So many lenses - DPChallenge Forums

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

07/29/2006 10:34:47 PM · #1

There`s so many len`s to choose from ? What would be a significant difference between let`s say a 16-35...17-55...and a 24-70 lens ? Is there really that much difference?

Message edited by author 2006-07-29 22:37:34.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/29/2006 10:43:04 PM · #2

Using only the criteria that you have provided, the answer is not much on the wide side, especially between 16 and 17mm. Quite a bit more from 35 to 55 to 70mm.

Choosing a lens depends, however, on a lot more that just the focal lengths. Maximum aperture is extremely important to most people, after of course the price. Then there is the quality of the glass itself and whether or not it is worth the price for professional quality glass.

Most of us could go on and on, but it might be easier if you told us what you want to do with a new lens (it won't fit on your camera). What camera are you thinking of getting and what kind of shots are you most interested in getting.

Going with a DSLR means getting a variety of lenses that meet your needs. Try narrowing it down and restate your question for a better answer.

Message edited by author 2006-07-29 22:43:32.

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

07/29/2006 10:46:13 PM · #3

If you need help trying to decipher lenses or deciding which to buy, post what you plan on doing. Indoor/outdoor/sports/portrait/etc. The more info you give, the better.

Added: Try this. Look at the different angles certain lengths cover.

Message edited by author 2006-07-29 22:48:46.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/29/2006 11:13:26 PM · #4

From 16mm to 24mm is a huge difference, actually. Like 98 degrees vs 74 degrees, horizontal coverage, full-frame camera...

Robt.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/30/2006 12:01:23 AM · #5

I echo that even on a 1.6 crop body the difference between 16 and 24mm is large.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/30/2006 12:13:27 AM · #6

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I echo that even on a 1.6 crop body the difference between 16 and 24mm is large.

When I was using my 300D (1.6x crop), the 16-35 was my walk-around lens, with the 1D II (1.3x crop) the 24-70 is my walk-around lens. Huge difference between 16mm and 24mm...

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/30/2006 08:00:49 AM · #7

Thanks for replying.I should have given you more info. I have a Canon 20D and i know theres not a perfect all around lens but im having a hard time trying to figure out what a decent everyday lens would be to carry around.I take mostly outdoor photos (scenery).I have the 18-55...17-85...and a EF-S 10-22 so far.This stuff is a lot more involved than i thought , But ill get it.Im into it for my own pleasure and this is quite the learning experience.The people on this site are a great bunch and i really appreciate all the knowledge you share with a beginner like myself.OK back to what len`s i might need.Just a general all around lens.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

07/30/2006 10:40:54 AM · #8

For nature shots you've got a lot of good glass there already. Looks like all you are missing is a telephoto.

Message edited by author 2006-07-30 10:41:03.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

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

07/30/2006 10:53:37 AM · #9

sell the 17-85 and go for the EF 28-105 3,5-4,5 USM, i use it for i think 12 years now (bought it with my analogue EOS 100) and still am happy with it.

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

08/09/2006 10:16:26 PM · #10

OK ive had enough..Anyone want to buy a canon 20D 4 months old along with a 18-55...17-85...10-22...and a 17-40 l lens. Also have a cir. polorizer lens 77mm. and uv lens all Canon.Going back to my trusty Pro 1.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/09/2006 11:06:03 PM · #11

The only reason to give up on a camera should be that you no longer have a need for what it can do for you.

Please don't give up out of frustration...

Relax, it will be OK.

If you want some info on specific lenses, go to photozone.de. Some of their reviews are a bit slanted to individual units (they test real lenses that are really sold, not just the manufacturer's best copies), but in general they are very, very good.

After you read a few, you can skip through the review looking for what you want.

Additionally, if you have questions about a specific lens, you can post here. We are glad to help.

But it looks like you have lenses specifically set up to do specific things. You seem to have some pretty high tastes too... Oddly, you seem to have 3 overlapping lenses.

The price of the lens or "professional status" of the lens usually indicates that you will get good results very close to the edges of it's operating ability. On my "pro" 80-200, I get sharp pics all the way from 80mm to 200mm and at every aperture. On non-pro lenses, you might get almost that level of sharpness, but in a much smaller part of the range, maybe from 70mm to 150mm and only from f/8 to f/16 or something like this.

Expect high end performance from expensive glass throughout its range.

Here's a quick breakdown of some of the lenses you mentioned compiled from a number of sources including people PM'd and spoken with directly:

Canon 10-22mm - very sharp, very nice. A bit expensive, but with very good build quality and optical qualities that are unmatched in other competing lenses. Excellent Chromatic Aberration control. THE landscape/ultra-wide lens (right now) to have if you shoot Canon.

Canon Kit 18-55 - fairly soft, not all that well put together, but does a decent job at f/8. Very cheap purchase price for a very decent range. Even cheaper resale/2nd hand. Not very good for indoors or low light stuff because it is considered a 'slow' lens.

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 - quite a bit sharper, and very well put together. Often spoken of as having excellent colors. Very expensive though. This lens is fantastic on a full frame camera because it is very wide. It is expensive because it is a full-frame lens. Most other recently released lenses of this focal length are not.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - very sharp and good build quality. Low chromatic aberration means that your images come out looking very clean. It seems to be the current reigning king of APS-C lenses for CA. No real major issues otherwise. The optical quality is generally very good. With f/2.8, it is considered a 'fast' lens. The addition of IS pushes the price up a fair bit on this lens.

Canon 17-85 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM - A mediocre lens with the bulk of its price going to the IS and USM features. It can be sharp, just as almost any lens can, but the aperture range is rather bad. (My S2 IS is faster than this). It is considered a slow lens, and the IS helps you to prevent camera shake. Ordinarily, at these focal lengths, camera shake isn't a huge issue, but with this lens, you will find yourself at f/5.6 where other similarly priced, non IS lenses will be able to shoot at f/2.8. Debatably useful.

Canon 17-40 f/4L - A very, very nice lens. Optically quite good in most areas. Very affordable. A good landscape lens on a 20D and a very nice lens for full-frame. The only drawback is that it's a stop slower than some other choices.

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - a decent lens that was the pioneer in this range (roughly equivalent to the very useful 28-75 for full-frame) with a constant wide max aperture. Because it was the pioneer, it's a bit disadvantaged when compared to some of the more recent entries into the field. Optically it's considered decent to good.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - a very decent lens that is working the Sigma pretty hard. Also does a pretty good job of holding it's own against the Canon 17-55 IS... which is almost 3 times more money. Very sharp and with good colors.

Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 - as yet unknown... but worth a look because as mentioned above, as you get wider, a single mm of change can offer a significant change in field of view.

Anyhow, so those are some of the more important offerings in the range that you apparently are interested in.

If it were me, I'd hang on to the 10-22, 17-40L and ditch the 18-55 and 17-85.

Then I'd pick up a 50mm f/1.8 (just to have it) and start considering a Tokina 80-400 or possibly the soon to be released 50-150 f/2.8.

There's a lot of upheaval right now because of the shift from full frame to APS-C and what that has meant for optics.

Hang on to the Camera for a little while and re-examine your photographic goals...

We'll be here at DPC for any questions...

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

08/10/2006 12:28:16 AM · #12

Not to add to the confusion, but don't forget that primes are still a valid option. In fact, you might be surprised how much great photography, outside fast moving sporting events, is still captured using primes.

I could go on about some advantages, but I guess I would rather encourage you to not get frustrated with your dSLR and not to worry so much about lenses. Grab a lens you like a little and experiement with the control that a dSLR offers. Shoot wide open and play with shallow depth of field or shoot in fading evening light were small sensored cameras are almost useless.