Need some lens advice... - DPChallenge Forums

06/07/2005 12:07:15 PM · #1

I already have a 70-200mm f/2.8. I am looking to replace my kit lens. This would be for a 1.6x aspect on a Canon 20D

I am toying with a couple options and trying to keep my budget around $600. These lens purchases are focused on covering events, weddings, etc.

-------------------------------

I am strongly considering the following:

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX Lens
Price : $ 499.95

This would give me a fairly wide view. It's a mid-range price. And seemed to have decent reviews.

This leaves me with a gap between 24mm & 70mm. Some considerations are the following:

a)
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 Compact High Speed Zoom
Price : $ 119.00

b)
Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro-SV AF Lens
Price : $ 249.95

c)
Canon 50mm f/1.8II
Price : $ 80.00

Would like some feed back....

e301

06/07/2005 12:10:07 PM · #2

You ought to have the 50mm anyway, just for it's low-light capability it's invaluable, and at the price an absolute steal.

Don't know the other stuff

e

06/07/2005 12:16:35 PM · #3

The 12-24 is a great lens, I would encourage you to buy it if you want/need it. I don't know anything about a or b i would suggest the sigma 24-60mm EX or the 24-70 EX macro or the tamron 28-75. The 50mm is a great lens with bokeh that is alright most of the time. Very sharp, decently fast focus too. I would recommend it but it isn't a must have really. The 50 1.4 is worth the extra money if you're willing to spend it. Also the 50 2.5 Macro is even better in terms of sharpness and less distortion for an inbetween price of the other two. Sorry I can't help between A and B.

I believe Sigma also makes an 18-50mm EX that is pretty darn good.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 12:17:38.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

06/07/2005 12:17:36 PM · #4

Was going to but saw some mixed reviews on FredMiranda.com

How useful is a prime? I mean I guess one can use the two-step zoom?

mksnowhite

Nikon D200

06/07/2005 12:17:46 PM · #5

Maybe you need to add a zero to option C. If not I'll buy it and I don't even shoot Canon! LOL

06/07/2005 12:19:22 PM · #6

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the sigma 24-60mm EX or the 24-70 EX macro or the tamron 28-75.

What is the F/stop on these and the price? If I go with the 12-24mm I will only be able to justify about $200 more. And that's pushing the piggy...

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 12:19:37.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/07/2005 12:19:51 PM · #7

Primes can be great really. If you can move with your feet then they're really good. You might consider a 35mm 2.0 as well.

colda

Nikon D800

06/07/2005 12:21:41 PM · #8

Get the 50mm - it's simply a 'must have'

As regards the other lenses I'm in a simlar position (looking for a wide and mid range zoom) and I've opted for the Sigma 10-20 (although if I had a Canon then I would take a serious look at the 10-22) and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

But regardless, get the 50mm

Prof_Fate

06/07/2005 12:22:54 PM · #9

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC $500 at b&h, i got my new off some ebay vendor for $420.
Same range as your kit lens, but faster, sharper.

It is Sigma's digital only line of 'pro' lenses. Compares favorably to the canon 17-40L f4 (at $650 or so) an give you an extra stop and more range on the long end.

The only complaints are it is a little soft at 18 and 2.8 together, and might have some minor vignetting at 18 (visible in tests, not an issue in the real world). At f4 and above it will give the Canon L a run for it's life.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/07/2005 12:23:16 PM · #10

Both of those lenses will be out of your price range... they're both 2.8 lenses and at least $360+++. A 35mm prime might be just what the doctor ordered for the price! It's $230.

colda

Nikon D800

06/07/2005 12:25:05 PM · #11

Originally posted by mksnowhite:

Maybe you need to add a zero to option C. If not I'll buy it and I don't even shoot Canon! LOL

No, the 50mm 1.8 really is an excellent, very cheap lens, I think that I paid about 50 euros for my Nikkor version

link: //www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.html

edit - link added

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 12:28:05.

_Armadildo_

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/07/2005 12:56:27 PM · #12

If you're going to get a 28-70 ranged lense, I suggest you go with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8mm XR Di LD.
It focuses faster than the Sigma, has great image quality and is getting better rating than the 28-70 from Tokina.

You might also want to looks into the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 if 20mm is wide enough for you instead of the 12-24mm f/4.
I wanted to buy that one as it appears to be a great lense but Tokina doesn't distribute in Canada anymore and I prefer to buy at a shop not too far from where I live rather than have to ship if a problem ever arrises..

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/07/2005 01:43:59 PM · #13

I was originally looking at the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

And that's still a possibility, however, I am unsure if that is wide enough for capturing such events and I am really considering the 12-24mm and a second mid-zoom lens or the 50mm 1.8 prime.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/07/2005 01:46:41 PM · #14

I've got the EF-S 10-22mm, and it's a pleasure to use, in the right situation.

I think you'd be very pleased with the 12-24 and a 50/1.8, theSaj.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

06/07/2005 01:59:21 PM · #15

If you are looking to use the wideangle range more, I'd recommend the Tokina 12-24. It's too wide for walking around, but great for lanscape and buildings, etc. It's a big/solid lens. It's sharp but suffers from CA like most extreme wideangles. I'm very happy with mine.
If you intend to use it occassionally and intend to use a 24/28-70 range zoom more, I'd recommend the Tamron 28-75 XR Di instead and forgo the Tokina. If you intend to shoot mostly around 12-24mm and occassionally in the 28-70 range, then I'd hold off and save up for the Tamron Xr 28-75.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/07/2005 02:16:20 PM · #16

Sigma 24-60 f2.8 is great alternative for Canon 24-70 L and $700 cheaper.

DanSig

06/07/2005 02:17:47 PM · #17

I'd have a look at the EF-S 17-85 IS, reviews say it's close to L quality and would get the L if it weren't for slight vignetting at the wide end, the image quality is really close to L quality through.

I have the 17-40L f4, EF 50mm f1.4, and the 70-200L f2.8 IS, and I really want the new 17-85 IS as a walkaround lens.

Prof_Fate

06/07/2005 02:19:53 PM · #18

Here is a shot from my Sigma 18-50, including some details to help determine the quality:

f 4.5, iso 200 1/400th. Please ignore the extreme dynamic range. All these are at 18mm. The first is sharpened/processed, the others are untouched.

100% from the middle. nice and sharp.

From the extreme upper left corner -with the tulip lens hood installed - NO vignetting at 18mm!

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 14:20:42.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

06/07/2005 02:31:46 PM · #19

I've got another solution :-D

you could look at //www.kievcamera.com and get the MF 8mm peleng fisheye. It will cause vignetting but is super wide. and don't worry about the focus because even wide open the acceptable working distance on at a focus of 5 feet is 2.5 feet to infinity! The good news is it only costs $250 with the mount adapter. This can leave you with the option to get say a Tamron 17-35, an 18-50 sigma or similar and stay under budget.

The 17-85mm IS is about $600 and I've heard it's not THAT close to L quality. The IS of course is nice to have but it's an overpriced lens in the oppinion of many.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

06/07/2005 03:00:07 PM · #20

I think too many people reject the markII kit lens out of hand. I think it performs fine.Below is a quick sample, just used USM, nothing else.

Steve