| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 05:29:14 AM · #1 |
Hi there boys and girls,
I have been feeding my interest in photography for the last two years with my 400D camera and a single lens 18-55, and I feel like I now know the basics of using my camera and I would like to upgrade my lens. I went to my local Canon store the other day and tried out the 50mm f/1.8 II and loved it. As always I have to get a second opinion when I buy camera related items so I asked around on a Icelandic website regarding this lens and I got two responses on that matter:
A) Told me to go for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 instead or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4
B) Told me that the Canon 50mm F/1.8 was one of the lenses he has had the most fun shooting with through the years.
Now I would like your opinion.
Second I want a good walk around lens and i have had 3 suggestions:
A) the 24-105 from canon
B) 17-40L
C) 10-22
What do you guys think? I mostly use my camera for shooting in my house, family, friends, pets, infants. And then i use it a little bit for sports, landscape, cars, bodybuilding photos, and some fun picture with friends(action pictures where everything is moving really fast;)
One other thing, one of the guys on my icelandinc website mentioned Filter, I have no idea how to use them and what for. If anyone can help me on that one it would be awesome.
If you could point me in the right direction i would be grateful. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 05:35:35 AM · #2 |
Canon 50mm/f1.8 is a great lens, cheap and sharp. It's a must have, especially that is 1/3 the price of the 50mm/f1.4.
For the walk around lens, I just bought the 24-105 and I already had the 10-22. They are both great, but I would recommend the 24-105, it will give you more flexibility. And the manual focus is so great on this lens, not to speak about the quality of the pics! It's a must have.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 07:28:06 AM · #3 |
I think as a walk around lens you may miss the wide end with the 24-105, especially if you shoot buildings ... the best way to answer that though is how often do you shoot your 18-55 at 18mm.
Personally I carry 2 lenses, an 11-16 and a 17-55. Leaves me a little short on the tele so I also often carry a 70-300 as well!
Personally I think the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice over the 17-40L for two reasons.
1) the 17-40L is a slower lens, f/4 so not so good in low light
2) the 17-40L has no image stabilisation so really not that good in low light situations.
The 17-40L is better built, ie. will take more knocks and I believe is more weather proofed but the actual quality of the photos are the same |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:00:14 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
Personally I think the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice over the 17-40L for two reasons.
1) the 17-40L is a slower lens, f/4 so not so good in low light
Unless you shoot alot indoors the price difference can't be justified
2) the 17-40L has no image stabilisation so really not that good in low light situations.
You don't need IS at wide angles unless you spend alot of time shooting landscapes in the dark
|
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:19:28 AM · #5 |
I recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105. You loose IS but get a bigger aperature. it may be more helpfull since you shoot indoors alot, but then again so would IS.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:24:25 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Can-on:
Second I want a good walk around lens and i have had 3 suggestions:
A) the 24-105 from canon
B) 17-40L
C) 10-22 |
Forget about the 10-22 for walk-around unless you do some very special photography. It is just not flexible enough on it's own. I personally only use primes but the 24-105 is defintiely what I would suggest for walk-around out of your options - no doubt!
The 50mm is a great lens and will no doubt see a lot of use if you buy it. Mine (the 1.4) is sharper than the much more expensive 16-35 2.8L and 24-70 2.8L and I ended up needing a very good reason not to use the sharpest lens in my bag. The expensive zooms were sold and I am instead going with more primes. With the tons of megapixels we have today I'd rather crop an image a little if I used the 50mm than using all the pixels in an image taken with 70mm on the "L" zoom. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:32:48 AM · #7 |
I agree the 10-22 is probably not best as a walk-around.
Originally posted by incubus:
I recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105. You loose IS but get a bigger aperature. it may be more helpfull since you shoot indoors alot, but then again so would IS. |
On a crop camera, you can consider the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Best of both worlds and roughly the same price as the 24-105. Only tradeoff is that you can't use it later on a full-frame camera. Cindi raves about this lens.
My record: I bought the 24-105. Sweet lens. You really wouldn't go wrong with either of those three (24-70 2.8, 24-105 4, or 17-55 2.8). Just figure out exactly what you value most (fast FF capable, IS and a bit more reach, fast wide IS non-FF)
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:35:40. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:13:22 PM EDT.
