My favorite and most frequently used lens is Canon's 70-200/2.8L. Very fast auto-focus, great images, wonderful image stabilizer. I've used it for portraits and for sports. My second favorite is the 300/2.8L. Very large and expensive but oh-my-gosh do I like the results. I need to use it more often in order to justify the cost.
I am late to the party here, but I feel like everyone is anwering the wrong question.
IF you only plan on buying ONE lens for an interchangeable single-lens reflex camera, why buy one at all??
Seriously, why not buy Sony's R-1, or any one of a number of Electronic View finder cameras.
One of the prime reasons for using a Single Lens Reflex camera is the ability to change lenses. If you aren't going to change lenses at times, why pay for a DSLR?? I know why, of course, lower noise, high ISO performance, larger sensor ( except the R-1) etc.
IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens for an SLR - I would suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Both are capapble of making very sharp images.
The Canon build quality IS better - I can say this as I own and shoot both. The Canon is also substantially larger and heavier, but it also focuses significantly faster. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D. On a larger bodied camera, like a 1D, I prefer the Canon.
The alternative to a normal range zoom, of course, which has had little discusssion in this thread, is a 35mm to 50mm fast prime - f1.4 or f2 range. These are excellent first choices - they used to be the only real choices before the advent of decent normal range zooms.
AFTER you have a normal range zoom or prime, then you can discuss wide angles, telephotos, long lenses, macros, of which we all have our favorites.
A 24mm f2.8 prime, a 50mm f1.8 prime and a 135 f2.8 prime, will cost not much more than a 24-70 f2.8 L . Something to think about......
My favorite lens is the one I have on the camera at the time I pick it up to my eye ready to shoot. Wide, normal, long, extra long, macro - they're all good
IF you only plan on buying ONE lens for an interchangeable single-lens reflex camera, why buy one at all??
One of the prime reasons for using a Single Lens Reflex camera is the ability to change lenses. If you aren't going to change lenses at times, why pay for a DSLR?? I know why, of course, lower noise, high ISO performance, larger sensor ( except the R-1) etc.
IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens for an SLR - I would suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Both are capapble of making very sharp images.
The Canon build quality IS better - I can say this as I own and shoot both. The Canon is also substantially larger and heavier, but it also focuses significantly faster. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D. On a larger bodied camera, like a 1D, I prefer the Canon.
Pathfinder: When I said I would probably buy one lens at a time, what I really meant was I will be back next weekend for lens #2!!!! Thanks for the extra feedback on the Canon24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. The Canon24-70 seems to be a real crowd-pleaser. But there are several comments (from guys, not gals) regarding the weight of this lens. So I guess the best thing would be to go to a good camera dealer who has both in stock and ask to try them on a 20D and see before I buy. Your observations on what you prefer on 2 different camera bodies is extra helpful...thanks!
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.
Thanks Bill...another fan of the Canon 24-70/2.8L. And more examples of why to use it over the Tamron. I don't go dirtbiking, so I guess I'm safe if I decide to go with the Tamron! Appreciate your comments.
Saurora, if you walk in to your favorite camera store with the summary you have in post #52, and even buy 10% of those, you will be their favorite customer for the year. And if you buy all of them, they will probably sign the store over to you on the spot.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Saurora, if you walk in to your favorite camera store with the summary you have in post #52, and even buy 10% of those, you will be their favorite customer for the year. And if you buy all of them, they will probably sign the store over to you on the spot.
David! You have just given me a great idea! I can only imagine the thoughts that would fly through that salesman's mind if I handed over that summary!!! I better bring a paper bag....he/she would probably start hyperventilating!!!
Thanks Bill...another fan of the Canon 24-70/2.8L. And more examples of why to use it over the Tamron. I don't go dirtbiking, so I guess I'm safe if I decide to go with the Tamron! Appreciate your comments.
I haven't shot with either one, but have you considered the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 over the Canon 24-70? From the reviews I have read Fred Miranda, PhotoZone, DP review etc, this lens has received excellent reviews. Putting aside Manufacture loyalty the Sigma has said to be just a good if not slightly better than the Canon counter part.
David! You have just given me a great idea! I can only imagine the thoughts that would fly through that salesman's mind if I handed over that summary!!! I better bring a paper bag....he/she would probably start hyperventilating!!!
Saurora,
Better yet, take the list and a DGrinner, say maybe Andy (he works for food). That way, you get the opinions of all of us, and the experience of one of us (which is about all that can be expected at one time. I imagine that more than two DGrinners in a camera store is a pretty dangerous thing.)
Keep one thing firmly in mind, there is no right or wrong. Some lenses may be better than others, even supposedly identical lenses can be slightly different. Make the best decision you can, based with the information at hand and "your own" needs, and then learn from the decision, good or bad. Selling equipment to change or upgrade is pretty painless and change is good. The important thing is the "doing" of photography, not how it is done.
Saurora,
Better yet, take the list and a DGrinner, say maybe Andy (he works for food). That way, you get the opinions of all of us, and the experience of one of us (which is about all that can be expected at one time. I imagine that more than two DGrinners in a camera store is a pretty dangerous thing.)
Word.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Nice!!! That looks like a fun size lens to have! Not hearing too much from the Nikon crowd. Back in the 70's when I got my first SLR, Nikons were the cameras and lenses everyone wanted, including me. I can certainly see since joing Dgrin, a definite shift towards Canon.....but we won't go into the Canon/Nikon wars here....that's a whole different thread!!!!
I haven't shot with either one, but have you considered the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 over the Canon 24-70? From the reviews I have read Fred Miranda, PhotoZone, DP review etc, this lens has received excellent reviews. Putting aside Manufacture loyalty the Sigma has said to be just a good if not slightly better than the Canon counter part.
You're right...there are lots of good things said about Sigmas and I am definitely considering them as well as Tamron and Canon. I'm only loyal to a certain degree!!! If I can save some money and buy more lenses....what could be better?
Better yet, take the list and a DGrinner, say maybe Andy (he works for food). That way, you get the opinions of all of us, and the experience of one of us (which is about all that can be expected at one time. I imagine that more than two DGrinners in a camera store is a pretty dangerous thing.)
Keep one thing firmly in mind, there is no right or wrong. Some lenses may be better than others, even supposedly identical lenses can be slightly different. Make the best decision you can, based with the information at hand and "your own" needs, and then learn from the decision, good or bad. Selling equipment to change or upgrade is pretty painless and change is good. The important thing is the "doing" of photography, not how it is done.
Remind me to remind myself that simple lesson.
Good luck with the shopping,
ziggy53
Thanks for all the good advice Ziggy (I'll remind you to remind yourself....). I've watched the flea market here on the forum and it seems relatively easy to unload lenses and accessories so I guess I won't fret too much over picking lenses. I don't think we could get Andy in a camera store right now....he's too busy with his new IR converted Rebel. Ah....and for my next camera.....
1. Whether you buy a Canon or Nikon go test the bodies for yourself. Don't believe everything you read on the internet about percieved differences/ advantages of between the two brands. If I had believed everything I'd read then I would have started out (DSLR) initially believing Canon had some huge advantage concerning low noise at higher ISO's. After testing on my own a D70 against a 20D I just found that wasn't the truth. Don't ignore ergonomics either. A tool that feels right will end up in your hand more often.
2. Like you I prefer available light and hate flash. Some of my favorite lenses include the Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro. This shot was at it's "supposed" not good apeture of f/25 and with a "supposed" unuseable for Nikon 1600ISO.
3. Another favorite is the Nikon 50mm 1.4D. Here's a scenic with a lens that is "supposedly" not so good at f/8 and not a great choice for landscape/ scenery...
4. Other favorites include my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 ED DX (sharp with stunning contrast across it's range wide open), Nikon 10.5mm 2.8 DX Fisheye (once you've used a horizontal fisheye then all those so call "wide angle lenses" just don't seem so great), Nikon 35mm 1.4 AIS (sharp at any apeture/ the only lens I have that isn't diffraction limited anywhere!), Nikon 85mm 1.8D (sharp wide open like a portrait range prime should be), Nikon 35mm 2.0D (not the same bite as the 35mm 1.4 AIS but sometimes AF is just nice to have/ close enough to my 17-55mm that I don't mind), Nikon 120mm f/4.5 Macro (a rare oddball that is fixed apeture but has proven very useful all the same), Nikon 135mm 2.8 AIS (nothing outstanding in any one area but just a focal length I like on digital). If you want to get into non-Nikon glass and money is no object I can easily double the size of this list.
Myself, I just recently decided to take the plunge from cheap glass. I mean, why have a camera worth a thousand bucks or more with a $69 Sigma lens on it? Didn't make sense to me either.
So last month I bought the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 after comparing it to my friend's L lens and I am thrilled with it.
Yesterday I bought the 70-200 f2.8L...it has yet to arrive, but I'm really pumped about it!!
...Was disappointed to find I did not feel comfortable holding the 20D. It felt like I was going to lose my grip and drop it!! So I was more taken by the Rebel XT which seemed a better fit for my hands. Interestingly, a week later I was at another store looking for the Nikons to "try on". I picked up the 20D again and it didn't feel so strange. Perhaps it was just larger than I was expecting. It helps to know you can carry these around comfortably as well.
1) I had the opposite problem with the 20D -- the grip was a little small, but that was solved nicely by adding the BG-E2 battery grip ... plus it gives me a vertical shutter release and way more battery power than I ever need (except out in the cold). There is no way I could ever comfortably use the unbelievably micro-size 350D (Rebel XT).
2) if you prefer natural lighting and shoot indoors and/or handheld, then you must consider (a) lenses with optical image stabilization (Canon, Nikon, and Sigma call this "IS", "VR", and "OS", respectively), and (b) obviously, fast lenses. I just got some shots of conference speakers with a 50mm f/1.4 that would have been tough at f/4. I'm surprised that previous posters haven't made a bigger deal out of the benefits of good optical stabilization.
3) Sam's reply was spot-on ... get a general-purpose lens now (28-135, 24-105, 24-70, etc), then add other lenses as you understand your needs better.
4) If you find the camera a bit heavy (and you will, esp with the faster lenses that have been mentioned), consider using a monopod or a beanbag to support the weight of the camera/lens.
5) My lenses? I have the following, used on a 20D:
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 24-105 f/4"L" IS,
SIgma 80-400 f/4-5.6 OS
Plus I want to foray into the wild WIDE end of things, so have a Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens currently on order. I used to have a Canon 28-135mm IS lens, and it was a great walk-around lens (the IS really helps); I'd definitely recommend that as a great starter lens. The Sigma 80-400's optical quality is suprisingly good; I've read others' comments equating it to almost Canon "L" quality. I got some great glacier/iceberg shots in Alaska with the 80-44 last year! I now use the 24-105 lens probably 80% of the time. Maybe I'll think about an f/2.8 zoom sometime!!
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
Comments
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
As I said, built like a tank
Stan
I am late to the party here, but I feel like everyone is anwering the wrong question.
IF you only plan on buying ONE lens for an interchangeable single-lens reflex camera, why buy one at all??
Seriously, why not buy Sony's R-1, or any one of a number of Electronic View finder cameras.
One of the prime reasons for using a Single Lens Reflex camera is the ability to change lenses. If you aren't going to change lenses at times, why pay for a DSLR?? I know why, of course, lower noise, high ISO performance, larger sensor ( except the R-1) etc.
IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens for an SLR - I would suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Both are capapble of making very sharp images.
The Canon build quality IS better - I can say this as I own and shoot both. The Canon is also substantially larger and heavier, but it also focuses significantly faster. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D. On a larger bodied camera, like a 1D, I prefer the Canon.
The alternative to a normal range zoom, of course, which has had little discusssion in this thread, is a 35mm to 50mm fast prime - f1.4 or f2 range. These are excellent first choices - they used to be the only real choices before the advent of decent normal range zooms.
AFTER you have a normal range zoom or prime, then you can discuss wide angles, telephotos, long lenses, macros, of which we all have our favorites.
A 24mm f2.8 prime, a 50mm f1.8 prime and a 135 f2.8 prime, will cost not much more than a 24-70 f2.8 L . Something to think about......
My favorite lens is the one I have on the camera at the time I pick it up to my eye ready to shoot. Wide, normal, long, extra long, macro - they're all good
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Pathfinder: When I said I would probably buy one lens at a time, what I really meant was I will be back next weekend for lens #2!!!! Thanks for the extra feedback on the Canon24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. The Canon24-70 seems to be a real crowd-pleaser. But there are several comments (from guys, not gals) regarding the weight of this lens. So I guess the best thing would be to go to a good camera dealer who has both in stock and ask to try them on a 20D and see before I buy. Your observations on what you prefer on 2 different camera bodies is extra helpful...thanks!
I guess you do!!!! Nice shot of the moon! Looks pretty darn close!
Thanks Bill...another fan of the Canon 24-70/2.8L. And more examples of why to use it over the Tamron. I don't go dirtbiking, so I guess I'm safe if I decide to go with the Tamron! Appreciate your comments.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Saurora,
Better yet, take the list and a DGrinner, say maybe Andy (he works for food). That way, you get the opinions of all of us, and the experience of one of us (which is about all that can be expected at one time. I imagine that more than two DGrinners in a camera store is a pretty dangerous thing.)
Keep one thing firmly in mind, there is no right or wrong. Some lenses may be better than others, even supposedly identical lenses can be slightly different. Make the best decision you can, based with the information at hand and "your own" needs, and then learn from the decision, good or bad. Selling equipment to change or upgrade is pretty painless and change is good. The important thing is the "doing" of photography, not how it is done.
Remind me to remind myself that simple lesson.
Good luck with the shopping,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Word.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Nice!!! That looks like a fun size lens to have! Not hearing too much from the Nikon crowd. Back in the 70's when I got my first SLR, Nikons were the cameras and lenses everyone wanted, including me. I can certainly see since joing Dgrin, a definite shift towards Canon.....but we won't go into the Canon/Nikon wars here....that's a whole different thread!!!!
You're right...there are lots of good things said about Sigmas and I am definitely considering them as well as Tamron and Canon. I'm only loyal to a certain degree!!! If I can save some money and buy more lenses....what could be better?
Thanks for all the good advice Ziggy (I'll remind you to remind yourself....). I've watched the flea market here on the forum and it seems relatively easy to unload lenses and accessories so I guess I won't fret too much over picking lenses.
2. Like you I prefer available light and hate flash. Some of my favorite lenses include the Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro. This shot was at it's "supposed" not good apeture of f/25 and with a "supposed" unuseable for Nikon 1600ISO.
3. Another favorite is the Nikon 50mm 1.4D. Here's a scenic with a lens that is "supposedly" not so good at f/8 and not a great choice for landscape/ scenery...
4. Other favorites include my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 ED DX (sharp with stunning contrast across it's range wide open), Nikon 10.5mm 2.8 DX Fisheye (once you've used a horizontal fisheye then all those so call "wide angle lenses" just don't seem so great), Nikon 35mm 1.4 AIS (sharp at any apeture/ the only lens I have that isn't diffraction limited anywhere!), Nikon 85mm 1.8D (sharp wide open like a portrait range prime should be), Nikon 35mm 2.0D (not the same bite as the 35mm 1.4 AIS but sometimes AF is just nice to have/ close enough to my 17-55mm that I don't mind), Nikon 120mm f/4.5 Macro (a rare oddball that is fixed apeture but has proven very useful all the same), Nikon 135mm 2.8 AIS (nothing outstanding in any one area but just a focal length I like on digital). If you want to get into non-Nikon glass and money is no object I can easily double the size of this list.
http://www.digitalfrog.nl/blog [Photo Blog]
Myself, I just recently decided to take the plunge from cheap glass. I mean, why have a camera worth a thousand bucks or more with a $69 Sigma lens on it? Didn't make sense to me either.
So last month I bought the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 after comparing it to my friend's L lens and I am thrilled with it.
Yesterday I bought the 70-200 f2.8L...it has yet to arrive, but I'm really pumped about it!!
2) if you prefer natural lighting and shoot indoors and/or handheld, then you must consider (a) lenses with optical image stabilization (Canon, Nikon, and Sigma call this "IS", "VR", and "OS", respectively), and (b) obviously, fast lenses. I just got some shots of conference speakers with a 50mm f/1.4 that would have been tough at f/4. I'm surprised that previous posters haven't made a bigger deal out of the benefits of good optical stabilization.
3) Sam's reply was spot-on ... get a general-purpose lens now (28-135, 24-105, 24-70, etc), then add other lenses as you understand your needs better.
4) If you find the camera a bit heavy (and you will, esp with the faster lenses that have been mentioned), consider using a monopod or a beanbag to support the weight of the camera/lens.
5) My lenses? I have the following, used on a 20D:
- Canon 50mm f/1.4
- Canon 24-105 f/4"L" IS,
- SIgma 80-400 f/4-5.6 OS
Plus I want to foray into the wild WIDE end of things, so have a Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens currently on order. I used to have a Canon 28-135mm IS lens, and it was a great walk-around lens (the IS really helps); I'd definitely recommend that as a great starter lens. The Sigma 80-400's optical quality is suprisingly good; I've read others' comments equating it to almost Canon "L" quality. I got some great glacier/iceberg shots in Alaska with the 80-44 last year! I now use the 24-105 lens probably 80% of the time. Maybe I'll think about an f/2.8 zoom sometime!!Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
i like my efs-60 macro -an excellent "true'' macro which reproduces at 1:1 and is really good for portraits etc
apart from the build,which is not L quality,the optics are excellent
my other favourite is my old pentax s-m-c takumar 200/4 adapted to eos!
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.