Which lenses do you own/need

[UKBob]

Tuna said:

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.

www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms9000/page12.asp it doesnt quite compare to the rebel as far as quality goes, which in turn probably wont be quite as good as the 30d which im holding out for (assuming it will be released) Im sure I'll get the hang of Fstops and apperture, I just need to choose the right lenses one at a time, and try to buy dedicated lenses for each task it seems... I dont see any alternative, other than investing in one of Simpo two's 50 metre long F1 tele lenses. Something tells me he's telling porkies anyway

Right, Ive just checked my old G5. On the front of the lens it says:
7.2-28.8mm 1:2.0-3.0
Can anyone translate that into english? Im sure its not 7.2mm at the wide end (thats fisheye innit?) is it saying its F2-F3 across the focal range?

[CVP]

UKBob said:

Right, Ive just checked my old G5. On the front of the lens it says: 7.2-28.8mm 1:2.0-3.0 Can anyone translate that into english? Im sure its not 7.2mm at the wide end (thats fisheye innit?) is it saying its F2-F3 across the focal range?

You've translated exactly right. However to turn this 7.2mm into the numbers most folk here are talking about you need to know how big your sensor is in the camera, more specifically you need to know the length of the diagonal line that would be drawn going from bottom left to top right on the sensor.

Sounds very complex, but fear not - try the manual, in the specs page it'll say the size of the sensor (in mm) and then should have a nice bit saying " (35mm equivalent **mm to **mm f** to f**)"

The key thing is folk are normally used to talking about focal length of lenses in terms of what you'd get using a 35mm camera, therefore a 24mm is wide angle, 50mm standard and 180mm is a shortish telephoto. As you chage the size of the film/ sensor larger and smaller the angle of view given by any particular focal lenght of lens is different. For instance if you shoot on medium format film where your negative can be 7cms * 6cms big, to get a "standard" angle of view you use a lens with a focal length of approx 75mm to 80mm, a wide angle would be 45mm and a telephoto 250mm ish.

Sounds complex to start with but you get the hang of it pretty quickly. There are some really good simple books around which explain this much better than I can

Chris

[UKBob]

I understand the basics of the sensor size vs mm focal length principal, and assumed my lens was a 35-200 or there abouts, the 7-28 seemed way out as it has 4x optical zoom.

[RobDickinson]

UKBob said:

I understand the basics of the sensor size vs mm focal length principal, and assumed my lens was a 35-200 or there abouts, the 7-28 seemed way out as it has 4x optical zoom.

4 * optical zoom only means its tele end is 4 times its wide end.

i.e. 7mm * 4 = 28mm, so 7-28mm = 4* zoom. 14-28 would be 2*zoom.

30-300 is 10 times zoom, so is 20-200 etc. The whole zoom thing is a pretty pants way of rating lenses without knowing where you start, but usualy the higher the zoom number the worse (or more heavy/expensive) the lens will be.

Chuffed with my sigma 2* zoom lense (10-20mm).

[UKBob]

RobDickinson said:

UKBob said: I understand the basics of the sensor size vs mm focal length principal, and assumed my lens was a 35-200 or there abouts, the 7-28 seemed way out as it has 4x optical zoom. 4 * optical zoom only means its tele end is 4 times its wide end. i.e. 7mm * 4 = 28mm, so 7-28mm = 4* zoom. 14-28 would be 2*zoom. 30-300 is 10 times zoom, so is 20-200 etc. The whole zoom thing is a pretty pants way of rating lenses without knowing where you start, but usualy the higher the zoom number the worse (or more heavy/expensive) the lens will be. Chuffed with my sigma 2* zoom lense (10-20mm).

Right, got it

[simpo two]

Bacardi said:

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

Arse.

Bacardi said:

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

All you need is an M42 adaptor... anyway, a pro like you should be able to focus properly in the first place...





However, if it's just a question of burning the pennies to avoid Inlandi Revendi, may I float before you the concept of a sign reading: 'Simpo Towers Studio B, opened by HM The Queen 1 March 2006, kindly sponsored by Bacardi Photographic plc'...?

[poah]

best lens is the one that does the job you require

I have

Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM EX DC
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX
canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 USM IS
I also have extention tubes for close up work and a sigma 1.4 ex DG teleconverter for the 70-200

what I would like is my 24-105 F4 IS L to be delivered :@

[Mr Noble]

Poah, you seem to have a great range of lenses IMO. How do you find the 30mm 1.4? Any pics you care to post from it please???

Greg

[V6GTO]

Sigma 12-24
Canon28-135 (broken, so soon to be replaced with the Canon 24-105L)
Canon 100 Macro
Canon 100-400L

If I could only have one lens it'd be the 100-400.

Martin.

[UKBob]

I just googled a price on the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM AF

By god, its expensive!

What does the USM mean?

Is there generally a non L version of all L lenses, and how much better are L lenses than regular lenses? I read somewhere the L stands for 'luxary '

[RobDickinson]

USM stands for Ultrasonic motors, quieter and quicker focusing than 'normal' tho this is something that evolves as time goes by (any USM II notation means the second version of the lens, not USM).

There isnt an 'L' and non 'L' lens in each range I'm afraid, some prehaps but not all (no L 18-55 etc).

[imperialism2024]

simpo two said:

'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...

Right on, if you don't want to worry much about lenses, an S2 IS is much cheaper...

As for my lenses:
Nikon 18-70mm kit lens
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 300mm f/4
Nikon 55-200mm [worst lens I have]

I picked up the 55-200mm for a drag race, under the assumption that it would be better for moving objects, and that "it can't be that bad". It was. Horrible image quality, though fortunately I was sufficiently far enough away that my 300mm with 1.7x TC was at the perfect focal distance for my shots on the track, so I only used the 55-200 for about 70 or 80 shots, none of which I ended up post-processing since they weren't really workable.

And so ended my desire to ever buy a cheap lens. That $200 could have been much better put toward the $900 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. But aside from that lens, I don't really want any other zoom lenses. My want list pretty much consists of:

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 Fisheye
A decent Nikon wide angle prime lens

[-DeaDLocK-]

1. Nikon 18-70 DX
2. Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR
3. Nikon 2x TC
4. Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro
5. Tokina 12-24 f4

I think I got everything covered. The only lens I'm not happy with is the kit 18-70 - in this company it just isn't up to scratch and isn't very consistent/reliable. My Tokina is now my standard lens of choice.

[simpo two]

imperialism2024 said:

I picked up the 55-200mm for a drag race, under the assumption that it would be better for moving objects, and that "it can't be that bad". It was.

Unfortunately over the years even the big names have introduced budget lenses to bundle with their lower-end cameras. Hence seeing 'Nikon' or Canon' on a lens doesn't automatically mean it's going to be supreme quality. Most consumers want cheap, and you can't get a good lens for cheap.

I'm sorry that Deadlock doesn't rate the 18-70, but I'm learning that lenses can differ from one example to the next, like TVRs. I'm very happy with mine, but maybe he has a Friday one. That said, it retails at about £200 so it's not going to deliver the same performance as a lens costing 2-3x as much. As 'kit' lenses go though, it's above average.

Possibly the best guide to quality, pre-use, is the cost. 'YGWYPF' But many people may be perfectly happy with the kit lens. I am, for a lot of stuff. That's why I think it's important not to rush out and spend thousands to join the 'all the gear, no idea' brigade, but to start at ground level and expand the toolkit as your needs expand.

Besides, you'll have a DSLR to figure out how to work!

[Mr Noble]

What would you think the real differences are between the Nikon/canon own lenses and the sigma/tokina equivalent? On say a 70-200 2.8 or a 12-24?

Are the Nikons worht twice what you can get the "same" sigma for?


Greg

[poah]

Mr Noble said:

Poah, you seem to have a great range of lenses IMO. How do you find the 30mm 1.4? Any pics you care to post from it please??? Greg

yes good lens DOF at f1.4 is tiny though it's easy to misfocus

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6519/rossthomson24ob.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9163/3613s0ak.jpg

[dinkel]

Cartier-Bresson only used his Leica with a 50mm . . .

And I must say, with the 28-70 on I try to keep around about 50mm. So I might buy that 350D with the 18-55mm . . .

[-DeaDLocK-]

Mr Noble said:

What would you think the real differences are between the Nikon/canon own lenses and the sigma/tokina equivalent? On say a 70-200 2.8 or a 12-24? Are the Nikons worht twice what you can get the "same" sigma for?

In my experience each lens, regardless of manufacturer, needs to be judged on its own merits. So far, the consensus of reviews for all the lenses I have purchased have been accurate.

But you do have a point in that spec-for-spec, in many cases the Sigmas, Tokinas and Tamrons represent better value than their Nikon and Canon counterparts, or at least this is what the reviews of some cameras tell me. I opted for the Tokina 12-24 over the Nikon version because it is less than half the price, and by all accounts offers 99% of the optical quality.

I got the Nikon 70-200 VR, which is a massively expensive single purchase for me, over the Sigma variant because when I was shopping the Sigma wasn't yet available and the reviews said that the Nikon model was, in a word, perfect, and slated to be one of the all-time greats. So I bought into a piece of history, and it gave me some gear bragging rights. I think I would probably be just as happy with the Sigma, but it was a case of right place right time right price (the list price of the Nikon has actually gone up since I bought it for some reason).

[Mr Noble]

Pretty much as I thought then. I guess for the type and quality of shots that I am capable of getting, the sigma ones are going to be just fine.

Thx
G

[Black5]

I have a 350D and mainly use a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX.

I'll upgrade the camera before the lens. IMO the lens will work just as well on a 1D-II and is of similar quality to Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 (non IS)

Other lenses:
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 18-55mm (Stock lens)
Sigma 70-300mm APO macro (My 1st bought lens - good beginners lens)
Sigma x2 conv

What I need:
24/28 - 70/105mm. Something for everyday use.

What I would really like:
500 or 600mm prime - for sports, surf & wildlife shots.

I would be nice to see Sigma bring out a 70-200mm f/2.8 OS. Priced around £800, I reckon it would cause Canon to lose some sales.