| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2005 08:51:08 AM · #26 |
I agree with kirbic 100%
family snapshots i use a zoom (28-135 IS), but other than that it's almost always primes for me (35, 50, 85).
Originally posted by kirbic:
I might not be the least biased person, but IMO, there is no substitute for fast glass. I've been the f/3.5-5.6 route, not going there again. Even with a very low-noise cam, and my current cam is one of the best in that regard, I really still need at the very least f/2.8 in low light, say indoors by tungsten lighting, to get good shots without resorting to flash. An f/4 or slower zoom is next to useless.
So it really depends on what you'll shoot most. If the vast majority of your shooting will be outdoors in reasonably good light, f/4 might work just fine, but if excellent low-light performance is a requirement, you'll be wishing for faster pretty quick.
The decision truly is a difficult one, you are giving up a lot on the wide end, but you can always fill that later... or get the wide now, and fill the 28-75/2.8 need later. Your preference, really. |
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:01:26 AM · #27 |
I agree that f/2.8 is much, much preferable to slower lenses (as I'm coming to realize with my Canon 17-40mm f/4), but for a general purpose walk-around lens, I personally would really want a lens that starts at 18mm (or wider!), to "compensate" for the crop factor.
Would theSigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC lens be the best of both worlds? It starts at 18mm and is fast, with a constant f/2.8 aperture.
I don't know anything about this lens, but it is in Sigma's EX line, so I assume it's pretty darn good. Anyone have any experience with it? |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:26:03 AM · #28 |
I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX and it is a very good lens. I boght it mostly for low light, weddings, indoor use, that type of thing and it works very well.
For outdoor walk around use i needed more on the telephoto end. I looked at every lens out there. There is no perfect choice....the 18-200 class have bad distortions according to the reviews, and f6.3 at 200mm sucks. Sigma makes a 24-135 2.8-4 that i thought might be just the ticket, but the reviews are not good.
One lens stood out - tamron SP 24-135 3.5-5.6. I could not find a negative about it anywhere, and this lens is so sharp you can cut yourself with it! There is an occational time i want wider, but then I have the 18-50 Sigma for that. You could also get a 12-24 and cover the wide end that way.
There is a huge differeence between 28mm and 18mm on a 1.5 crop camera.
Some shots with the Tamron 24-135. Fast to focus, sharp, great range, excellent color and contrast, little to no lens flare.
    
The Sigma 18-50. A bit more lens flare thatn the Tamron, but a bit wider too. Great contrast and color, not quite as fast to focus.
    
Edited to add The Tamron does macro too. the second shot is 100% crop.
 
Message edited by author 2005-11-29 09:36:14.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:26:09 AM · #29 |
here's a review of that lens
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I agree that f/2.8 is much, much preferable to slower lenses (as I'm coming to realize with my Canon 17-40mm f/4), but for a general purpose walk-around lens, I personally would really want a lens that starts at 18mm (or wider!), to "compensate" for the crop factor.
Would theSigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC lens be the best of both worlds? It starts at 18mm and is fast, with a constant f/2.8 aperture.
I don't know anything about this lens, but it is in Sigma's EX line, so I assume it's pretty darn good. Anyone have any experience with it? |
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:27:48 AM · #30 |
| I myself was stupid in the beginning and got D50 kit with the horrible 18-55 kit lens. Now I'm looking into buying a Tamron 28-75 (based on many, many reviews and praises) and later something wide, ie Tokina 12-24. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 10:39:27 AM · #31 |
For general outdoor shooting I use my Canon 17-40mm f/4, and indoors I use my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime.
This works pretty well for me. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:01:19 AM · #32 |
Personally. I am very happy with my Sigma 18-125. Perfect range, perhaps the 18-200 is even better. Just a little loud when focusing, but otherwise fast and sharp. All my other lenses are Canon, including the well thought of 70-200F4L and the 50 1.8. But I don't see the Sigma producing lesser images. Of course, it's F3.5, and it drops fast to 5.6 as you zoom.
Not to mention it only costs $250 and comes with a lens hood (my $700 10-22mm Canon did not!)
It's interesting, while it's maligned in some reviews (and below), I think it's a sample issue. If you read through the FM reviews, there's a fair number of happy campers with it. As well as some users here. Look at the challenge entry page for it.
But also interesting--revisiting photozone and looking at the reviews, the much touted Tamron 28-75 2.8 didn't do very well in a new review:
tamron_28-75 2.8
Not trying to start a lens postting battle, but I was surprised to see that Tamron review so thought I'd post it.
Selecting a 2.8 aperture lens would be nice, especially for indoors, but I don't think 28mm is wide enough for indoors (and IMHO 75mm isn't long enough for outdoors, because 125mm isn't really either!).
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:11:19 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
It's interesting, while it's maligned in some reviews (and below), |
Most of the knocks on this review seem to relate of edge quality at full frame. If you are shooting with a 1.6 crop this problem would not apply. When I can afford a full frame sensor this might become a problem. With my humble 1.6 crop the Tamron seems to work fine. |
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:31:40 AM · #34 |
What Brennan said. These people are rating the lens with FF sensors. On the 20D it's exceptionally sharp to the edges IMO. Tamron 28-75mm I mean...
R.
Actually the one Shapiro linked was testing on a 350D, 1.6 crop. But the tester expressed his suspicion that he had a sub-par example of the lens. I'd have to agree with that; it performs MUCH better for me than its MTF charts suggest it should in that review.
Message edited by author 2005-12-01 02:34:27. |
|
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: 08/23/2025 04:13:31 PM EDT.
