Lense Help (aka) here goes the great debate

k2c1959

ok, need some help here. i am leaving on a great outdoor adventure in 2 weeks to explore yellowstone area and anything in between oklahoma and montana and back. i am in need of suggestions or expertise in this area as a good all around carry lense that will be mainly used for 95% outdoor photography such as landscapes, wildlife, hopefully not too close, etc.. i am using a digital rebel xt (thanks windoze) and leaving my olypmus at home..(canon seems to take better pics). i am an extreme amatuer so be gentle, price is not much of a consideration, just dont want to carry more than 1 lense if i can keep from it. just learning these slr's. any help is appreciated much.

USAIR

Well I like the 24-70 f/2.8L lens good for landscape and good for portraits too.

Also if you want to just carry one lens you might look at the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM has very wide range...do some research.
Try this site Fred Miranda

And welcome to Dgrin

Fred

System

I'm not sure if I was clear re your comment on price, but I would recommend this lens regardless (no expert I)-

the canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is, in my mind, a fantastic lens-

great pictures, great range; if I had to carry one lens, this would be it-

if you're looking at taking pics of wildlife, I would consider one of the extenders, also-

I've never used one so I can't tell you much about them, but a 1.4 extender would give you about 450mm on the lens (considering your 1.6 sensor factor) (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on the math)-

that all being said, I realize that the lens is quite a bit more than your camera, but if you're getting into this photography stuff for a while, why not get some glass that will last you a long time, go with you to your next camera, and will give you some great photos-

george

Jeffro

Why settle for one? The 70-200L IS f2.8 is a great lens, but for the same money you can get the 70-200L f4, the 17-40L F4, and probably an inexpensive tripod. This would give you wide for landscapes, and some zoom for wildlife. And if you can afford it a 1.4x tc would give you some more reach.

cmason

70-200 f/4L - perfect lens for your situation. Since you will be outdoors, the f/4 will be plenty, and for dusk shots you will want a tripod anyway. The lens is fairly lightweight, very sharp and a joy to use.

For landscapes I would go wide: I like the Sigma 10-20, and heard good things about the Tokina 12-24.

ziggy53

k2c1959 wrote:

ok, need some help here. i am leaving on a great outdoor adventure in 2 weeks to explore yellowstone area and anything in between oklahoma and montana and back. i am in need of suggestions or expertise in this area as a good all around carry lense that will be mainly used for 95% outdoor photography such as landscapes, wildlife, hopefully not too close, etc.. i am using a digital rebel xt (thanks windoze) and leaving my olypmus at home..(canon seems to take better pics). i am an extreme amatuer so be gentle, price is not much of a consideration, just dont want to carry more than 1 lense if i can keep from it. just learning these slr's. any help is appreciated much.

Yellowstone has some grand vistas, which implies wide angle lenses. There is also a lot of wildlife, which I gather you would rather view from afar, which implies telephoto lenses.

If you are more serious about having just one lens than you are about ultimate image quality, there is one super-zoom which can cover most of what you want, the Sigma 18-200mm, f3.5-6.3 (Tamron also makes a lens in this range, but generally speaking, most reviewers like the Sigma better.)

This is a "do it all" lens that has some image quality compromises. Samples here:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-200_35-63_dc

Reviews:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=365

Tests:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563/index.htm


ziggy53

System

k2-

ha! getting a lot of advice here and looks all good to me-

you might have been better off not asking!-

anyway, good luck!-

I'd be curious as to what you end up getting, and why, and how it ends up working for you-

have a good trip and good pics-

george

Antonio Correia

Let me give you my opinion.
I would buy only Canon lens from the top.

My choise would be:
16~35mm f/2.8 LUSM http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm
70~200mm f/2.8 IS LUSM http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
1.4 extender - which works perfectly on the second lens and
a tripod.

Why this choise ?
Because they are from the best and we don't buy a lens every day/every year... :
http://www.planetneil.com/faq/pro-lenses.html
A lens wide open is always better than one 3.5-5.6 or whatever...
Ah! One more thing to buy:
Neutral density filter.

All this if you have already your
- back-ups
- falsh for the night in group
- 4 Units Sandisk Extreme III 1 Gb (1)

The problem with this equipment is the weight !
Oh, my back ! ...

About the 24~105 Canon lens:
http://www.planetneil.com/canon/reliability.html

Enjoy. I want to go there too. and fly in an helicopter ...

(Of all this I have what I marked in orange.)

SpeshulEd

I used the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 when I was on vacation in Napa Valley. I did the normal landscape touristy type shot, and also shot a wine release party with it.

A lot of the wine release party shots were a little soft on the focus, but I'm positive that was my fault. Over all it wasn't a bad lens, and it was quite affordable.

I must admit, as soon as I can afford it, I'll be moving up to better glass, but at budget prices, the sigma did quite well.

These were all shot with the 18-125mm:
http://speshuled.smugmug.com/gallery/1505476

http://speshuled.smugmug.com/Events/191133

k2c1959

choices choices

gefillmore wrote:

k2-

ha! getting a lot of advice here and looks all good to me-

you might have been better off not asking!-

anyway, good luck!-

I'd be curious as to what you end up getting, and why, and how it ends up working for you-

have a good trip and good pics-

george

so far i'm liking the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM... still investigating..lol

Antonio Correia

I forgot to add: a Canon 5D for 1 lens the other one you for the other lens.

System

two thoughts, and they're expensive thoughts-

4 versus 2.8 -
2.8 great for low light and for bokeh-great portraits-

no IS vs IS-
think about the situations where you could use this without having to fool around setting up your tripod-

if there's any chance you might later say 'gee, I wish I had a 2.8' and/or 'gee, I wish I had IS---I wished to hell I had listened to good ole' george, he knew what he was talking about!'-then spend the extra bucks-

yeah, well, whatever-

just some things to think about-

again, good luck!-

george

jthomas

Nikon 18-200VR !

Oops, wrong camera...:(:

jimf

k2c1959 wrote:

i am leaving on a great outdoor adventure in 2 weeks to explore yellowstone area and anything in between oklahoma and montana and back. i am in need of suggestions or expertise in this area as a good all around carry lense that will be mainly used for 95% outdoor photography such as landscapes, wildlife, hopefully not too close, etc. (...) just dont want to carry more than 1 lense if i can keep from it.

Unfortunately landscapes and wildlife are largely mutually exclusive; you want a fast telephoto for wildlife, wide angle for landscapes. I would take at least two lenses, but if you had to pick only one for that kind of trip I would look at either a very good wide or something with ton of range.

For maximum flexibility it's hard to beat the 28-200. There are compromises in quality at both ends of that lens, relative to lenses with narrower range, and it's kind of slow, but for do-everything it's quite hard to beat.

If it were me i'd go with the 17-40 f/4 L. I took a few lenses with me last year when I rode the canyons in Utah and I used that lens almost to the exclusion of all others. It's relatively small, wide enough for big scenery, and with the cropping factor of the Rebel XT it even works pretty well for portraits on the long end. But it will suck suck suck for shooting wildlife. (You could, of couse, go with the 16-35 f/2.8 but landscapes aren't going anywhere so I say why pay for the speed.)

Which is why I typically take at least two lenses, that one and a telephoto. For shooting wildlife I am a huge fan of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. In the Galapagos -- probably the most target-rich environment on the planet in terms of wildlife -- that was my lens. I took a full complement but I almost never removed the 70-200.

Unfortunately that lens is big, heavy, and fairly expensive. It will also chew up the battery of the Rebel XT if you're using IS; I'd consider a battery pack to be mandatory. A great compromise lens is the 70-200 f/4 L. Lose a lot of weight and half the price but still get terrific quality and good speed -- and with no IS your battery life should be ok.

The telephoto I tend to tote around when I'm going light is the 75-300 IS. This lens has distortion on the long end, and isn't very fast (either in terms of aperture or focus speed) but IS makes it really usable at 300mm even with a 1.6x cropping factor. IS on this lens won't flatline your battery. And it's cheap.

So: If you really only want one lens, get the 28-200. It's the only thing that will get you both big landscapes and wildlife. If you can take two, then definitely pick the 17-40 f/4 L and then decide if you want the weight and cost of one of the 70-200 Ls or the light weight and cheapness of the 75-300.

I realize that there's a big hole in between the wides and the telephotos I'm suggesting. I fill that with the 28-70 f/2.8, normally. Most of the time that lens is my workhorse but for a trip like you're describing it's not wide enough for landscapes or long enough for wildlife. You probably won't be doing a lot of portraits and if you want them then you probably have the space to use the short end of a telephoto. So, I leave that lens at home on such trips.

I hope this helps.

claudermilk

All the lenses mentioned are good one. One thing I'd like to point out: the whole point of an SLR is the changeable lenses--you get lenses that are the best for the type of shooting you are doing even to the point of primes at a single focal length for maximum optical quality and/or speed.

Now, for your trip I would say a good wide angle and a telephoto should cover most needs. I think the 70-200/2.8 IS is probably overkill for landscapes & the f4 version is more appropriate--it's smaller, lighter, and 1/3 the cost. However if you shoot in low light other times, it's a fantastics lens (it's the top of my need-to-get list).

Then of course, the 24-105 IS has been getting good press as a great walkaround lens.

I've been looking at WA lenses a lot lately (have a Jamaica trip this winter & expect many landscape opportunities). I have heard a LOT of very positive reviews of hte Tokina 12-24 at FredMiranda and POTN, so I'm probably getting that one. Canon's EF-S 10-22 is also considered one of the best. as is the 17-40; I'm not looking at the 17-40 since I already have a 24-70. IMHO the 16-35 is again overkill unless you really need that speed since it once again triples your cost fomr the rest mentioned. Sigma's WA isn't getting as good reviews as the Tokina or Canons.

jimf

claudermilk wrote:

I think the 70-200/2.8 IS is probably overkill for landscapes

The 70-200 range sucks rocks for landscapes. You want WIDE. It's a pretty nice range for wildlife, although I would prefer even longer. Problem is that the weight and cost go up astronomically beyond 200mm if the glass is even remotely fast.

There are some small, long, and sometimes even remarkably cheap lenses if you're willing to deal with slowness or some artifacts, though. I picked up a 500mm f/8 mirror lens for $110! Beyond totally weird bokeh its biggest issue is that it's a fully manual lens, making it a PITA if you don't have a split prism viewfinder. Still, it's fun to play with and you can't beat the price.

Canon also offers their 400mm DO lens, very compact and reasonably priced. It also has weird bokeh, which is why I don't own one, although it's at least a full-featured lens :-).

thebigsky

I couldn't go on such a trip with only one lens but if I was absolutely forced to I'd take the 24-70.

I really think you should reconsider and take at least two lenses, such as the 17-40 and the 70-200, personaly I'd take 3 lenses minimum, a prime wide, the 24-70 and a 100-400.

I think you'll be kicking yourself at the missed opportunities resulting from only taking one lens.

jimf

thebigsky wrote:

I couldn't go on such a trip with only one lens but if I was absolutely forced to I'd take the 24-70.

The 28-70 (predecessor to the 24-70) is my favorite walking around lens but it isn't wide enough for real landscapes, not with a 1.6x cropping factor, and it's nowhere near long enough for wildlife. If you bring that lens you compromise both landscapes and wildlife.

If you're going to compromise then pick what you think you're going to shoot most, bring the lens that does best at that, and deal with the fact it's not great for other stuff. I would bet pretty heavily that on a trip like that you'll be shooting tons of landscapes and not a lot of anything else; certainly that has been my experience. Hence my suggestion of going with the 17-40 if you're going to pick a single lens.

The compromise of losing the 40-70mm range in going with the 17-40 rather than the 24-70 is easily handled by getting closer to your subject. You're not doing skittish wildlife with a 70mm anyway. As an aside I think we all get really lazy using zooms; remember when you used to zoom by walking forwards and backwards with a 50mm prime? Not that I'm giving up my 28-70 any time soon, mind you.

If you're going to compromise a bit on the wide then I would go with the 28-200; at least that way you get a real telephoto.

thebigsky

jimf wrote:

If you're going to compromise then pick what you think you're going to shoot most, bring the lens that does best at that, and deal with the fact it's not great for other stuff.

I don't want to be 'that guy,' the pedant that points out grammatical errors, but unless you're joining him on his trip it's 'take the lens' not 'bring.'

Sorry, but coming from England this misuse of the language really grates.

jimf

thebigsky wrote:

I don't want to be 'that guy,' the pedant that points out grammatical errors, but unless you're joining him on his trip it's 'take the lens' not 'bring.'

Hmm, this is one peeve that I'd not heard before. I will keep it in mind henceforth.

Red Bull

17-40 f/4 L (about $600)
70-200 f/4L (about $550 - $600)
50mm f/1.8 II ($80)

I have all of these lenses and they are perfect. The 17-40 stays on my 20D about 90% of the time. I use the 70-200 if I need to get in closer. I use the 50mm when I need something fast. You can't go wrong with this combo and it's relatively cheap than other alternatives. Not to mention they are great lenses (all very sharp)

wxwax

k2c1959 wrote:

ok, need some help here. i am leaving on a great outdoor adventure in 2 weeks to explore yellowstone area and anything in between oklahoma and montana and back. i am in need of suggestions or expertise in this area as a good all around carry lense that will be mainly used for 95% outdoor photography such as landscapes, wildlife, hopefully not too close, etc.. i am using a digital rebel xt (thanks windoze) and leaving my olypmus at home..(canon seems to take better pics). i am an extreme amatuer so be gentle, price is not much of a consideration, just dont want to carry more than 1 lense if i can keep from it. just learning these slr's. any help is appreciated much.

The pro landscape photographer on the dgrin Yosemite trip said he primarily used three lenses.

17-40
24-70
70-200.

I'm no pro, but those are the three I always reach for. They cover the range, and have top quality. 300 and longer are big and more specialized.

USAIR

17-40 been looking at this but also 16-35
Don't want to hijack the thread but
Anyone want to point in right direction on which one you would pick and why
Mabe a couple of shots
I always seem to be drawn to the faster lens.

Thanks
Fred

wxwax

USAIR wrote:

17-40 been looking at this but also 16-35
Don't want to hijack the thread but
Anyone want to point in right direction on which one you would pick and why
Mabe a couple of shots
I always seem to be drawn to the faster lens.

Thanks
Fred

I have the 16-36. I love the width and the speed.

On a full frame, it's soft in the corners, even at f8 and higher. That's not good. It also won't be an issue for you, with your 1.6 crop.

I'm happy enough with the contrast.

Since the f2.8 speed isn't necessary for landscapes, I'm really curious about the 17-40. I'd love to try one for comparison.

Do a Google, you'll find some comparison tests. They seem to come out about even, which says a lot for the less expensive 17-40.

Red Bull

My 17-40 has been great. It's not too heavy and the f/4 has always been sufficient for me. I'm not sure how the 16-35 compares with weight though.

USAIR

wxwax wrote:

I have the 16-36. I love the width and the speed.

On a full frame, it's soft in the corners, even at f8 and higher. That's not good. It also won't be an issue for you, with your 1.6 crop.

I'm happy enough with the contrast.

Since the f2.8 speed isn't necessary for landscapes, I'm really curious about the 17-40. I'd love to try one for comparison.

Do a Google, you'll find some comparison tests. They seem to come out about even, which says a lot for the less expensive 17-40.

Going to the 5D real soon so have to look at the 17-40...I really going to miss the 10-22 :cry ... but the 10-22 is really 16-35
So the 17-40 will be pretty close I think
Googleing now

Thanks
Fred

wxwax

USAIR wrote:

Going to the 5D real soon

You'll love it!

I hope your computer is up to the challenge. Much bigger files, you'll need a speedy machine to cope. And CS2, no 5D raw converter for plain ol' CS. (I'm holding out, I use DPP right now.)

Sam

k2c1959 wrote:

so far i'm liking the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM... still investigating..lol

While this is an excelent lens, it will be too long for a lot of shots. I would highly recomend a wider lens to go with the 70-200. For landscapes you will need it. I have the 17-40 f4 and it's a good performer at a reasonable price..

Sam

Jeffro

Jeffro wrote:

Why settle for one? The 70-200L IS f2.8 is a great lens, but for the same money you can get the 70-200L f4, the 17-40L F4, and probably an inexpensive tripod. This would give you wide for landscapes, and some zoom for wildlife. And if you can afford it a 1.4x tc would give you some more reach.

24 replies later (not counting this one)...this is still a very good choice.

USAIR

wxwax wrote:

You'll love it!

I hope your computer is up to the challenge. Much bigger files, you'll need a speedy machine to cope. And CS2, no 5D raw converter for plain ol' CS. (I'm holding out, I use DPP right now.)

I hope too...
2.8ghz dual core 2G ram
CS2

We'll see ...Ilike this system runs great for 20D files CS2

Fred

wxwax

USAIR wrote:

I hope too...
2.8ghz dual core 2G ram
CS2

We'll see ...Ilike this system runs great for 20D files CS2

Fred

I think that should be plenty of gun.