Which lenses do you own/need
Discussion
)Now you just need to hurry up, buy the camera then start posting your results!
If you haven't already, you should get your name on the waiting list for whatever the next canon ends up being called. Otherwise if it's due may don't expect to get your hands on one till July or August...
If you haven't already, you should get your name on the waiting list for whatever the next canon ends up being called. Otherwise if it's due may don't expect to get your hands on one till July or August...
Going back to the original question and adding my 2p....
Got:
Nikon 20-35mm 2.8 - used occasionally
Nikon 24-120mm VR - on 80%
Nikon 80-400mm VR - the rest of the time
Purchased at some point in the last year or so:
Nikon 18-70 (kit) - now sold
Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX - now sold
Nikon 50mm 1.8 - now sold
Sigma 1.4 TC - now sold
Sigma 2.0 TC - now sold
I love zoom and pursued it through various forms (basic 55-200, fancy 70-200, 1.4 tc, 2.0 tc) and wish that I'd just bought the big one at the start.
If I was buying from scratch, I'd look at the Nikon 18-200 with VRII as the everyday one.
Got:
Nikon 20-35mm 2.8 - used occasionally
Nikon 24-120mm VR - on 80%
Nikon 80-400mm VR - the rest of the time
Purchased at some point in the last year or so:
Nikon 18-70 (kit) - now sold
Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX - now sold
Nikon 50mm 1.8 - now sold
Sigma 1.4 TC - now sold
Sigma 2.0 TC - now sold
I love zoom and pursued it through various forms (basic 55-200, fancy 70-200, 1.4 tc, 2.0 tc) and wish that I'd just bought the big one at the start.
If I was buying from scratch, I'd look at the Nikon 18-200 with VRII as the everyday one.
_dobbo_ said:I cant wait to start shooting
Now you just need to hurry up, buy the camera then start posting your results!
If you haven't already, you should get your name on the waiting list for whatever the next canon ends up being called. Otherwise if it's due may don't expect to get your hands on one till July or August...
It wouldnt be wise not to place an order now. I'll probably leve a deposit with a few of the local retailers and buy from whoever gets one in first, as I dont want to have to wait a few months if they dont get one in, or cock up the order.
Lets say the camera comes is announced on Feb 22nd, typically (in the past) how much time usually seems to pass before steves digicams or Phil from DPreview come out with full reviews? Im sure the camera will meet expectations, but there is always a small chance that it might not. I be hesitant to buy witout first reading a review.
re: Kit lenses - what does kit imply?
Cheap quality lens to keep buy-prices down, or
just a bundled lens, which could be of good quality.
UKbob said:
re: Kit lenses - what does kit imply?
Cheap quality lens to keep buy-prices down, or
just a bundled lens, which could be of good quality.
The 'kit' lens is simply the one that makers bundle the bodies with. The cheaper it is, the less expensive the bundle, so you can see there's a pressure there. The Nikkor 18-70mm AF-S (bundled with the D70 and sometimes the D50) is generally regarded as above average, whilst the Nikkor 18-55mm seems to be a bit less good, and I've seen people being critical of the Canon 18-55mm.
However, you have to remember that some people are fussier than others, and different examples of the same lens can vary.
The Canon 18-55 is pretty poor, it ony adds £30 or so onto the price of the camera so that tells you a lot.
Its OK as a starter lens and acceptable when stopped down, there isnt (as yet) another canon lens that covers that range either. Get it if you want but IMO get the 50mm f1.8 instead.
Its OK as a starter lens and acceptable when stopped down, there isnt (as yet) another canon lens that covers that range either. Get it if you want but IMO get the 50mm f1.8 instead.
RobDickinson said:
The Canon 18-55 is pretty poor, it ony adds £30 or so onto the price of the camera so that tells you a lot.
Its OK as a starter lens and acceptable when stopped down, there isnt (as yet) another canon lens that covers that range either.
What about the EF-S 17-85 IS - not as sharp as a prime, but a whole lot better than the 18-55...
RobDickinson said:
What about the EF-S 17-85 IS - not as sharp as a prime, but a whole lot better than the 18-55...
At £380+ its a damned sight more expensive than either (kit or 50mm), and from what I see gets very mixed reviews and non seem to be glowing.
Fair point, though in my experience it is better than the 18-55 (not difficult considering that the 18-55 is made out of yoghurt pots and milkbottle bottoms) but is nicely the equivalent of a 28-135 on the 1.6 bodies. It is a very nice walkaround lens with the fair amount of reach, a damn sight lighter than the 24-70 2.8L and a lot better than the 28-135 in terms of quality and the wide end is very useful.
Despite having the 50 1.4 (gave 1.8 to friend when I got 1.4) and the 28-135 IS as alternatives - the 17-85 lives on my camera as a 'default' lens though to be brutally honest comes off in favour of rex's 24-70 or my 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 where possible if we have to do some 'serious' work. For a general, useful 'travel' lens for the 20D and 3x0D bodies it is great.
However I bileve the original comment was about coverage and the 17-85 does cover the range offered by the 18-55 and some...
>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Tuesday 14th February 05:45
HankScorpio said:Still looking for some useful reviews.
.... I'd look at the Nikon 18-200 with VRII as the everyday one.
Thinking this might be a nice little addition for when I only want to carry one lens and want more than the little 45mm.
(See, I will be swayed out of the 18th C into having zooms after all.)
FunkyNige said:
Nikon 50mm 1.8 - now sold
Out of curiousity, what made you sell it?
Lack of ability, talent and vision.
It was nice but was also sitting in a drawer as I had no real, specific need for it. If I wanted to shoot something at 50mm, the 24-120 would take care of it. I was sucked in by the "you've got to have one of these in your bag" discussions.
I don't ever aim for my photography to be art, it's purely to record things as I go through life. I have the odd things to play with like the closeup lenses but I'm generally just a happy-snapper. At a kids birthday in the summer, 50mm at f1.8 or 50mm at f8 makes not a lot of difference to me.
I'd rather have the flexibility of a mega-zoom than the sharpness of a box of primes.
HankScorpio said:
but I'm generally just a happy-snapper. At a kids birthday in the summer, 50mm at f1.8 or 50mm at f8 makes not a lot of difference to me. I'd rather have the flexibility of a mega-zoom than the sharpness of a box of primes.
The advantage of the 50mm f1.8 in my book is that it's an affordable way to get f1.8, if you need such a thing for speed or DOF purposes. It's also a tiddler so easy to carry around, whereas the 17-55 f2.8 will stay in the cupboard unless I specifically need it!
lotusfan said:Is that the IS USM version?
oooooo just got a nice cheque from the revenue (with interest too, nice)
i spy a 70-200 F2.8 L on its merry way woohoo
Ohh, ive just checked, the non IS USM version doesnt have such an OTT price tag. Any idea why there is an F4 version, is it just older than the F2.8?
>> Edited by UKBob on Wednesday 15th February 12:16
UKBob said:
oooooo just got a nice cheque from the revenue (with interest too, nice)
i spy a 70-200 F2.8 L on its merry way woohoo
Any idea why there is an F4 version, is it just older than the F2.8?
>> Edited by UKBob on Wednesday 15th February 12:16
i have the 100-400 IS L and the IS is not a lot of use for football under floodlights so a 2.8 is a must and as i dont need IS i get to save £500 or so, cant really afford to shell out for a 300 / 400 either so best compromise, the F4 version is almost half the price of the 70-200 so i guess thats why its there, if you're not on low light you can get away with an F4 i suppose.
lotusfan said:
i have the 100-400 IS L and the IS is not a lot of use for football under floodlights so a 2.8 is a must and as i dont need IS i get to save £500 or so, cant really afford to shell out for a 300 / 400 either so best compromise, the F4 version is almost half the price of the 70-200 so i guess thats why its there, if you're not on low light you can get away with an F4 i suppose.
I was just going to suggest to Bob he consider that lens, as he seems to be planning mainly daylight photography.
www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
It would certainly be a nice addition to my kit, but I still think I'd prefer a zoom with a wider aperture.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff