Lenses: Your Personal Favorite???

2

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Sid. that pool shot is awesome. Very nice use of B&W.
    Thanks Bob! Like Saurora, I'm not a fan of flash. I think it often uglifies things.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • StanStan Registered Users Posts: 1,077 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    I use this site to give an impression of canon lenses. The User performance surveys are useful also.

    Good hunting. Make your choice and wait for a bargain. The anticipation in finding the right lens at the right price is so much fun

    Cheers

    Stan
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Ya know, S, as I think about this...

    The perfect starting trifecta for a Canon is the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Fast and good. Of course, they're also crazy expensive. But throw-in a 1.4 extender and in three lenses you've covered a lot of ground.

    If I had to pick one with which to start, it would be the 24-70. Wide enough to shoot landscapes and long enough for walking around and portraits. Plus, at 2.8, fast. If that's too expensive, then I'd look at the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. A nice, all-purpose lens, and the 1.8 is a freaking bargain.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Owen wrote:
    I ended up getting the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L.

    At one point I thought about the 17-40 f/4L and the 50 f/1.4, but I combined those lengths and price for the 24-70.

    I LOVE my 20D. :D

    Thanks, Owen. Lots of people (THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!...RedBull, Ginger, Jeffro, and yourself) seem to be working with a wide variable and the 70-200 f/2.8L or the 400L 5.6. Eliminating the middle lenses. It confirms what I was thinking. I have a feeling those 2 lengths are where I will be heading, perhaps (Gluwater) picking up a 50 later on? Maybe even used. At least now I have some direction!!! clap.gif
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    wxwax wrote:
    Ya know, S, as I think about this...

    The perfect starting trifecta for a Canon is the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Fast and good. Of course, they're also crazy expensive. But throw-in a 1.4 extender and in three lenses you've covered a lot of ground.


    Not sure I agree. Especially as lenses hold their value so much, and, as you said, those lenses are crazy expensive.

    If I were to start out, I would get (and I did): 17-40f4L, 70-200f4L, and the 50 1.4. Or maybe the 35 1.4. After that I would get the 10-22, which I LOVE. It is so much fun.

    Then after you've got a good lens line-up, you can slowly trade up, sell your 70-200f4L for almost what you paid for it and get the 2.8 IS. The f4L is 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS. No need to blow so much so fast and to maybe price yourself out of other lenses. Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    A good strategy. But fails to meet my need for speed. naughty.gif The 10-22 sounds awesome, never had a body that would take it.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    saurora wrote:
    Thanks, Bob...I wondered about this lens for portaits. Will check it out some more. :D

    :nono not the best FL range, IMO. Portraits generally call for longer FLs, and so if you want a zoom, 70-200 is popular for portraits, and don't ignore the 85 f/1.8 prime, a super lens. I'm speaking for Nikon or Canon glass here. deal.gif
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    wxwax wrote:
    A good strategy. But fails to meet my need for speed. naughty.gif The 10-22 sounds awesome, never had a body that would take it.


    Well, it does in the fixed 50 or 35. Short story is, not all of us can afford the line-up that you suggested (as awesome as it is) and need to compromise something. Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Well, it does in the fixed 50 or 35. Short story is, not all of us can afford the line-up that you suggested (as awesome as it is) and need to compromise something. Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage.

    Uh, you know.. you do have TWO kidneys.
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Uh, you know.. you do have TWO kidneys.


    .......and you CAN get by with only one.......right??? rolleyes1.gif
  • StanStan Registered Users Posts: 1,077 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Not sure I agree. Especially as lenses hold their value so much, and, as you said, those lenses are crazy expensive.

    If I were to start out, I would get (and I did): 17-40f4L, 70-200f4L, and the 50 1.4. Or maybe the 35 1.4. After that I would get the 10-22, which I LOVE. It is so much fun.

    Then after you've got a good lens line-up, you can slowly trade up, sell your 70-200f4L for almost what you paid for it and get the 2.8 IS. The f4L is 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS. No need to blow so much so fast and to maybe price yourself out of other lenses. Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...

    First hit for the 10-22. As much as I love this lens, it would not be the first of second lens on my list. However since I now have it, I could never buy a 5d cos I would never be without it.

    Stan
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    :nono not the best FL range, IMO. Portraits generally call for longer FLs, and so if you want a zoom, 70-200 is popular for portraits, and don't ignore the 85 f/1.8 prime, a super lens. I'm speaking for Nikon or Canon glass here. deal.gif
    I will give you a pfft 1 time for the 85mm. Both versions annoy me, build quality 1.8, optics (flare, CA) and the 1.8 is a hoover. The 1.2 is not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny. I used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it over a year ago.

    I agree with you about the 28-70 being too short at times regarding portraiture, and I use it in addition to a 20/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Most of my portraits are from using models for motorcycle and car shoots which causes me to use wider focal lengths.
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...

    David...sound advice, to be sure! I will probably start out with one lens at a time!!! (well...maybe 2???) :D
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    I will give you a pfft 1 time for the 85mm. Both versions annoy me, build quality 1.8, optics (flare, CA) and the 1.8 is a hoover. The 1.2 is not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny. I used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it over a year ago.

    You're one of the few who feel this way. I'd love to see some unflattering shots with the 1.2 - if you've got 'em. I use the 1.8, IMO it's sharp, light, fast focus, excellent build quality and I've yet to experience any issue wrt CA or Flare. And this is on a FF body, 1Ds Mark II and 5D.

    Look at the first shot here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and in the caption there's a linky to a 100% crop - a situation where you'd expect lots of CA - and yet there's none..

    All this said, I'm seeing a lot more portrait shooters using the 70-200L on a FF body. But I won't give up either lens naughty.gif
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    You're one of the few who feel this way. I'd love to see some unflattering shots with the 1.2 - if you've got 'em. I use the 1.8, IMO it's sharp, light, fast focus, excellent build quality and I've yet to experience any issue wrt CA or Flare. And this is on a FF body, 1Ds Mark II and 5D.

    Look at the first shot here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and in the caption there's a linky to a 100% crop - a situation where you'd expect lots of CA - and yet there's none..

    All this said, I'm seeing a lot more portrait shooters using the 70-200L on a FF body. But I won't give up either lens naughty.gif
    They are on DVD's somewhere. I completely agree the lens is sharp, sharper than anything ive used I think, but when every pore is showing up on a headshot, you have to spend a lot of time blurring them out. I havent had one since I used only D60's so maybe the new bodies deal with it better. Look at all of the CA threads on FM about that lens.

    I don't know if you remember when the CZ craze hit FM, but I was looking for a CZ 85/1.4 because of the coatings. The CA and flare problem wasnt there but it was a pain to MF it.

    The 1.8 is light and fast, but the focus ring was stiff from the day I got it until I sold it last month. It would get stuck almost where I would have to pull it towards the body to make it turn. I've seen others like that. Thats not good build quality if you use FTM.

    Your probably very cautious about backlite situations being a pro for a while but I do see CA around the black of the jacket next to the USM artifacts :)

    I'm not saying either is a bad lens, they are probably some of the more popular lenses canon has. Either my style of photography or my skill level just doesnt work with them. Yes, Im an 85mm hater Laughing.gif
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Stan wrote:
    First hit for the 10-22. As much as I love this lens, it would not be the first of second lens on my list. However since I now have it, I could never buy a 5d cos I would never be without it.

    Stan

    A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    I do see CA around the black of the jacket next to the USM artifacts :)
    Huh? headscratch.gif I gotta say, if you see something objectionable there, then there isn't a lens on this earth that would satisfy you. ne_nau.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    wxwax wrote:
    Huh? headscratch.gif I gotta say, if you see something objectionable there, then there isn't a lens on this earth that would satisfy you. ne_nau.gif
    Im not saying its objectionable, im just saying there is CA :)

    I think I am sensitive to it because if I see it at 100% on an image I toss it, whether its commercial or just family/fun.

    I get bad CA with a 400/5.6 when a northern shovelers beak is wet and the sun is behind me. I toss the images. Fortunately, im not using that lens shooting a 23 T bucket with a polished aluminum engine :)
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • limbiklimbik Registered Users Posts: 379 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Can't say its a fav yet, but I'm really interested in the 17-55 f2.8, I guess it depends on how close to "L"ovley it performs. The 24-70 is not wide enough for me, and I wouldn't miss 55-70mm anyway. I recently sold my 50 1.4 which is a great lens, but either its too long or too short with the 20D, for situations when I need a really fast lens. I'm Still holding on to the 85mm 1.8 though, its such a great lens for the price and ends up at 136mm on the 20D which is very useful.

    The 300mm f4L is also a fantastic lens for the price with IS, and room for a 1.4x TC even, not to mention very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side.
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Thank you for your thoughts on your favorite lenses. I pulled all the lenses and comments from the posts and put them together for my continued research. Thought you might like to review them as well...:):



    Canon 10-22
    sounds awesome
    love this lens, would not be the first or second lens on my list
    so much fun
    Tokina 12-24
    to round out collection with an ultra-wide
    Nikon 12-24 DX
    Nothing beats my Nikon 12-24 DX! I love it
    Canon 16-35L 2.8
    The perfect starting trifecta
    Fast and good
    crazy expensive
    A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D
    a few more stops is very nice
    ...incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L
    makes some things possible that may have been impossible
    Canon 17-40 f4L
    build quality and the picture quality
    great walk about lens
    wide enough for most landscapes
    super nice don't use it as much
    getting L very soon
    looks like a very nice lens
    superb quality, clarity, color.....well everything
    Canon 17-55 f2.8
    interested in
    can hit the range of both and then some
    Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8
    great bokeh wide open
    fanatically sharp by f5.6
    Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
    combined those lengths ( 17-40 f/4L and 50 f/1.4), and price for the 24-70
    If I had to pick one with which to start
    Wide enough to shoot landscapes
    long enough for walking around
    portraits
    Plus, at 2.8, fast.
    crazy expensive
    The perfect starting trifecta
    at 2.8, fast
    not wide enough, wouldn't miss 55-70mm anyway
    (over Tamron) ..very fast autofocus, weather sealing and build quality
    IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens.. - suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di
    substantially larger and heavier ..focuses significantly faster
    Canon 28-70/L
    use it for portraits and advertising (models for motorcycle and car shoots)
    second hand example will save $$$.
    built like a tank
    not the best (portrait) FL range, IMO
    can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron
    Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron
    As I said, built like a tank
    Tamron 28-75 f2.8
    rarely leaves my 20d
    absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain
    if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8
    very happy with as a walkaround lens
    well made
    a real bargain for the price
    Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern
    if I didn't spend time at dirt bike tracks..fast moving objects in dusty conditions I might have bought the Tamron instead
    smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D
    Canon 35L
    would be just the ticket (inside)
    no money for that yet.
    Canon 50 f1.4
    for some portrait stuff
    razor sharp
    great low-light performer
    silky smooth bokeh
    little long indoors on a 20D
    low light ability more than makes up for it.
    A nice, all-purpose lens
    too long or too short with the 20D
    Pentax 50 f1.4
    for really low light stuff
    speed and flexibility
    creamy smooth wide open (similar to the Canon equivalent)
    fraction of the price
    isn't nearly as convenient, with manual focus and preset aperture
    requires an adapter just to fit
    great bargain
    Canon 50 f1.8
    for really low light stuff
    speed and flexibility
    bit long for what I want inside (1.6 crop body).
    a freaking bargain
    Canon 24-105L f/4
    my walk around lens
    light-weight (for an L)
    contrasty and sharp


    Canon 85 f/1.8
    don't ignore ...a super (portrait) lens
    great lens for the price
    ends up at 136mm on the 20D which is very useful.
    annoys me
    pfft
    optics (flare, CA)
    1.8 is a hoover
    focus ring was stiff
    Yes, Im an 85mm hater Laughing.gif
    The 1.8 is light and fast
    when every pore is showing up on a headshot, you have to spend a lot of time blurring them out
    Canon 85 f/1.2
    annoys me
    not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny
    used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it
    the lens is sharp, sharper than anything ive used I think
    Canon 135L f/2
    possibly the sharpest lens in Canon's Lineup
    Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS
    a work horse!
    shoot a lot of motocross racing
    performs great under all conditions
    family shots
    somewhat heavy weight
    crazy expensive
    No need to blow $ so much so fast
    popular for portraits
    the perfect starting trifecta
    everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L
    Very fast auto-focus, great images, wonderful image stabilizer.
    for portraits and for sports
    Canon 70-200 f/4L
    another great lens
    being a city rat, I use it less often (than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8).
    don't have as much use for the mid range lenses (uses a Canon 400mm F/5.6 for long)
    walk around for hours with it and the 20D holding both with just the handstrapfor some of the farther out stuff
    great bokeh wide open
    ranks as one of the best zoom lenses Canon has ever produced
    fanatically sharp by f5.6.
    Canon 1.4 teleconverter gets me to 448mm
    sharp even wide open
    Not really heavy at all
    1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS
    fails to meet my need for speed
    Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage

    Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR
    Wonderful bokeh
    VR is a real help with lower light conditions
    It's a big honker but well worth the effort to lug around.
    Sigma 70-200 f2.8
    pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive)
    Canon 300/2.8L
    Very large and expensive but oh-my-gosh
    need to use it more often in order to justify the cost
    Canon 300mm f4L
    fantastic lens for the price with IS
    very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side
    Canon 400 f/4
    you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots.....
    Canon 400mm F/5.6
    very sharp light & reletively cheap (for a 400)handle a teleconverter well for more distance being a prime.
    don't have it, will soon (also owns 70-200 f4)
    Oh i have it alright
    great for portraits at 100 yards
    not too shabby for land scapes at 239 000 miles

    about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8
  • limbiklimbik Registered Users Posts: 379 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    Wow, what a summary! eek7.gif

    I was going to add that the 50 1.4 is also a great bargain, but since the 35 comes up, what holds much of my interest in the 17-55 is that it can hit the range of both and then some, of course, so could the 24-70 so it depends which end you want your m&ms on, and the latter is L.
    Sigma also makes a pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive) 70-200 f2.8.
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    FYI: the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200f4L are in fact, the same lens. Those who mention it without the L are just lazy. :D
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    saurora wrote:
    I forgot to mention that the majority of my shots would be handheld so the weight and speed of the lens would be a major consideration for me as well as cost. Thanks again! :D

    This is not such a worry for when you buy those now superceded but fantastic 20D canons. It has amazing abitity shooting at high ISO's thus giving fast a shutter.

    Speed is the all important thing with a long lens as you really need (in my opinion for most shots) at least 1/1000 to shoot hand held....canons ISO's let you do this & save gazillions of $ on going to a 400 f/4 which you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots.....the f5.6 is ..i think...about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    saurora wrote:
    Canon 400mm F/5.6
    very sharp
    lightning fast at Autofocus.
    light & reletively cheap (for a 400)handle a teleconverter well for more distance being a prime.don't have it, will soon (also owns 70-200 f4)


    Oh i have it alright.

    Remember its great for portraits at 100 yards

    & not too shabby for land scapes at 239 000 miles.


    .
  • tibutibu Registered Users Posts: 71 Big grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    Wide Angle
    Nothing beats my Nikon 12-24 DX! I love it

    49782182-L.jpg
  • binghottbinghott Registered Users Posts: 1,075 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    <------i think everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L

    however, i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 f2.8, and it rarely leaves my 20d. it's an absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain. even if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,961 moderator
    edited March 13, 2006
    binghott wrote:
    <
    i think everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L

    however, i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 f2.8, and it rarely leaves my 20d. it's an absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain. even if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8.
    I have never used the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L so I really can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron. If money were no object I would certainly check it out since this is the focal range I use most. However, the Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern as I almost always shoot hand-held.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Im not saying its objectionable, im just saying there is CA :)

    I think I am sensitive to it because if I see it at 100% on an image I toss it, whether its commercial or just family/fun.


    Ooh. Maybe you should go back to film lol3.gif
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    saurora wrote:
    Thank you for your thoughts on your favorite lenses. I pulled all the lenses and comments from the posts and put them together for my continued research. Thought you might like to review them as well...:):


    A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D
    a few more stops is very nice

    Ginger was incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited March 13, 2006
    rsinmadrid wrote:
    I have never used the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L so I really can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron. If money were no object I would certainly check it out since this is the focal range I use most. However, the Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern as I almost always shoot hand-held.
    I bought the Canon 24-70/2.8L over the Tamron due to its very fast autofocus, weather sealing and build quality. However, if I didn't spend time at dirt bike tracks photographing fast moving objects in dusty conditions I might have bought the Tamron instead.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Sign In or Register to comment.