| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2005 10:40:02 PM · #1 |
I've currently got the so-so kit lens and the Canon 50mm F1.8.
I already know that I'll eventually get a decent telephoto someday, but I think that for me, it'll be a less day-to-day useful lens for now. So I'm trying to decide between getting a wide-angle to use as an everyday walkaround, or if I should get something to do macro shots.
What suggestions would you make, given what I have now, get a wider lens for walkaround, or something to do macros? I understand that you don't know my shooting habits. I am not sure I do either, I'm curious to a certain extent what you've found more useful in your kit. Also suggested options for what to get...
Thanks! |
|
|
|
02/16/2005 10:43:57 PM · #2 |
| That's a tough one. A 105mm F/2.8 is a great lens for macro shots as well as portraits...kind of two lenses in one. But if you're a landscape or indoor shooter that won't serve you well at all and a wide angle is the way to go. |
|
|
|
02/16/2005 10:47:16 PM · #3 |
| You'll get a lot of opinions no doubt, but there are a lot of threads on this here already. search the forum for lens recommendation, walk around lens, etc. Lots of good info there. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 12:00:21 AM · #4 |
I bet if you got a 28-200 2.8 it would spend most of its time on your 20d. Although if you're looking for inexpensive, go for the canon ef 75-300...you're right, not as useful for what you're used to...but now that I have mine, it opens up a whole new world of what's in my reach to photograph.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 12:06:35 AM · #5 |
i have the sigma 105mm macro lens and i really love it... you would have lots of fun with it...
You can just get really close with this one... it gives a new meaning to macro photography at least for me. if you check my profile the first photos on the front page of flowers where taken with that lens. :)
and i have the kit lens that comes with the canon 20d 18-55mm and i love it to.. it's the lens that i use more on walkaround and indoors, but if i could i would buy a all around lens...
since i went from a sony f707 the wide angle of the camera wasn't so much as the canon 18-55 and once i noticed the diference i love the lens since that day. :)
Just my thoughts hope they help.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:21:23 AM · #6 |
| Well I just saw that canon announced a new EF-S macro lens at PMA. Do you think I should wait for that? Also I'm confused on a point, what defines a macro lens, is it just their very short focusing range and life size/near life size capture? Are they unable to focus on distant objects(i.e. are they usable beyond just macro, it sounds like it) and if so, is there any advantge/disadvantage for doing so? It sounds like macro lenses are often good as portrait lenses too because of the DOF properties? |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:29:38 AM · #7 |
I have the 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm 1.8 II.
I have just ordered the Canon 70-200mm F4 L, and next I am going to replace the kit lens with the Tamron 2.8 28-75mm XR di.
Not sure this helps you but I suppose it's good to see what others have/are doing.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:29:42 AM · #8 |
| The Canon 2.8 100mm macro is a great lens for portraits and other things, but on the digital body its a 160mm. It's the sharpess lens I own. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:54:53 AM · #9 |
Corwyn,
You may want to look at the Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 XR Di lens. It's compact and built for digital. It does have Macro capability of 1:2.9 ratio. True macro has a 1:1 ratio and is a prime lens. Unfortunately zoom lenses, don't give a 1:1 ratio for macro. I got mine for $360. It really is a good lens. Sharp pictures fast AF, comes with lens hood.
Tamron 28-300mm lens
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 10:55:20. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:25:05 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I bet if you got a 28-200 2.8 it would spend most of its time on your 20d. |
Who makes the 28-200 2.8? I can't find any 2.8's with that range...
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 01:09:02 PM · #11 |
I started with the kit lens, bought the 50/1.4. Then I upgraded the kit lens to the 17-40/4L. It's a nice lens, but I find I only use it indoors when I don't have a lot of room to move around. For real wide-angle effects shots and landscapes, even 17mm on the 1.6x isn't enough to get a true QA feel anyway.
I have a 70-200/2.8IS that *lived* on my camera for many months after I got it. Amazing lens, and as someone else said, a real telephoto can open up a new world of events shooting, wildlife shooting, etc.
That having been said, the 100/2.8 macro is currently my favorite lens. God, is it *sharp*! And it's a gorgeous lens for portraiture as well.
To answer a specific question, almost all macro lenses will also focus to inifinity. This makes them more versatile than, say a 50mm with an extension tube.
-Will |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 01:40:11 PM · #12 |
I'll take a different stance than most here: I'd look at a used short prime lenses -- they're pretty cheap -- even really nice ones aren't crazy money. Something in the 28~35mm range will be a very useful addition to the bag.
Of course, it depends on your method of taking pictures: if you're interested in wildlife, or if you like to shoot further away, un-noticed, or if you like to work up close and personal.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 01:44:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by deapee:
I bet if you got a 28-200 2.8 it would spend most of its time on your 20d. |
Who makes the 28-200 2.8? I can't find any 2.8's with that range... |
There are definitely no f/2.8 "hyper-zoom" lenses. The hyper-zooms can be OK lenses if you want one lens that can serve a number of purposes and are willing to accept just OK optical performance. the lens designers are forced to make compromises, of course and they are:
- Speed; usually the hyperzooms are something like f/3.5-5.6. Not unbearably slow at the short end, but they are f/5.6 by about 100mm, and that's pretty limiting
- They may be sharp when stopped down, but are rarely very sharp wide open. This further limits them
- Contrast is usually not the best, again due to the optical compromises necessary to obtainthe wide zoom range. Contrast (and sharpness) may vary with focal length setting.
I had a Canon 28-200 that despite it's underwhelming reviews, did well for me when I needed a "do-all" lens. I like it's replacments (70-200/2.8, 24-70/2.8) much better, but my bag is a lot heavier and my wallet a lot lighter, LOL.
|
|
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: 05/11/2025 03:54:31 PM EDT.
