2025 01:59:32 AM EDT.
