| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2007 10:52:53 PM · #1 |
I have been using the 18-70mm that came with my 7D for almost a year now. I think I am ready to move up and get another lens. Someone recommended that I get a 50mm lens...and I have been eyeing the 50/1.7 lenses on ebay. What would better suit me if I only could buy one lens? A 50 or a 35? I take a lot of outdoor photography but I also do the occasional indoor stuff (parties, etc.). The Sony 50/1.4 is WAAAY out of my price range.
Also, how good is the 18-70 that I have been using? People always say kit lenses are bad but it's a Minolta lens so I figure it must be pretty good...*shrug*
Thanks |
|
|
|
05/13/2007 11:05:16 PM · #2 |
Think about what you want to shoot, then figure out what lens would best do what you want to do.
The 18/70 is the most used lens in my bag, followed by the 70/300, but I like to shoot animals and wildlife.
The single focus lens that I use most is a 300mm 4.5 manual focus.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2007 11:09:12 PM · #3 |
Now that i'm mainly using Canon my most used lens is probably the 24-105mm f4. Although for my landscape photos I tend to head out with the 16-35mm f2.8
With the D70 my most used is the 50-150mm 2.8 but thats just becasue I broke the kit lens.
Message edited by author 2007-05-13 23:10:45. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:01:00 AM · #4 |
| One lens...that is tough. I shoot spoorts mainly so the Canon Ef 70-200 f/2.8L IS would be it. For a prime the EF 300MM f/2.8L. Just got it & I am already addicted to it. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:03:50 AM · #5 |
| If I could only have ONE, then an 18-200 would be necessary for me. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:28:33 AM · #6 |
even though I shoot Canon, and my 24-70mm/2.8 is on 90% of the time, If I had to choose only one, I'd probably still choose the 50mm/1.8.
Reason, I love to shoot without flash and having the aperature, clarity, and "disposability" of the 50mm/1.8 is easily worth moving my feet a little to "true zoom". |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:34:22 AM · #7 |
Which lense is most versitile for the Rebel? I want to get another lense but I have such a variety of shots I like to do so I'd want something that's very versitile and/or offsets what I can't do with the ones I have now. I have: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM.
Can't spend a whole lot on one but don't want the bottom end either. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:20:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Sheryll:
Which lense is most versitile for the Rebel? I want to get another lense but I have such a variety of shots I like to do so I'd want something that's very versitile and/or offsets what I can't do with the ones I have now. I have: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM.
Can't spend a whole lot on one but don't want the bottom end either. |
Well, that depends what you mean by "can't do". A "standard" range f/2.8 zoom (like the popular Tamron 28-75mm) would allow you more versatility than your kit lens (wider aperture allows shooting in lower light, less depth of field and faster shutter speeds to freeze action better), and provide a decent image quality boost, but wouldn't add anything significant focal range wise. Similarly a prime lens would get you the added versatility in terms of aperture but you lose the zoom. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap I'd get one just to see if you like shooting primes - and even if you don't it's a good option to have since the IQ and low light performance is much better than the kit lens.
Alternatively you could go for an ultrawide (take your pick from the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 11-18, they've been discussed to death all over the place but I don't think you'd go too far wrong with any of them), or a macro lens.
Your shooting experience should tell you which of these options is best (which are the shots you wish you could get but can't?), or indeed if you are after something else entirely.
splidge
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:29:52 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by splidge:
Originally posted by Sheryll:
Which lense is most versitile for the Rebel? I want to get another lense but I have such a variety of shots I like to do so I'd want something that's very versitile and/or offsets what I can't do with the ones I have now. I have: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM.
Can't spend a whole lot on one but don't want the bottom end either. |
Well, that depends what you mean by "can't do". A "standard" range f/2.8 zoom (like the popular Tamron 28-75mm) would allow you more versatility than your kit lens (wider aperture allows shooting in lower light, less depth of field and faster shutter speeds to freeze action better), and provide a decent image quality boost, but wouldn't add anything significant focal range wise. Similarly a prime lens would get you the added versatility in terms of aperture but you lose the zoom. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap I'd get one just to see if you like shooting primes - and even if you don't it's a good option to have since the IQ and low light performance is much better than the kit lens.
Alternatively you could go for an ultrawide (take your pick from the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 11-18, they've been discussed to death all over the place but I don't think you'd go too far wrong with any of them), or a macro lens.
Your shooting experience should tell you which of these options is best (which are the shots you wish you could get but can't?), or indeed if you are after something else entirely.
splidge |
Thanks. I think I'll get two. I'll look for an f/2.8 zoom (like the popular Tamron 28-75mm)or the Canon 50mm f/1.8 AND a macro lens. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:57:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ozziegt:
I have been using the 18-70mm that came with my 7D for almost a year now. |
Where do you find that lens lacking? Range, speed, sharpness?
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:00:20 PM · #11 |
As much as I love having some range (which would mean a 18-200), I couldn't shoot landscapes without my Canon 10-22. It really depends on what you like to shoot.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 13:02:52. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:03:30 PM · #12 |
| Imgine the most horrible thing in the world, your backup camera is a point and shoot. What lens range would you have on this fixed lens camera! |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:10:52 PM · #13 |
BTW, if I were going to suggest a lens to someone needing to complement their 18-70 lens, I'd suggest a 70-200 or 70-300 lens just for the added length. For general purposes, this would give the shooter the most versatility. This is assuming they don't have any specialty needs, such as low light or ultra-wide angle for landscapes.
It really boils down to what one wants to shoot.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 13:11:39.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:14:08 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:16:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Ben:
10-600 F1.2L.
Jobdone. |
LMAO... it'd only cost about $18.2 million to own.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:29:32 PM · #16 |
Just hold out for the advances of nanotechnology - then your one lens can be anything at anytime and it will include a theft-deterrent feature where it morphs into a "Sanjaya's Greatest Hits" CD.
...of course, I am STILL waiting for my affordable jet car. :( |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:37:07 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Just hold out for the advances of nanotechnology - then your one lens can be anything at anytime and it will include a theft-deterrent feature where it morphs into a "Sanjaya's Greatest Hits" CD.
...of course, I am STILL waiting for my affordable jet car. :( |
Im still waiting for an affordable car. The Honda Civic is up from 10,000 now to 16,000 dollars lol. And gas isnt getting any cheaper. BTW for 16,000 id rather buy a v6 mustang lol. Before i get hit on the 05 V6 mustang has 240 hp more then the 5.0 GT's did. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:43:59 PM · #18 |
14-500mm f2.8 L lens from canon that weighs less than a pound.
Oh, wait, a real lens?
I don't think I've ever taken off my 17-40 since I got it, so maybe I'd take the 16-35 since it has a bigger aperature. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:45:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...of course, I am STILL waiting for my affordable jet car. :( |
I received mine the other day, I must have been higher up in the waiting list than you. Either that, or they're on back-order. It's amazing the things you can buy on Amazon these days.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:49:58 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:31:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
14-500mm f2.8 L lens from canon that weighs less than a pound.
Oh, wait, a real lens?
I don't think I've ever taken off my 17-40 since I got it, so maybe I'd take the 16-35 since it has a bigger aperature. |
I would agree here. I only use 2 lenses now, the 17-40 and the 70-200 IS L. So if you don't mind spending some money, I would go with the 17-40 or the 16-35. So far there's been about 2 occasions that I wished I had a faster lens in the 16-35, but that's been in 6 or 7 months that those occasions occurred. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:41:51 PM · #22 |
Based on what the original poster says he wants to do with the lens, I would definately go with a wider angle. Being a Nikon user, I cannot name specific Canon lenses, but I love my Sigma 10- 20mm which is available in a Canon mount.
[/url] |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 03:06:22 PM · #23 |
| easy, Leica Summilux 50/1.4 |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 03:28:25 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
05/15/2007 11:08:10 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
24-70mm/2.8L |
I went back and forth between the 17-40 and the 24-70. I rented both lenses to check them out. The 24-70 was a bit heavy for a walk-around-lens and I need a little wider for the crop factor, so I settled for the cheaper lighter lens.
Of course, I have a prime 24 and 50 in my bag for low light situations too. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 08:41:56 PM EDT.
