| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2005 08:39:25 PM · #1 |
Yes another lens thread(sorry)... I wish I was made of money! That said, I'm sure that a lot of us wish we could all own "L" glass. I've decided to go with the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for my long reach needs, but I need help finding a wide angle zoom. Yes I "want" the 16-35L or the 17-40L but I can’t help but wonder what other DPC’ers use and where I might look to find something more affordable. I did not buy the "Kit /w lens" when I bought my XT, so is any body using the;
Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG Aspherical HSM
Or the
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC?
I'm really leaning towards the 17-40L but I just don't want to spend that much on a lens if I don't have to?
TIA
Robert
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:42:26 PM · #2 |
Do I read you correctly that the Sigma 70-300mm is currently your only lens?
Anyway, the 17-40mm would be my choice though I feel you made a mistake not buying the kit lens with the camera. If you are tight on money the kit lens is still a decent buy. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:44:26 PM · #3 |
Can't help ya much...I've only used the 17-40 and I like it very much.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:52:52 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by andri:
Do I read you correctly that the Sigma 70-300mm is currently your only lens?
Anyway, the 17-40mm would be my choice though I feel you made a mistake not buying the kit lens with the camera. If you are tight on money the kit lens is still a decent buy. |
Hehehe sorry I currently own the canon 28-135 is usm and the 50 mk2. Thanks for your input guys, the sigma is like $180 less, so yes, I might just go with the 17-40L
Robert
edit=fat fingers
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 20:53:46. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 09:07:11 PM · #5 |
| I got Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX-DG and very happy with,Sigma 18-50 f2.8 looks good too ! |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 09:11:47 PM · #6 |
I have access to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8, which is my favourite wide angle zoom (although multiplied by 1.6..., well, not very wide).
Compared to the cost of this lens, the EF 17-40mm, which I own, is a steal. I don't think there is better value.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 09:14:45 PM · #7 |
I'll be watching this one closely as I am looking for something sharp/faster on the short end.
Anyone using the Tamron SP AF 17-35mm 2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)?
I have heard the Sigma 17-35mm gets dark on the corners?
Andy
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 21:15:53.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2005 07:33:34 PM · #8 |
When I got my 20D I also got the Canon 17-85/4.5 IS which is a nice flexible lens. To be honest though, I wish it was a 2.8 or so because I find that, even with the IS, it can be a bit soft and it is not well suited for lower light conditions.
The one below I was going for a older softer look but the image came out even softer than I wanted:
In good light, it works very well ... in lower light I just make sure to keep the tripod handy.
Good luck
Jeff |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 07:34:56 PM · #9 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-04-19 19:35:21. |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 07:39:30 PM · #10 |
Dumb question but I am FOREVER getting the "faster" term mixed up. Can someone explain it to me in a way that I won't forget it?
Doesn't a faster lens have the lower F-stop range, 2.5, 2.8 etc. vs 4.5? That is the one terminology that I never seem to get right.
Thanks
J |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 07:45:06 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Hoser:
Dumb question but I am FOREVER getting the "faster" term mixed up. Can someone explain it to me in a way that I won't forget it?
Doesn't a faster lens have the lower F-stop range, 2.5, 2.8 etc. vs 4.5? That is the one terminology that I never seem to get right.
Thanks
J |
yes, that is how I see it too. the smaller the f-stop the larger the opening for more light to get in. more light=less time the shutter needs to stay open.
Robert |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 10:09:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Hoser:
Can someone explain it to me in a way that I won't forget it? |
Writen properly, an f stop looks like this: f/1.8. It's a mathamatical formula in the form of a fraction. When the number on the bottom gets bigger, the value of the formula gets smaller. The f on top of the formula is actually the focal length of the lens. So a 50 mm f/1.8 wide open has an aperture opening of 27.77 mm. The same lens at f/8 has an opening of only 6.25 mm. Hope that helps (and I got it right :-P)...
|
|
|
|
04/19/2005 10:14:10 PM · #13 |
Canon 17-40mm f/4L, no question, it an extremely sharp lens, some say better than the 16-35mm f/2.8L and on a 1.6x crop camera like the 350D it's a perfect walk around lens.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:25:26 PM · #14 |
The f stop I understand but the term 'faster lens' I keep getting backwards. I have seen used in many different ways as well leading to further confusion. My understanding has always been that the 'faster' lenses have wider aperture ranges ... thus a 2.8 is faster than a 4.5.
Just want to be sure in my terminology.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:27:03 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Hoser:
thus a 2.8 is faster than a 4.5.
|
Exactly
A 2.8 lens lets you shoot with a faster Tv (shuter speed) due to the more qty of light.
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 14:30:00. |
|
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: 09/16/2025 03:31:36 AM EDT.
