Which lenses do you own/need

[tertius]

I have:

Canon EF 28-90 F4-F5.6 II USM
Canon EF 75-300 F4-F5.6 III USM

Both from my film days

When I went digital (v recently) I added:

Sigma Asherical 28mm F1.8 EX DG Macro

As I wanted a faster lens than the 2 zooms and I fancied a prime after years without one, this seemed the best option for reasonable money, and I'm dead chuffed with it. It is so good in low light.

I now plan to add the new Sigma 17-70 F2.8-F4.5 DC when its available in a month or so. The 28-90 will then be pretty much redundant, though both the Canon lenses have the advantage of being very light compared to the Sigmas.

Dan

Edited to correct typo

>> Edited by tertius on Monday 6th February 21:31

[nighthawk]

Own........

17-40 f4 L
60mm f2.8 macro
75-300 IS

Want.....
I want to replace the 75-300 with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and add a 1.4X convertor

[UKBob]

GetCarter said:

the 50 mm is a 'prime' lens... this means it has no zoom... but also means it has very little glass in it - therefore, not as much to distort the image. oh... edit.. and the AF-S means that it is quieter and faster when auto-focusing

Less glass... of course

I'd be happy to have some trade off - the idea of changing lenses just doesnt appeal. What is the best range from a fairly wide angle to a decent zoom, for 90% of the walking around, candid portraiture and street shots, and general "out and about" usage when not shooting wildlife? Would 24-125 ish have too much of a zoom range? Its probably easier to guage or have an opinion when youve actually owned and changed between lenses (which I havnt, yet)

[406tm]

UKBob said:

Would 24-125 ish have too much of a zoom range? Its probably easier to guage or have an opinion when youve actually owned and changed between lenses (which I havnt, yet)

Bob

I use my AF-S Nikon 24-120 VR 1:3.5-5.6G as a general walkabout lens and it does for me.

Dave

406TM

[Mr Noble]

www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3302&navigator=6


Bob, if your not into having to change lenses then you could get one that does the lot here!! Its actually a very good lens too, even given the vast range it covers. Would be perfect for starters until you decided you need that superior quality later on.

You could also get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to double the range to 400mm at the top end.

Nice.

Greg

[fergusd]

17-55/2.8 Nikkor
80-200/2.8 Nikkor (bought second hand)
10.5/2.8 Nikkor (bought today)

The 17-55 replaced my 18-70 D70 Kit Lens, brilliant little lens but I wanted less DOF and better low light ability as I take a lot of pictures handheld and low light, and dislike flash photog - large and heavy compared to the 18-70 - can be a pain in that respect as it's the lens that lives on the camera.
The 80-200 I bought as a fast lens for motorsport activities, it's not the latest and greatest, but it's AFS and solid and a fantastic lens if a little on the heavy side - but that's the price you pay.
The 10.5 . . . well . . . I had a good extended play with this and the sigma 10-20 today (in the US so taking advantage of the exchange rate and friendly local Nikon dealers) and the sigma didn't do it for me . . . I guess I now know that I was looking for a semi-fisheye and not just a very wide lens . . .

So . . . despite getting the car stuck in a snow drift/ditch combo (stopped to take a pic and it kinda sank up to it's chassis), then getting a guy in a huge 4x4 trying to pull us out stuck, then finally getting a copper in the largest 4x4 on the planet to pull us both out . . . we went for a long snowshoe in the backcountry along the continental divide line . . . tooks some pics . . . but so shattered I've only backed them up and it's off to kip time ;-) I certainly like some of them ;-)

Fd

[RobDickinson]

Just picked up my 1st lens for my 350d today (been borrowing a 50mm and a 70-200f4l).

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

No idea how sharp it is yet, cant realy tell till I dl the pics, but the field of view is cracking, excelent for a wide range of stuff, focuses @24cm too. Going to have a lot of fun with this one.

I've a 50mm f1.8 on order so thats next.

Then I need a mid range 'walkabout' - possibly, and a zoom - which is likely to be the 70-300 IS canon.

Dunno if I can make do with the 10-20 and 50mm and 70-200 or get a 17-85 or something to cover that range.

[ehasler]

My first lens was the 28-135IS and this was fine for a general walk-about lens, and I used it to take the majority of my photos. These days, the 24-70 is on my camera more often than any other lens.

Zoom lenses are all about compromise. A bigger zoom range normally means reduced quality/speed or increased weight/cost, so if you want that 28-300mm lens, it's almost certainly going to be big, heavy and expensive or be lacking in sharpness and have a small max aperture (e.g., f6.3 instead of f5.6 of f4).

Personally, I'd go for something like the Canon 28-135 (or 17-85 if you go for a 20D or other 1.6x camera) and then see how you get on. If you find yourself always wanting something a bit wider, but hardly ever use the telephoto end, then it would make sense to buy a wide angle next - conversely, you may find that 28mm is fine, but it's something longer that you really want.

[UKBob]

Mr Noble said:

www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3302&navigator=6 Bob, if your not into having to change lenses then you could get one that does the lot here!! Its actually a very good lens too, even given the vast range it covers. Would be perfect for starters until you decided you need that superior quality later on. You could also get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to double the range to 400mm at the top end. Nice. Greg

I really like the look of that Money aside, arn't the canon lenses sometimes/usually slightly better than the sigma lenses? I gather sigma is very good though, certainly worth getting(!)... Do canon do a faster L lens with IS, in the same sort of zoom range?

Also, I read yesterday that 3x teleconverters were available Does anyone have one, or can anyone recommend a good one? edit: and to tell whether they are compatible with your 1.6x xxD camera body, do you just need to look for "ef" or "ef-s" lenses?

>> Edited by UKBob on Tuesday 7th February 10:57

[ehasler]

Bear in mind that the Sigma lens above has a max aperture of f6.3 at 200mm which is very slow compared to most other lenses out there. AF performance will also be reduced because of that, and it may limit you to slower shutter speeds in low light compared to a faster lens, e.g., if the correct exposure is 1/125 @ f4, the shutter speed at f6.3 will be 1/50s - this may be a problem if you need 1/125 to get a sharp image.

Also, if you fit a converter to that lens, it will drop the max aperture another 1 (1.4x TC) or 2 (2x TC) stops, making it even slower (f9 or f12.7 I think, depending on TC), and that's probably pretty much unusable. I dread to think what a 3x TC would do!

[simpo two]

UKBob said:

Also, I read yesterday that 3x teleconverters were available Does anyone have one

I had one once. Seems great but it will kill your aperture, wreck your quality and bugger your autofocus.

There is no thing, regrettably, as a magic answer. Every lens has pros and cons. I think you should start with a standard mid-range zoom and let yourself find out what you need from there. That's the great thing about an SLR kit - you can grow it as you want/need/can afford to.

[UKBob]

ehasler said:

Bear in mind that the Sigma lens above has a max aperture of f6.3 at 200mm which is very slow compared to most other lenses out there. AF performance will also be reduced because of that, and it may limit you to slower shutter speeds in low light compared to a faster lens, e.g., if the correct exposure is 1/125 @ f4, the shutter speed at f6.3 will be 1/50s - this may be a problem if you need 1/125 to get a sharp image. Also, if you fit a converter to that lens, it will drop the max aperture another 1 (1.4x TC) or 2 (2x TC) stops, making it even slower (f9 or f12.7 I think, depending on TC), and that's probably pretty much unusable. I dread to think what a 3x TC would do!

hmmm

simpo two said:

UKBob said: Also, I read yesterday that 3x teleconverters were available Does anyone have one I had one once. Seems great but it will kill your aperture, wreck your quality and bugger your autofocus. There is no thing, regrettably, as a magic answer. Every lens has pros and cons. I think you should start with a standard mid-range zoom and let yourself find out what you need from there. That's the great thing about an SLR kit - you can grow it as you want/need/can afford to.

I suppose you're right. I dont mind spending the money, its chaning the lenses which doesnt appeal, 28-120 doesnt seem like much of a zoom range at all. When Ive had more hands on experience I'll probably be somewhat more opinionated and in a better position to decide exactly what my ideal setup would be (after Ive spent my money)

[simpo two]

Plus, you have to take the lens off to add a TC

'Fraid this isn't the compact world of 10x zooms! And by not changing lenses you'll be missing out on one of the biggest advantages of having an SLR...

It's no big deal, I must have changed lenses a hundred times in the last few weeks. Just switch the camera off and tilt it downwards as you change to minimise dust risk. I haven't had any noticeable crud in my camera for 18 months.

Right, I'm off to perfect the 10-1000mm f1.0 AF-S VR I'm building in the garage: advance orders with deposit to me please

[RossC]

simpo two said:

Right, I'm off to perfect the 10-1000mm f1.0 AF-S VR I'm building in the garage: advance orders with deposit to me please

50p and half a Kit Kat ?

[UKBob]

simpo two said:

Right, I'm off to perfect the 10-1000mm f1.0 AF-S VR I'm building in the garage: advance orders with deposit to me please

I'll have three please, so I can get the hang of this "changing lenses every 5 minutes" malarky

[UKBob]

OK, another question.

If its all about how much light the lense lets in, isnt it be possible to engineer a lens which has a much much wider 'end bit' like the telephoto lenses do? Why cant they design lenses to let in 10x more light and build them cone shaped rather than the current tube shaped offering?

[ehasler]

UKBob said:

OK, another question. If its all about how much light the lense lets in, isnt it be possible to engineer a lens which has a much much wider 'end bit' like the telephoto lenses do? Why cant they design lenses to let in 10x more light and build them cone shaped rather than the current tube shaped offering?

It's actually the aperture which dictates how much light gets in, and the size of this is related to the focal length and f number of the lens, i.e., the aperture of a 300mm f2.8 lens is 300/2.8 = ~10cm diameter

In comparison, a 300mm f5.6 lens would have an aperture of ~5.4cm diameter.

If you want more light, you have a bigger aperture, but that means more glass which means more weight and more $$$

[simpo two]

UKBob said:

Why cant they design lenses to let in 10x more light and build them cone shaped rather than the current tube shaped offering?

You've got it, but which bank are you going to rob?!

ehasler said:

If you want more light, you have a bigger aperture, but that means more glass which means more weight and more $$$

My 10-1000mm f1.0 will use virtual lenses, projected holographically. That way there's no heavy expensive glass to grind and polish, and the lens is very light.






Unfortunately the holographic projectors weigh 38kg and need 3-phase electricity



Here's Simpo Laboratories' outdoor research facility with an early batch of 50-10,000mm f2.8 lenses, at which point we realised the drawbacks of using glass lenses:




I still have four in stock...










>> Edited by simpo two on Tuesday 7th February 12:37

[Bacardi]

simpo two said:

Here's Simpo Laboratories' outdoor research facility with an early batch of 50-10,000mm f2.8 lenses, at which point we realised the drawbacks of using glass lenses:

Are you sure they are not Saddam Hussein's super guns?

When you're designing you new super lens, can you make sure it works with my new Plenoptic Camera that I have on order, thanks .

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera

sLight Field Photography Project said:

What is the advantage of this camera? This is a camera technology that lets you choose what's in focus after taking the picture. Of course normally you have to choose what to focus on before taking the picture, and there is no way to change that afterwards. This property allows us to extend the depth of field of the camera without reducing the aperture, enabling shorter exposures and lower image noise.

[Tuna]

Bob,

If you're not keen on changing lenses, or cleaning them (many low end/affordable slr lenses are not sealed, so can eat dust occasionally), why not get a bridge camera? The Fuji 9000 gives a good zoom range and is by all accounts a pretty good camera, with lots of manual control to play with.

I've got a Canon 17-85mmf4/5.6 IS EFS lens which is very handy for general out and about photographs. Also a 50mm f1.8 prime which is fantastic for indoor and portrait pictures. As you've worked out low f-number = bigger aperture = lighter photos. However wide open (ie. at low f-numbers) depth of field can be vanishingly small (a matter of millimetres at portrait distances). That makes it difficult to get your entire subject in focus at the same time, and can make it difficult to get good shots of moving targets.

I'd like a good macro lens, and a ~200-300mm lens for motorsport, though the long lenses get expensive as soon as you start trying to get wider apertures.