Is this a good lens - DPChallenge Forums

05/05/2006 04:42:22 PM · #1

lens

PhilipDyer

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/05/2006 04:45:31 PM · #2

I always check FredMiranda.com when I want to know the quality of a lens. Looks like this one has mediocre quality overall, but is a great value for the price.

05/08/2006 10:56:03 PM · #3

How would this lens compare with my kit lens in terms of sharpness?

I'm registered with fredmiranda.com, but I find their site confusing to navigate.

fotomann_forever

05/08/2006 11:02:45 PM · #4

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1307 - This lens?

I'm pretty pleased with mine. It's got pretty good sharpness. Color saturation looks good.

Shot this yesterday with it at f/8.

Also shot with that lens at f/4.

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 23:06:08.

pitsaman

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/08/2006 11:05:25 PM · #5

Terrible piece of junk,get something better!

I mean, you spent 1400$ for camera now you are putting 79$ lens?!!
Canon 30D deserves better :-)

Something with f2.8 straight aperture.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

05/08/2006 11:08:44 PM · #6

I'm going to guess that it isn't that much better.

You don't usually start getting serious sharpness until you spend around 300-350 dollars in the 'easy' ranges... Some lenses are easier to make, so can be cheaper.

The Tamron 28-75 has a similar range, but VERY good results. Only 250 bucks more.

Another one in that range is the Sigma 17-70, but you are using the 30D, so I'd recommend the f/2.8 max aperture through the range. You will appreciate it if you rely on AF as much as I do.

I just posted in another thread about the 50mm f/1.8... it is the same price.

Interestingly, it's also one of the easiest lenses to make which is why for the price, it can be made so sharp.

I use it for a lot of things and unless I have a specific need to go wide, I usually find that it's good enough as a walkaround...

I will probably be getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 when it comes out...

Borrow a kit lens, see what parts of it's range you end up using mostly.

I found myself using 18-35 mostly...

If I get more money, later I might also grab the 10-22 and 28-75...

Finances aren't what they could be, so I think I will be best off with the 17-50 for USEFUL range.

If you want more detailed reasons as to the pro's and cons here, feel free to PM me!

tngrndream

05/08/2006 11:08:51 PM · #7

the 50 f1.8 is $80 and it is not junk.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/08/2006 11:19:42 PM · #8

Originally posted by tngrndream:

the 50 f1.8 is $80 and it is not junk.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the discussion centered around a totally diffent lens, which normally costs well in excess of $79.00.

Ray

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 23:23:24.

pitsaman

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/08/2006 11:47:07 PM · #9

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by tngrndream:
the 50 f1.8 is $80 and it is not junk.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the discussion centered around a totally diffent lens, which normally costs well in excess of $79.00.

Ray

She is talking about cheap piece of junk which is Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 DG.
That lens is 79$ in most of the Internet stores: lens

Why not investing some more money and get proffesional quality glass to go with the nice camera?

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX

Little King

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/08/2006 11:52:20 PM · #10

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by tngrndream:
the 50 f1.8 is $80 and it is not junk.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the discussion centered around a totally diffent lens, which normally costs well in excess of $79.00.

Ray

She is talking about cheap piece of junk which is Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 DG.
That lens is 79$ in most of the Internet stores: lens

Why not investing some more money and get proffesional quality glass to go with the nice camera?

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX

no kidding! why buy a 14 hundred dollar camera and put 80 dollar glass on it!? You're better off with a 300D and 50mm 1.4... and save a thousand dollars!

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

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

05/08/2006 11:55:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I think tngrndream meant that you can't always associate cost with quality.

And pitsaman not everyone can afford hi-dollar glass if they could they wouldnâ��t make the alterative like said lens

P.S. She saved quite a while to get the camera. Nuff Said!!

Message edited by author 2006-05-08 23:56:28.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

05/09/2006 06:53:46 AM · #12

She's still paying off the camera.... I went with the 30D over the XT because of the screen, and I liked the controls. Plus, it just feels sturdier. My camera needs to be sturdy because at some point while hanging around my neck, it will bang into something. At some point, my son will thoughtlessly toss it into the back seat....

I have my eye on a zoom lens that costs more than the camera did, but it will likely be next year before I can even think about that seriously. I'm just looking for something a little better than my kit lens which seems kind of sad. I've heard from a couple of other Canon users that they had soft focus problems that went away when they replaced the lens. Plus, I like to take pictures in low light situations...

MrXpress

Olympus E-1

05/09/2006 07:46:01 AM · #13

If you don't already have it, just get the 50mm f/1.8 prime. It'll be much more useful in low-light shots, and is the cheapest route to more sharpness than the kit lens. I highly doubt there's a zoom available under $150 that will improve on the kit lens sharpness by anything other than a negligible amount.

awpollard

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/09/2006 09:26:10 AM · #14

Check all the used lenses at KEH they have a Tamron 28-75mm (Excellent+ condition) for $310.

Skip the bargain glass. Don't go from an ok lens to an alright lens.

Save your self the let down and use the kit lens until you can step up.

New lenses are great when we get them but when they can't perform any better than what we already have, there is a real frustrating "what do I do now feeling" because it didn't perform as expected. There is no resale value with budget glass, so chances are it will be in your kit (or shelf in closet) for a really long time.

Or shop locally so you can drive to the store and return is after a day or two. Been there, done that.

Andy

Prof_Fate

05/09/2006 09:50:14 AM · #15

The lens in questions is$129 at b&h

so for $79 it's a good deal. Is it a good lens?

People rave about the sigma 70-300 APO for $180, the canon 50 1.8 for $70, so don't knock the 28-70 based on price alone.

A bit of googling turned up this.. based on this i'd not expect much from this lens.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/09/2006 10:29:56 AM · #16

Good for what?

Probably make a great paperweight.

pitsaman

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/09/2006 10:46:03 AM · #17

Check this $400 Sigma 24-60 F2.8:

fotomann_forever

05/09/2006 11:08:43 AM · #18

I'd highly reccomend the 50mm 1.8 to ya. It is a great lens and very sharp. I didn't see you had the kit lens before. In all honesty the lens you listed won't give you enough better performance to make your purchase worth it.

The 50mm 1.8 though is a must have for portraits and a lot more. It's the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time. I also want a 85mm prime and a 28mm prime. I like prime glass.

Message edited by author 2006-05-09 11:23:14.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/09/2006 11:39:55 AM · #19

most of the photos in my portfoliio were taken with this lens. do i wish i could afford better, sure but I think it is fine for the money. I will say that my DPC cinema was my first time shooting with my new 50 1.8 and while looking at the photos I took I could tell that they were much sharper than i normally get. so i would say the 50 1.8 first but if you need the range go with the sigma.

A4wheelin

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

05/09/2006 12:21:43 PM · #20

I agree on getting the 50mm 1.8 I just bought this lens yesterday and WOW does it make a big difference over the kit lens. This is the kind of sharpness and color I was expecting of a $1,500 camera. I just had to take off the kit lens to see it. :) Good luck on whatever lens you decide on but this lens is definitely a keeper to me.