[boxeraddict]

Originally posted by Senna4ever
What kind of photography do you want to do?

Not sure, I just like taking good pics

[Senna4ever]

Since you already have the 28-55, how about the 75-300? Then maybe later get a macro lens.

[FishTaco]

just adopted the Canon EF 24-105 mm f/4 L IS USM

merry christmas me

[bikerx]

sighs i don't know if i should let go of my 10-20 sigma and get a 17-40 f4L

i just bought a 15mm fish eye off Levitron. and i can lens correct it and it'd b pretty much the same wideness. as my usuable 10mm. considering i had harsh vignetting at 10mm. i have to shoot at 12mm to prevent vignetting.

currently have
10-20 sigma
15mm fisheye 2.8
28-75 2.8tamron
70-200 2.8sigma
85mm 1.8
50mm 1.8

GRRR what to do. or should i just keep my set up as is. all this going on my 1d mark2 (1.3 crop).. sold my xt .

[trix25]

Originally posted by Senna4ever
The Tamron 18-250 seems to be an awesome lens in its range. About $500. The Tamron 18-200 is about $400.

The Sigma 18-200 OS lens is about $600.

just to clarify the tamron 18-250mm that you are referring to is the the tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD IF AF. if so, which one would be the choose between the tamron 18-250mm vs the Sigma 18-200mm OS AF IS?? even giving up the 50mm...would that be much of a difference??? i would like to pick one up soon for my vacation so this lens will be replacing my currrent kit lens. TIA

edit: added links
Tamron 18-250mm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

Sigma 18-200mm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=332

also is it worth it to give up 50mm for better IQ or to just stick with the longer range??

[Senna4ever]

Originally posted by trix25
is it worth it to give up 50mm for better IQ or to just stick with the longer range??
Only you can answer that.

[[HuCk DuCk]]

don't forget the OS

[trix25]

Originally posted by [HuCk DuCk]
don't forget the OS

anyways after some research and careful analysis...i went and got the sigma 18-200 DC OS AF rather than the Tamron 18-250. it was a pretty hard decision cause the tamron had slightly better IQ based on testings but Sigma has the OS and better built quality which tipped the edge for me. will update you guys later once i get the chance to try it out.

[[HuCk DuCk]]

please do as i am seriously looking at this lens as well

[mos_skeeto]

ditto please. test shots too if you have time :)

[smurf]

anyone have any idea which one offer the best bang for the buck for the 2 lenses? pros and cons?


they are almost similar in price. $999 vs $1299.

is the Canon worth th extra $300? I know Canon will have better resell value.
and is the canon IS really worth the extra $600?

I heard Canon's L series version II is coming out in the summer..is this true?

[mos_skeeto]

for my xti, i was looking at the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 and wondering if it's worth the price to get something with a f/2.8 rather than f/3.5. My kit is a f/3.5 so I never used something at f/2.8. The alternative is to get something with IS but using point and shoot IS before, it doesn't really help when there are things moving about.

[IMASA]

Your kit is a f/3.5 but it's not a constant f/3.5 right? It's probably like a f/3.5-5.6. the Tamron would be a constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range and it does make a big difference. I have read good things about that Tamron and I'm thinking about getting one myself since they just released their own AF-S equivilent for Nikon.

[[HuCk DuCk]]

Originally posted by IMASA
Your kit is a f/3.5 but it's not a constant f/3.5 right? It's probably like a f/3.5-5.6. the Tamron would be a constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range and it does make a big difference. I have read good things about that Tamron and I'm thinking about getting one myself since they just released their own AF-S equivilent for Nikon.

you would be correct on the kit lens being a 3.5-5.6

and to michelin man, IS at that range i've found is rarely ever used. for me anyways

[Tim Budong]

im lookin at 2 lens, for an OK skilled photographer...
will this lens be ok for a walkaround?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM

also..
im thinkin of this macro lens. Mainly gonna be shooting shit like toys n such..

EF-S 60mm 2.8 USM

and i need some advice for a good fisheye..it seems that the canon and sigma ones work better on the 5d or other prograde shit..is that false..or is there a cheaper alternative..i just want a fisheye for the fun factor, but still get quality shots

[[HuCk DuCk]]

what camera are you using?

10-22 doesn't afford that much of a range.

a lot of wide angle shots but not so much on the midrange shots. but again its all in personal preference.

with that being said, i doni't have much experience with short lenses =)

[Tim Budong]

Canon 400d
hmm
well..cant afford these ritght now anyways
its one or the other
hahaha

[Senna4ever]

The 10-22 is pretty wide. You may be better off with a 16-35.

[Slo40]

Originally posted by smurf
anyone have any idea which one offer the best bang for the buck for the 2 lenses? pros and cons?


they are almost similar in price. $999 vs $1299.

is the Canon worth th extra $300? I know Canon will have better resell value.
and is the canon IS really worth the extra $600?

I heard Canon's L series version II is coming out in the summer..is this true?

if you are using the canon hand held alot, then yes the IS is worth every penny. I am extremely happy with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and use it almost exclusively hand held - even at 200mm. It's a huge investment, but if you get the chance to try both side by side I'm sure you'd agree.

[bcruskie]

Hi, im relatively new to photography with DSLR and i was wondering what lenses are must have for high-amature use. I always look thru automotive shots and it makes me wonder how do you bend object out of shape. I have Canon Rebel so i would appriciate any input on this mather.... THank you

[Senna4ever]

Tell us what you like to shoot most often...your question is too general to answer.

It's 'lenses,' not 'linses,' BTW.

[bcruskie]

Thanks and sorry for my grammar :)
Well i like the automotive pictures where middle of the picture is kind of zoomed in and looks like a fish eye but in reverse effect...

[naomi]

.

[Senna4ever]

100/105mm is a bit long for portraits on a crop body. 60mm-85mm would be more pleasing to the eye.

[Mananetwork]

"What are absolutely must have linses" was merged with this thread

[Tim Budong]

damn..
im always one step too late on a canon10-22mm
but yea..
my tokina 10-17mm fisheye came 2day
this thing is fucking fun

[Full`Throttle]

What are some recommendations for the best walk-around lens to go with my XTi? I am going on vacation soon and would like to take some nice pics. Thanks.

[IMASA]

Are you super anal about quality? If not, how about the Sigma 18-200, it's a pretty good travel lens.

Or how about the 24-105 F4 L?

[Full`Throttle]

I'd prefer a quality lens and would be willing to pay a premium. Just looking for a good sharp lens that has a good range. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go test some out if I can.

[Tim Budong]

the 18-55mm F2.8L is tempting...............

[77civic1200]

^the what?

did you mean the 17-55?

[Tim Budong]

i mena that yes

[IMASA]

Who has a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for Nikon mount? I've read nothing but great reviews for this lens. They have 2 versions for Nikon, the old version and the new one, which has a internal motor. I was planning on getting the new one, but I read that the focusing is slower than the old screw drive one since the internal motor isn't as good as the Nikon AF-S, Sigma HSM, etc. However, I've only been able to find 1 guy who has reviewed this new lens and that's what he says.

[dton13]

someone is selling their Canon EF-S 17-85 with IS for $300. Assuming its in good condition, is that an okay deal? I currently only have the kit lens (18-55) and this is with a Canon Rebel 300D

[stuff99]

I'm looking at the 70-200mm f4 IS and non IS version

the difference btwn the two is like $500!

so my question is...is IS worth $500 more?

[Soundy]

Retail on the 17-85 IS at Kerrisdale is $650, so I'd say $300 is a good deal.

[dton13]

So I'm comparing getting either the used 17-85 IS or the used Sigma 18-200 non OS. I'm kind of on a tight budget, and the 17-200 seems to make more sense to me. Is there something I'm missing here? minus the IS

tia

[Soundy]

Just that every zoom is inherently a compromise, and the longer the zoom range, the bigger the compromise in quality and weight.

Of course, that's speaking generally. 17-200 is also a more general-use, convenient lens. Really depends on the kind of shooting you do most of the time.

[dton13]

thanks soundy!

i'll probably end up getting the 18-200 sigma and a 50mm prime along with it.

[[HuCk DuCk]]

if you're going to get the 18-200, see if you can buck up for the OS.... the OS is so much fun

[w00tgasm]

Looking for a decent walk around lens.
So far I have my 18-55 kit lens and a 35-105 f3.5-4.5 that's older than me.

I was thinking of getting a Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 or a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Oh man, not sure. Just don't want to pay the price of an L lens =)

[Soundy]

I dunno, to my thinking, a "walk around" lens should be more along the lines of a general-purpose, wide-zoom-range, relatively-light concept - something that you can easily "walk around" with and not have to worry about not having the range or the sore back. f/2.8 will by nature be getting heavier, and 24-60 is a smaller zoom range than what you already have.

[on]

go for the bigger bulkier ones.
its l33t-er

[w00tgasm]

It's not like SPS right?

[Ronin]

What do you guys think of the Tokina 11-16 F2.8? I found it for $540 here in Tokyo. Tax-less...shipping-less. Compared to $569 + shipping and tax at Adorama...but Adorama gets me a warranty.

Same deal with a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. $330 here. Same at Adorama but tax and shipping on top...but with warranty.

...oh yeah, used MkIII for $3800. *drool*

[caie-u]

hey guys Ive been saving my pennies and Im about to purchase either the nikkor 12-24 mm or cheap out and buy the sigma 10-20 mm. Is the Nikkon lens realy worth the extra 400 bucks? Ive herd good and bad about the sigma lens, any input is much appreciated.

[Ronin]

Spend the extra $70 and get the Tokina 11-16. f2.8 fixed and sharp.

[tweakynuts]

So i'm looking into purchasing a mid-zoom.

So far, I've narrowed down to two choices. Sigma's.. 24-70 or 24-60? I know the price difference so can anyone give me the real pros/cons of these lenses? the extra 10mm in focal length isnt a big deal to me, as i have a 70-200 so can someone advise?

I've been reading fred miranda and it looks like the 24-60 has the better rating while the 24-70 is compared to as being similar to the Canon 24-70L

[Ronin]

Everyone here loves the Tamron 28-75.

[tweakynuts]

yes, but can someone advise about the lenses i talked about?

[TOPEC]

i'm new to photography, and had picked up a XTi kit... i've been looking and been reading into reviews on what lens to buy... so far i'm pretty much set on these...

EF 50mm f/1.4
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

and i might pick up a used 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS just for the heck of it so i can walk arnd and not worry about damaging the other pricier lens...

any inputs?

[adrimin]

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.8.

What are the main differences between the 1.4 and 1.8 besides price and speed? I heard that the 1.8 was slightly sharper but I'm not totally sold on that. Any answers would be appreciated, thanks.

[IMASA]

Have you checked Photozone?

50mm 1.8
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report

Optics: 6 elements in 5 groups

Diaphragm: Seven straight blades. Stops down to f/22

50mm 1.4
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/216-nikkor-af-50mm-f14-d-review--lab-test-report

Optics: 7 seven elements in 6 groups

Diaphragm: 7 straight blades stopping down to f/16

Image quality is pretty close, looks like 1.8 has a little better center sharpness while the 1.4 has a little better sharpness at the borders. But still very close. You get a little better build quality with the 1.4.

I bought the 1.8 cuz it was cheaper. I figured I'd be using my Sigma30mm1.4 more often than my 50mm anyways.

[adrimin]

^^

Thanks for the answer, I ended up going with the 1.8 too because of the price. ;)

[!SG]

ok, its been months now and ive finally decided, its time for me to get an additional lens. the beginner 18-55 is great, but i want to explore looking at wide angles.

thoughts and opinions on this one?

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM

i tried it out at the store, looks like a very clear and clean lens and straight out very versitile lens.

still a very very very beginner so tell me ur thoughts.

[moky]

sg! i just got that lens yesterday and tested it against the canon 10-22. it seemed to be on par for sharpness and quality so far and the perspectives you can have with it are pretty cool and for sure would make awesome photos. wide angle ftw :D

between canon and sigma ( i dunno if u have canon or nikon), the quality and sharpness was very close. i figured that for such a small diff in clarity, it didnt really merit me spending another 250-300 bucks extra.

quite happy with the sigma 10-20.

[!SG]

i have a nikon w/ the standard lens kit 18-55mm

was looking and researching for a wide angle lens. this was one of the ones that i was looking at.



sg! i just got that lens yesterday and tested it against the canon 10-22. it seemed to be on par for sharpness and quality so far and the perspectives you can have with it are pretty cool and for sure would make awesome photos. wide angle ftw :D

between canon and sigma ( i dunno if u have canon or nikon), the quality and sharpness was very close. i figured that for such a small diff in clarity, it didnt really merit me spending another 250-300 bucks extra.

quite happy with the sigma 10-20.

[moky]

you can always check pbase.com for sample shots of that lens or look here for comparison shots too:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
pretty complete i think :)

[IMASA]

I'm assuming you have a Nikon D40/40X/60 since you have the 18-55 kit. You're pretty much limited to the Nikkor 12-24 F4 and the Sigma 10-20 since they're the only ones that will AF. The Sigma10-20 is great for the price and that 2mm really does make a difference on the wide end. I would highly recommend that. Just be aware with the Sigma problems and make sure you have a good copy.

[IMASA]

For the Nikon users, I'm trying to decide which lens to get, the 17-35 F2.8 FX or the 17-55 F2.8 DX lens. I have a D200 and realistically don't see myself getting a FX camera, however, you never know. In 5 years time, perhaps all consumer level DSLR's are full frame, and the DX lens would be bunk.

At this point, everyone is persuading me not to buy DX lenses any more, however, the reviews say the 17-55 is sharper, has better bokeh and the focal range is a bit more useful, though I could get by with the 17-35 and a 50 prime. Opinions?

[604_Marc]

I'm assuming that if your looking at those lenses, cost doesn't matter that much so I'd go 17-55 right away. Convenience factor plays a big role and you don't have to bring out your prime everytime you want to shoot a 50mm distance.

[K-Dub]

so.
wide as possible
sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
or
slightly less and more fixed
tokina 11-16 f2.8

mm....

[roastpuff]

so.
wide as possible
sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
or
slightly less and more fixed
tokina 11-16 f2.8

mm....

Buy the Toke. It's a truly awesome lens, and the f2.8 is great for lower-light shots. If you get a wide angle I think you'll be going wider rather than longer. I wish I had the $$ for it...

The thing is built like a tank, too.

EDIT: Yes, I've used it before. Really, really nice.

[K-Dub]

hmmm now where am i gonna find one new...or even used. :/

[IMASA]

hmmm now where am i gonna find one new...or even used. :/

Broadway Camera carries the Tokina.

[K-Dub]

Broadway Camera carries the Tokina.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2869308622_40813de8f2_o.jpg

Got a little toy from Taiwan.
:D

[Ronin]

Hahaha...did you have someone bring it over? Did you pay less than local retail at least?

[K-Dub]

Hahaha...did you have someone bring it over? Did you pay less than local retail at least?
Yup, got it for just under 600$ CDN converted.. it's going for about 630 + tax etc local, but BC Camera is out of stock/backordered.

[Ronin]

Then my deal was pretty smokin'. :D

[K-Dub]

Then my deal was pretty smokin'. :D
I know. :( What store, and why was yours like a whole 100$ cheaper?!

[Ronin]

From Japan. Retail was $590. I paid like $520 since I didn't pay the Japanese taxes...nor did I report it and have to pay Canadian doodies.

[ForbiddenX]

Anyone know of a cheaper place to get a Sigma 10-20mm Nikon Mount? The cheapest I've seen it as at sigma4less and its about $500 with shipping. If I do end up ordering at sigma4less will i get raped by customs?

[IMASA]

I have a Sigma10-20 already and I use it a LOT. Is it worth getting the Tokina 11-16? The 2.8 is nice, but not that important for me and everyone says it's SHARP!! The 9 apperature blades should yield nicer bokeh and sunstars, which I find look terrible w/ the 10-20.

[!Aznboi128]

Any Nikon fans who will suggest a $500 or less lens that can take some sharp crisp pics?

[IMASA]

Any Nikon fans who will suggest a $500 or less lens that can take some sharp crisp pics?

Nikon 50mm 1.8/1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

[hud 91gt]

All these lenses are scaring me. Looking into buying my first DSLR, sounds like the D60 from Nikon, or the XSi from Canon. From what i've been reading people are suggesting to buy the body only and go for an aftermarket lense.

What kind of basic lense am I looking at, and how much of a dent am I looking at in my bank account? For a cheap bugger, is the kit lense going to get me going?

[Soundy]

Kit lenses have got a lot better - the 17-85 USM IS that came with my 40D is really sweet.

Really, most kit lenses are good *for the price* (considering most work out to be about $100 with the package price)... but as with everything else, you get what you pay for.

[Vspeed]

Any thoughts on the nikon 18-105? I'm new to this and just want a little more range or should i just fork out the money for the 18-200? I've got the D40x w/non VR kit lens and my shaking hands are really starting to bug me..:p

[Senna4ever]

I think the 18-105 will give you better image quality, but of course, the 18-200 gives you better reach. What will the majority of your shooting consist of? You can always buy the 18-105 and then buy a 70-300 or something later.

[OffroadZuki]

Anyone know of a cheaper place to get a Sigma 10-20mm Nikon Mount? The cheapest I've seen it as at sigma4less and its about $500 with shipping. If I do end up ordering at sigma4less will i get raped by customs?

That's where I got mine from.

No, you won't get raped by customs. All they charge is GST/PST...since I'm in Alberta, all I get is GST...w00t! I've ordered from S4L twice and BH once and I've never been charged much more than that (there's also a handling fee that gets slapped on every once in a while, but it's fairly negligible).

[OffroadZuki]

Nikon 50mm 1.8/1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

+1 for the Tammy 17-50...I'm madly in love with mine haha...sharp as hell, nice colours...HOWEVER...focusing sucks in low light (usually hunts for a while then gives up lol) and the focus is loud/high-pitched as hell and gets tiring after a while (oh...and good luck being stealthy and trying to get candid shots when the stupid thing goes Bzzzzzz-zzzzzztttt at 140 dB haha).

[ecchiecchi]

And another one for Tamron 17-50mm! :D Awesome lens!

[ColinK]

Thinking of picking up a canon 70-200L f2.8, but am not sure if I should get it with or without IS. I also going to pick up the 5DMKII once it comes out, so I'm thinking, get the non-is and crank up the ISO since it's SOOO much more tolerant than my XTi haha.

There's about a $500 price difference between them.

Thoughts?

[TOPEC]

i'm sure IS would help out alot at the long end. but i guess it really depends on if u have a steady hand or not

[Senna4ever]

If you haven't pre-ordered it, you probably won't get it until sometime next year. :(

[ColinK]

I was thinking about picking one up used (preferably with warrenty still). There's a whole ton of them around!

[Slo40]

Colin, if you are not sure, you could try mine if you like.

[ColinK]

do you have IS or non-IS? Is it f2.8 or f4? (sorry, I dont recall, I know it's an L tho lol)

[Slo40]

I have the canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. ;)

[ColinK]

baller status! haha

when I'm ready, I might get in touch with you to check it out!

[Slo40]

Once you try it, you'll be ready to buy one on the spot haha.

[Tim Budong]

i've been stuck on this question for the longest time, and im gonna suck it up and ask...i feel stupid asking simply becuz if i just ask..then u will most likely all tell me to get it

I own a XTI btw..

i really like the range from my 17-85mm...but it just didnt cut it for optical quality...
so did some searchin...on 4 lens that all cover my needs of

a) at least 17mm wide
b) FIXED f2.8
c) SHARPNESS

the struggle to decide on the following based on pricing from $$$ to not so much $$$. and yes, im very watchful of my monies and dont mind spending for the right product

1. Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
2. Tokina 16-50 f2.8
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8
4. Sigma 17-50 f2.8

as u can see, they all cover a decent range, and can take decent portraits. Before you tell me to buy 24-70 f2.8L...i need some thots, and some user reviews

I have read NOTHING but FANTASTIC AMAZING GLASS out of the canon, on par with the above L lens. Price is concern for being an EFS lens...even tho i dont think im going full frame anytime soon.

but has anyone ever used the above? My friend said the Tammy is yellowish for the colors, but thats one person out of many reviews i read that its great

but yea..
opinions?
im currently leaning towards the tokina..and i hope this post will make or break the purchase of one of them. i've done a month of research and just cant make up my mind becuz well..all the reviews are..good in every aspect. I have demoed every one of them xept the tokina at camera shops multiple times..and still cant make up my mind, its all very sharp!

[IMASA]

The Tamron is tops for bang for the buck as per all the reviews I have not read about the color problem, but I have read about some having focusing issues, as with most 3rd party lenses.

Still, I'm trying to avoid crop body lenses, just about all my lenses are crop body, minus my 50 and 90 primes. You might not get a full frame body now or next year, but who knows, 3-5 yrs down the line, you might be able to get a FF body for the price of a D300 or 50D. When I was starting out, I was so concerned about getting the ranges covered, which is why I bought a 18-200 as my first lens. Now I want something fast and good quality. I'd say most of my shots are in the 10-40 range, which is why I'm considering a 17-35 F2.8 and use a 50 prime when I need more range. So rather than a 17-55 F2.8 that's a crop lens, how about a 16-35 F2.8 with a 50 prime when you need more range. At least you get FF coverage. I have a Sigma 10-20 already so I've thought about getting a 24-70, however, that lens is so long and heavy that I doubt I'd enjoy bring it out with me for causal shooting and vacation use.

[K-Dub]

Get the tamron 17-50, compliment it with a tokina 11-16, and you've got a 2.8 range from 11-50.

niccccccce.

[Senna4ever]

A 24-70 would be a waste on a crop body.

[IMASA]

True, but if you already have a wide angle, I figure it's alright. Better to plan for the future.

[Tim Budong]

so im somewhat now leaning towards the tamron..just becuz the canon i think is overkill...
i believe its fate that it wont be mine..i saw one on CL for 850..and was QUICKLY snatched up by someone. I cant be approved for financing due to car loan and some other things.

the tamron im readin is very good for the price. but having a lens that has digusting contrast issues form f2.8-4, how managable is that...

ughhh
my english sux
sorry

[IMASA]

I'd say buy what you really really want. No point in paying for something that's cheaper only to regret it or keep longing for the one you really want. Seems like you're simply settling for the Tamron and you're not really liking its issues. Deep inside, you know you want that Canon. Work some OT to make up for the difference.

[syee]

I'm looking to buy an Xsi in the near future and was wondering what a good starter lens would be? Should I stick with the kit lens (which I hear is OK for the money but far from being great), or go with something else? (I'm actually looking at the 17-85 IS which seems to roughly cover the same range - and appears to be the kit lens for the 40D).

Are there any difference between the two optics wise? (other than a slightly larger range and USM on the 17-85) Is the 17-85 a decent lens vs the Xsi kit lens? I've read reviews of each one, but haven't really seen any comparisons side by side so I don't really know what differences there are between the two.

Or should I just skip those two and go with something else?

I mainly do scenery type pictures, and I've taken an interest in night photography as well. However, right now I'm just looking at an all purpose lens that will suffice for 90% of the situations, and also nothing that will break the bank as I'm really just starting out in the DSLR and am trying to get a feel if it's a hobby I want to build on or not.

[[HuCk DuCk]]

All kit lenses aren't great. But personally I'd say just shoot with the kit lens for a while, then you'll discover what you need rangewise, rather than buying a lens off the bat and finding out you went in the other direction. it'll also save the bank if you find dSLR isn't for you

[syee]

;6128116']All kit lenses aren't great. But personally I'd say just shoot with the kit lens for a while, then you'll discover what you need rangewise, rather than buying a lens off the bat and finding out you went in the other direction. it'll also save the bank if you find dSLR isn't for you

True. You do have a good point. I guess if I were to pick the 17-85 route, I would either get the kit with 17-85 or buy a body and probably a used lens.

I was just curious to see if the 17-85 lens is even worth the extra money to start with (I see used ones going for about $300-$350).

[[HuCk DuCk]]

if you plan on the 17-85, don't buy the kit, just buy body only, cuz if you get the 17-85, the 18-55 will be useless

[syee]

Yep - I'm getting just the body only. Someone pointed me to another interesting lens today though that I'm looking into - a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Supposedly a pretty sharp lens and appears to be frequently compared to the 17-85 in a lot of reviews. No IS and less reach, but supposedly better optics than a Canon 17-85. Researching now to see how it stacks up against the kit 18-55 and the 17-85.

[Tim Budong]

here is the best unbiased review of the following and compared

Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
Canon 17-5mm f4-5.6
Canon 17-55mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8

[[HuCk DuCk]]

huh? where's the review? or what are u talking about?

[Tim Budong]

and i realized i ddint post it..
here it is
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

[syee]

and i realized i ddint post it..
here it is
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

I did see that review when I was researching the Tamron. It seemed like a pretty technical review and was way over my head so I scrolled down to the conclusion. I can't help to think that the reviewer may have been a bit of a Canon fanboi though...

I'm still undecided about whether to get the Tamron though. I can't find any used ones locally (I saw one on CL, but I didn't get a response from the seller) and I'm hesitant to buy one online just because of the quality issues I occasionally hear about in some people's reviews. Since a lot of the pictures I take are going to be indoors, and I'd prefer not to use the flash if possible, I still have my eye set on the Tamron. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is way out of my price range.

[Tim Budong]

theres not much out there for the tamron becuz its still a very sharp lens!

[syee]

theres not much out there for the tamron becuz its still a very sharp lens!

Yeah, no doubt. All the used ones I've seen are about $420 and up. Lens and Shutter have it at $499.

I guess I'm going to have to get something soon...right now I've got just a body and no lens. :(

darthchilli - you still thinking about the tamron? If you want we can go in together and buy two and see if they'll cut us a bit of a deal...either that, or I can pick buy your 17-85 to hold me over for the time being. :D

[Tim Budong]

the canon 17-55 has close to no flaws
which from reading many different reviews, it says the same hting
canons saturation and colors from their lens will of course be better than 3rd party in most cases

just that the 17-55mm has a price that rapes ur wallet being an EFS lens and not a L lens
u can buy the 24-70L for 100 more
and both are sharp as hel

[!Aznboi128]

where do you guys buy your lenses from? was checking out sigma4less.com w/ the current currency exchange its the same as broadway camera....

[IMASA]

If it's a Sigma lens, you might as well buy in Canada if the price is similar. At least you'll get the 10 year warranty.

[Senna4ever]

You might want to take a look at this article.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

[JLC]

The following site is the best site every made for Canadian photography junkies...I ran across it on redflagdeals...not sure if its been posted...but check it..

www.photoprice.ca

I was able to use that site to price match and what not and i saved quite a good chunk of change on my Camera and Lens purchase today...pretty happy about it...

Best part about it is tax savings...learn to buy out of province...and not only do you get a cheaper price (since there are more options/places to buy from) but you only pay 5% tax as opposed to 12% :0)

The site is super easy to maneuver...so check it out and have fun!


BTW: I am in no way affiliated with this site....I just love it...Broadway camera couldnt even come close to what I got my gear for - the absolute best price they could do was still over $100 difference...

[Tim Budong]

different companies different structures
you are..a smart shopper

anyways..yea..i use that site too...but i always end up buying second hand...haha

[Soundy]

You might want to take a look at this article.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

Article link didn't work - just kicked straight to the lensrentals homepage.

But WTF... I didn't know the iPhone had an EF-mount!

http://www2.moltenimage.com/photos/revscene/iphone.jpg

[lilaznviper]

not sure if anyone asked yet but whats a good wide angle lens??
i got a big family and everytime we take a family picture its really hard to get everyone to fit into the picture since i dont ahve enough room to move the camera back anymore
i just got the xsi

[Soundy]

How much are you willing to spend? Canon's 10-22mm is really nice (buddy of mine has one, I'm jealous). Most third-party lensmakers (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc.) have something similar. I've heard good things about Sigma's.

Or for about $30-$40 you can get an adapter off eBay that screws on the front of your lens like a filter and gives you ridiculously wide angles... expect image quality to be worth about $30-$40, too, but if it's for family portraits that are just going on Facebook or into 4x6 prints, you'd probably never notice the difference.

[lilaznviper]

probably gunna be blown up picture that will hang somewhere haha

willing to spend around 200-300ish dollars

[syee]

not sure if anyone asked yet but whats a good wide angle lens??
i got a big family and everytime we take a family picture its really hard to get everyone to fit into the picture since i dont ahve enough room to move the camera back anymore
i just got the xsi

What lens are you using right now? Just so we have an idea of how wide you want to go. A 10-22 is about $800 which is way up there. :D

[Senna4ever]

I'd recommend the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, but it costs around $700.

[lilaznviper]

What lens are you using right now? Just so we have an idea of how wide you want to go. A 10-22 is about $800 which is way up there. :D

currently have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera only

I'd recommend the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, but it costs around $700.

dont have a lot of money to spend

[IMASA]

Well, I guess you better enjoy that 18-55 then. Good camera gear is going to be $$$. Save up, you might be able to find a Sigma 10-20 for under $500.

[sebberry]

Been thinking about the Sigma 17-70 for my Pentax K10D for a while now. Looked at some sample photos over on pbase (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/17_70_28_45_dc_macro) and have been quite impressed by the clarity and sharpness of the images.

After reading the lensrentals article on Sigma failure rates, I am now skeptical about this lens. Has anyone here had any experience with this lens and what might be a suitable alternative?
Thanks!

[po.chac.co]

oops wrong thread :P

[Senna4ever]

Panasonic G1. That thing is quite incredible.

[lilaznviper]

thinking about getting this lens
EF 50mm f1.8 II

mostly for night shots

read on other forums that its a good lens for night shots

any comments on this lens?

[Senna4ever]

....good in what way? I'd think it's a bit too long even on FF.

[freesole]

So I am just starting to get into photography and I currently have the following lenses:

Canon 50mm f1.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8

I am looking for a good wide angle lens as I know that I take some landscape shots (ie. spanish banks, seawall, etc). Can anyone recommend some to me? Which ones have you used and what have you thought?

[Meowjin]

11-16mm f/2.8 tokina. I have one on nikon mount and my god is this ever sharp as hell at f/2.8 I can't wait to test it when there is a bit of sun out.

[syee]

thinking about getting this lens
EF 50mm f1.8 II

mostly for night shots

read on other forums that its a good lens for night shots

any comments on this lens?

You'll probably get better use out of a tripod for night shots. Even with the low f stop, it won't give you a sharp handheld shot in the dark. It's good for lower light situations though.

I have one, and to be honest, I rarely ever use it. It sits in my camera bag most of the time just because of the fact that it's not wide enough to take a shot indoors and doesn't have enough to get the further away shots. However, for the price, it's a great deal if you can find a use for it.

[IMASA]

I second a tripod. Even if you don't want to get a full size one, consider a Joby Gorrilla Pod. I didn't want to carry a tripod for my trip to Japan but found out I was missing a lot of good night shots. Ended up buying a Joby DSLR-Zoom. It's small enough to fit in a camera bag so it's not that much of a hassle to carry.

[lilaznviper]

recommendations for where to get one for a reasonable price
fs has it going for 66 dollars

[freesole]

11-16mm f/2.8 tokina. I have one on nikon mount and my god is this ever sharp as hell at f/2.8 I can't wait to test it when there is a bit of sun out.

Are there any other options as well? How does this compare to the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-22?

[JordanLee]

Hey guys, looking to upgrade my 18-55 IS kit lens on my XSi and was wondering what the next best option is. I can get a 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS for 300? But im looking around and ppl are saying Tamron 17-50 2.8. Help me out?

[Soundy]

If that 17-85 is the EF-S, it's the same one I got with my 40D... pretty nice lens, overall. I'd rather have the f/2.8 though...

[lilaznviper]

which place(s) do you buy your lens from

[SmokeyTheBandit]

just got my first lens, going to be my 'all around' lens.

vr nikon 18-200mm f3.5/5.6g if-ed

[syee]

Do you guys think it's worth getting a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS to replace the Tamron 17-55 f2.8 I currently have? The only benefit seems to be the IS and probably a faster focusing (and less noisy) lens. I take mostly scenery photos and the occasional family/friends photo. I also tend to do quite a bit of night photography (although admittedly it's mostly using a tripod).

Is it worth the extra bucks (the lens is twice as expensive as the Tamron, even when buying one used) or should I just save the money for something else?

[Senna4ever]

The canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is a very sharp lens, even on a high pixel density camera like the 50D. The Tamron is a sharp lens too, but I suspect it won't match the canon in sharpness on high resolution sensors. Whether it's worth it to you to get it or not is purely up to you. If you're not going to make prints larger than 11x14 then keep the Tamron, IMHO.

[syee]

Thanks for the input Senna4ever. I'm still thinking about it, but I think I'll probably just stick with the Tamron for now. I was going to buy a used one from a guy on POTN who was in Canada for $1000CDN. It didn't really feel like a "killer deal" that's cheap enough to justify me ditching the Tamron.

Or...alternately, I can spend it on something else...I've been eyeballing some ultra wide angle lens (Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20) that would probably be more useful. :)

[Senna4ever]

Tokina 11-16 or canon 10-22. The Sigma has slight wavy distortion that is impossible to correct with software.

[freesole]

I have the Tokina 11-16... I love it. It's sharp and super wide. Must have in any basic kit of lenses.

I'm thinking of exchanging my Tamron 28-75 for a Canon 17-55 IS though... any recommendations, experts?

[Senna4ever]

The 17-55 is a very sharp lens, even on a high pixel density sensor like the 50D. I'd say go for it. We got a few in today, but one was DOA for some reason. Weird...very un-canon like.

[syee]

Yay...got my 17-55 today. Going to have to test it out when I'm done with on call next week!

[freesole]

The 17-55 is a very sharp lens, even on a high pixel density sensor like the 50D. I'd say go for it. We got a few in today, but one was DOA for some reason. Weird...very un-canon like.

Where do you work? I am seriously thinking about it... but I don't know if I want to pay full retail pricing just yet :cry:

[syee]

Where do you work? I am seriously thinking about it... but I don't know if I want to pay full retail pricing just yet :cry:

If I'm not mistaken, Senna4ever works at Beau's.

If you don't want to pay full retail, check out some used ones on Craigslist, Fred Miranda or POTN. It seems the average market price for used 17-55's are about $800USD. Using today's average conversion rate, that's a touch over $1000.

[freesole]

I think I might just bite the bullet and buy one. BTW, do any of you use any filters? I'm still new to photography but do any of you use your filters for a purpose other than to reduce glare and protect the lens? Do any add more color to the picture (ie. polarizing lenses)?

Would you recommend any filters other than a UV one on a 17-55?

[Senna4ever]

I think I might just bite the bullet and buy one. BTW, do any of you use any filters? I'm still new to photography but do any of you use your filters for a purpose other than to reduce glare and protect the lens? Do any add more color to the picture (ie. polarizing lenses)?

Would you recommend any filters other than a UV one on a 17-55?
Filters do not reduce glare. They can cause glare, flaring or ghosting. Depending on the efficiency of the coatings however, the flaring and ghosting can be greatly reduced. I used to use filters, but not anymore. If I put a filter in front of my lens, it would be a B+W MRC filter.

A UV filter will reduce haze at higher altitudes as well as protecting your front element.

A polarizer does not add colour, it reduces certain reflections so colours can seem more saturated.

[Soundy]

^Just about any filter effect can be duplicated (or at least closely simulated) in software... EXCEPT a polarizer. Some of a polarizer's effects (like darkening the sky) can be SOMEWHAT emulated, with some tricky editing... but software won't remove a reflection from glass or water. Times like that are when polarizers are REALLY handy! (And darkening the sky for scenic shots is a good use for them too - it would take a lot of work to get the same effect through software).

[Senna4ever]

^^ Can't simulate a UV or IR cut filter either.

[Soundy]

^True that.

[syee]

So sticking with a UV and Circular Polarizer (as most people will have one or the other or both), when is the ideal time to use them? I've always taken off any filters I've had when shooting into something bright like the sun or a light source. Polarizers I've used when shooting landscapes with lots of sky or water to get the nice deep blue of the sky and remove reflections off water.

Any other rules of thumb or recommendations on when to use these various filters?

[lilaznviper]

^ i would also liketo know that
i got myself on a hand of couple filters from my friend

6pt star, polarized, UV, fluorescent

[lilaznviper]

sweet i just got the 55-250mm IS and 50mm f1.8 lens for $440 brand new

[ddr]

Any advice on the following?

Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Tamron 17-50 F2.8
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC AF

will be used on a 350D

[w00tgasm]

So I'm getting a D300 body for sure...
Not sure if I want to spend the extra money for the 24-70 or go with the cheaper solution of 17-55mm.

I probably should add more info... I do a lot of event coverage and managed to get away with a 24-70 on my XTi for about a year. I have since sold that combo and I'm trying to figure out if it's worth spending the extra $400 to get the extra reach, but lose the wide angle.

Not sure if the 17-55 will make my life easier, but that's why I'm asking for your tips =P

[Senna4ever]

The 24-70 is a bit of a waste on a crop body, IMHO as you're wasting the wide part of the lens. The 17-55 is better if you want the wide. They're both really sharp lenses though. If you're happy with what you were achieving with the 24-70 on the XTi, then get the 24-70 by all means. You can use it on any future FF bodies too.

[SuperSlowSS]

Anybody know where i can get my hands on a Nikon 35mm F1.8G in vancouver? Please PM me if you do! thanx :)

[Newtown]

Anybody know where i can get my hands on a Nikon 35mm F1.8G in vancouver? Please PM me if you do! thanx :)
Went by London Drugs and they said only Langley and Maple Ridge had stock. Kerrisdale Cameras was completely sold out.

[SuperSlowSS]

Went by London Drugs and they said only Langley and Maple Ridge had stock. Kerrisdale Cameras was completely sold out.

sweet, thank you! :)

[w00tgasm]

Since I got used to the 24-70 on my XTi, I decided to go with it for my D300...

SuperSlowSS, did you end up finding the 35mm?

[SuperSlowSS]

Yeap went to london drugs in langley and got it. :p They have a lot of cool lens that are hard to get in vancouver.

Now the question... keep the 50mm f1.4g or not. haha

[w00tgasm]

Haha.
How much did you get the 50mm for?
If it wasn't long ago, just return it.

[Newtown]

Yeap went to london drugs in langley and got it. :p They have a lot of cool lens that are hard to get in vancouver.

Now the question... keep the 50mm f1.4g or not. haha
How many did they have in stock? My laziness has prevented me from driving all the way out there but I can't seem to find the lens anywhere nearby.

[SuperSlowSS]

Haha.
How much did you get the 50mm for?
If it wasn't long ago, just return it.

I got it at regular price. Trying to decide if I really want 50mm focal length on DX format. And if F1.4 is really worth it.. hahah

How many did they have in stock? My laziness has prevented me from driving all the way out there but I can't seem to find the lens anywhere nearby.

oh zero now. :p Local camera stores will be getting more very soon. Just that I need to test this lens out before going on a trip.

[Alatar]

So, I'm looking for a budget zoom/macro lens to try out, and I've heard the Canon 70-300mm sucks, as does the 55-200/55-250 that Canon offers in the entry level.

Any thoughts/experience with the Sigma APO DG 70-300mm?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

[roastpuff]

So, I'm looking for a budget zoom/macro lens to try out, and I've heard the Canon 70-300mm sucks, as does the 55-200/55-250 that Canon offers in the entry level.

Any thoughts/experience with the Sigma APO DG 70-300mm?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

They suck in comparison to the L lenses, yeah, but they're better than the Sigma... spec for spec, Canon OEM lenses will always beat Sigmas in IQ.

The 70-300IS is actually quite good for the price, and the focal length + IS make it quite versatile outdoors. The AF isn't bad, either. IQ is pretty good, actually. Better than the 55-250, which is OK.

The 70-200 F4L actually isn't all that expensive on the used market. If you can cough up $600-650 that's the telephoto lens I would buy.

EDIT: Do some comparison searches online between the Sigma and the Canon lenses.

[Alatar]

To be fair, I said entry level, not L lens. I'm hoping to cheap out a bit, and get something to see how zoom fairs, first, before stepping up to an f2.8L/f4L Canon 70-200mm. The comparable lenses I was referring to would be your $200-300 Canon lenses in the same price range.

The research I've done online seems to indicate that this particular Sigma lens outperforms what Canon offers in this price range. Hopefully someone's had some experience with said lenses to be able to give an accurate or first hand account on their use of said glass.

[lilaznviper]

i got the 55-250mm IS canon lens
to me it shoots pretty nice pictures but for about 300 bucks its a nice cheap lens

[w00tgasm]

I personally like the 55-250 IS if you're sticking with a crop body and are on a budget.

They're starting to find their way back into stock as well =)

[syee]

I've got a 55-250 as well and I like it.

The 70-300IS is probably double the price of the 55-250 though. I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend.

[Slo40]

I think you meant to type 75-300 ($300) which does suck compared to the canon 70-300 IS which is a very good lens for the price tag of $700. I own both the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 2.8L IS and I like them both but actually find that the 70-300 has a wider sweet spot, and is alot easier to use due to the huge weight difference. All the reviews I've seen on the 70-300 IS are very favorable and I have to agree.

[Alatar]

Everyday walkaround, same general price...

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro
or
Tamron 17-50 f2.8

Hoping to pick one up this week, possibly even later today.

[77civic1200]

Tamron, hands down

[roastpuff]

Tamron, it's just an incredible lens. If I hadn't moved to FF I'd still have that lens.

[Alatar]

Seems to confirm what I was thinking. The other option was the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, but I don't want to lose the wide angle in favour of the extra 25 on the zoom.

[77civic1200]

Ha ha, its one of the reasons I am having a hard time moving to full frame, that and I want the reach of a crop body on my 50-500

[Alatar]

I was debating the 28-75 over the 17-50 for a while, because it would still work on full frame if/when I were to make the move. I think the 17-50 is most likely, though.

[roastpuff]

I was debating the 28-75 over the 17-50 for a while, because it would still work on full frame if/when I were to make the move. I think the 17-50 is most likely, though.

Buy 17-50 used, and you won't lose money when you go to FF and you sell the lens. That's what I did. I actually made a bit of money because the street price went up from when I got it first.

The extra 25mm zoom can be compensated somewhat by cropping, can't do the same for wide-angle. 28mm on crop is not wide at all, by the way. I'd be hard pressed to live with that on crop.

[Alatar]

I can get the 17-50 around $550, haven't seen any on the used market and I've been looking at the market for the past couple of weeks. 28 definitely isn't very wide, I've noticed, just on the 18-55 kit lens, even.

[ddr]

my great debate is a flash or a lens such as the one you're thinking about

[roastpuff]

Heh, I was selling mine for $485 about 1.5 weeks ago, but it got snapped up along with my complete kit as a package deal.

@ dragonone - get both!

[Nismo200SX]

Hi all. I'm wondering if there isnt any sort of cheap alternative to go wider. all i've got is the basic 18-55mm kit lens on my d90 and 18mm isnt quite as wide as i'd like it to be. any suggestions or ideas ?

[ddr]

if the tokina 11-16 is too expensive maybe try the 12-24?

[SuperSlowSS]

Hi all. I'm wondering if there isnt any sort of cheap alternative to go wider. all i've got is the basic 18-55mm kit lens on my d90 and 18mm isnt quite as wide as i'd like it to be. any suggestions or ideas ?

I got the nikon 12-24, really nice lens. I am traveling right now and all I have it that and a 35 f1.8. If you want wider and don't mind carrying your 18-55, then go for the tokina (but I think they are hard to get).

[Matsuda]

Hi all. I'm wondering if there isnt any sort of cheap alternative to go wider. all i've got is the basic 18-55mm kit lens on my d90 and 18mm isnt quite as wide as i'd like it to be. any suggestions or ideas ?

I have the Sigma 10-20mm lens and I love it..a lot. It's getting to be a bit perverse.

[freesole]

So I've decided to hold off going FF for the time being and stick with the 40D but I figured that instead I would invest in a pair of lenses. Which do you think is a better combo?

Combo 1
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and Canon 50mm f/1.4

or

Combo 2
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and Canon 85mm f/1.8

Keep in mind, I have a Tokina 11-16 for my wide shots. I primarily like to shoot portraits but I also like the flexibility of being able to reach far enough to shoot events like hockey, etc. Any advice would be appreciated!

[Soundy]

If you want longer shots, you'll definitely want combo 1... 85mm won't get you very close at all.

[Senna4ever]

If you can afford it, the 17-55 & a 70-200 would be ideal.

[freesole]

If you can afford it, the 17-55 & a 70-200 would be ideal.

:eek:
That's a REALLY big investment. Though I have thought about it, I think it will be either or at this point.

[IMASA]

Who's got the Nikkor 85mm 1.4, perhaps the best bokeh lens of the current Nikkor lineup?
I've used the 1.8 and it's good, but the 1.4 has way nicer bokeh.

I'm trying to choose between the 80-200 2.8 or the 85mm 1.4. I figure I probably wouldn't even bring the 80-200 out that often because it's too big and heavy, but I don't have any good lenses past 50mm.

[Senna4ever]

That will totally depend on your style.

[LC21]

would it be ideal to have 50mm 1.8 when you have the 18-55mm lense already?
and another question would be, any type of 58mm lens filter would be good?

[ddr]

:eek:
That's a REALLY big investment. Though I have thought about it, I think it will be either or at this point.

here's what i got on a budget
tamron 17-50 f2.8 $4xx new
canon 50 f1.8 $1xx new
canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 $3xx new
+ all cheap filters

i'm missing a wide angle which you already have
and a 580exii is on my wish list

[Soundy]

would it be ideal to have 50mm 1.8 when you have the 18-55mm lense already?

For the price, there's little reason not to - even comparing to the 18-55 f/2.8, it's more than a stop faster, and the super-shallow DOF can be great to really isolate your subject. Plus, prime lenses *in general* tend to be optically "purer" than zooms, since they're a lot simpler and have less glass. No matter how good the actual glass used, less is always better :)

[77civic1200]

For a crop body, I would say hold out till you can buy the 35mm f2, or the 85mm f1.8 (depending on preferred focal length) the 50mm is just an odd length for the 1.6 crops. Its not wide, its not long enough for real portraits. Its a great lens, and damn cheap, but I hardly use it as its not in the range I ever want

[LC21]

damn looking to buy another lens already guys. any help. looking more into wideangle/macro lenses. Not looking to spend a whole lot though.

[freesole]

Just wanted a lens combination suggestion from you experts :)
I have a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L lens already. What I was wondering is, what should I get next? I think now that I have a good mid range zoom, I would like to get a fast prime. I like low light photography so a low figured aperture is a must but I having some reach with a telephoto would be great too. IQ is first and foremost, the quality that I value the most in this case however. The lenses I am thinking about are:

1. Canon 35mm f1.4 L
2. Canon 135mm f2.0 L

Any suggestions welcome.

[K-Dub]

1.6 crop?

85mm f1.8.

[!Nhan]

I'm looking for a lens that's a wide angle and I found a Tamron that's fairly cheap in price. It's the Tamron AF 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5. Anyone familiar with this lens and can shed some light on it?

[IMASA]

Are you shooting crop body or full frame?

[!Nhan]

I dunno what that means lol. I'm fairly new to photography

[lilaznviper]

im thinking of getting a wide angle lens and been looking at the tokina 11-16 f2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX

any input on this lens?

[Senna4ever]

^^^ One of the best wide angle lenses out there.

[lilaznviper]

whats the cheapest price you've seen it at...
right now broadway camera sells for $759.99 =[
i saw it before at $6xx
guess i'll wait for the sale

yes im cheap cuz im a student

[freesole]

whats the cheapest price you've seen it at...
right now broadway camera sells for $759.99 =[
i saw it before at $6xx
guess i'll wait for the sale

yes im cheap cuz im a student

Haven't normally seen lenses such as these on sale. You might be able to find a few used. I sold mine recently used. It's a great, great wide angle lens and compares very well with the Canon 10-22.

[Senna4ever]

whats the cheapest price you've seen it at...
right now broadway camera sells for $759.99 =[
i saw it before at $6xx
guess i'll wait for the sale

yes im cheap cuz im a student
Yes, you've probably seen it in the $6xx range, but the price went up a lot earlier this year. Now they're in the high $700 range. The Tokina is still in demand, so I doubt you'll see it on sale anytime soon.

I'm sure it's sharper than the Canon 10-22 and with less wavy distortion.

[K-Dub]

im thinking of getting a wide angle lens and been looking at the tokina 11-16 f2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX

any input on this lens?

awesome awesome fast lens.
I got it for $600, relative brought it over from Taiwan.
Ronin got it for less when he bought it in Japan.

great for walkaround/wide....and you wont think that you're missing out on both ends,
compared to the canon 10-22,
10 to 11mm, you can just take a teeny step back.
same for 16 to 22mm, step forward a little.

if you can find it for cheaper than 700, take it! good luck though, the price of it went UP because demand is so high.....

though its not my best stuff, you can see samples of it in my flickr stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwu/tags/tokina1116mmf28/
is everything tagged with it.

[!Nhan]

Anyone know a thing or two about the Sigma Super Wide II 24mm 2.8 lens? Looks decent to me.

[Senna4ever]

It's a Sigma, so caveat emptor.

[IMASA]

Word, I have 2 Sigma lenses and they're pretty decent. However, today I just borrowed a Sigma 24-60 F2.8 and it was just garbage. I think it either front or back focuses as the focus was never bang on when checking at full res.

[sebberry]

What's the big problem with Sigma? I have seen some great photos taken with Sigma lenses, but then I hear about all sorts of other problems.

Is it a fault with trying to be a "one size fits all" type of company that results in poor quality manufacturing/assembly?

[Senna4ever]

Sigma has very bad quality control & service. Sigma has up to a 20% return/exchange rate due to softness, back focusing or front focusing. One lens would be super sharp, but the one sitting next to it on the shelf would be soft or have focusing issues. They also have a high failure rate compared to the lenses from the major manufacturers...again up to 20%, compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax which seem hover around 6%.

Sigma service also is pretty bad. It can take up to 4 months to get lenses back from repair. Canon & Nikon can have a faulty lens back to you in a matter of a few weeks, even faster if you have a CPS or NPS number.

[sebberry]

Makes one wonder how they are able to stay in business producing something that is used by people who have high expectations of quality. It's not like they're making $20 clock radios.

[Senna4ever]

Makes one wonder how they are able to stay in business producing something that is used by people who have high expectations of quality. It's not like they're making $20 clock radios.
The casual user doesn't know what a high quality lens is capable of. Of course, budget constraints play a role, and Sigma does have some unusual focal lengths, but most amateurs have never experienced the sharpness or high contrast of a high end lens.

[Soundy]

Speaking of quality lenses... got to play with an EF-400mm f/2.8L IS USM today. Damn, that's some sexy glass. Freakin' heavy too. Buddy got it used for $5K(!!!!). *drool*

[HyperREV]

For a crop body, I would say hold out till you can buy the 35mm f2, or the 85mm f1.8 (depending on preferred focal length) the 50mm is just an odd length for the 1.6 crops. Its not wide, its not long enough for real portraits. Its a great lens, and damn cheap, but I hardly use it as its not in the range I ever want


i agree and disagree.


35mm f2 is a must have if u can find one (works out to a proper 50mm FOV on 1.6) . 85mm 1.8 is also a must have (LOVE mine, think 135 on 1.6)

a 50mm on a 1.6x is basically a poor mans 85. my gf LOVES using my 85 1.8 on her 5D, so i in turn will steal her 50 1.2 for my 40D to get similar results (in FOV anyway!)

personally, i find 50mm more boring on FF than 1.6! YMMV!

[!SG]

gotta agree with that, i love the 10-20 wideangle, but i can understand, for someone more professional, they would hate this lens. its af, and thus 1/2 the time it is hard to get it to focus right.

after playing with it for a good year now, i must say i almost never use it at its fullest wide angle. the picture is just too distorted.



Sigma has very bad quality control & service. Sigma has up to a 20% return/exchange rate due to softness, back focusing or front focusing. One lens would be super sharp, but the one sitting next to it on the shelf would be soft or have focusing issues. They also have a high failure rate compared to the lenses from the major manufacturers...again up to 20%, compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax which seem hover around 6%.

Sigma service also is pretty bad. It can take up to 4 months to get lenses back from repair. Canon & Nikon can have a faulty lens back to you in a matter of a few weeks, even faster if you have a CPS or NPS number.

[Senna4ever]

Speaking of quality lenses... got to play with an EF-400mm f/2.8L IS USM today. Damn, that's some sexy glass. Freakin' heavy too. Buddy got it used for $5K(!!!!). *drool*

Now you know why I love that lens. :D I do think the 500mm f4 is a better compromise though...less weight, less expensive, longer reach, but the buttery smooth bokeh (if it's anything like the Nikon 400mm) at f2.8 is awesome.

Your buddy got a good deal on it.

[freesole]

whats the cheapest price you've seen it at...
right now broadway camera sells for $759.99 =[
i saw it before at $6xx
guess i'll wait for the sale

yes im cheap cuz im a student

It's not brand new, but there is someone selling a relatively new condition copy of the Tokina you are looking for here: http://www.bccamera.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2138&sid=85004a4aa01049ae8fe7a6b836346df9

[Soundy]

Now you know why I love that lens. :D I do think the 500mm f4 is a better compromise though...less weight, less expensive, longer reach, but the buttery smooth bokeh (if it's anything like the Nikon 400mm) at f2.8 is awesome.

Your buddy got a good deal on it.

Snapped a few of Rick Tippe with it... VERY impressed with how crisp and clear it is compared to my ooooooooold 75-300. Small version:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8W57ombPl6k/SmSP1TrEaBI/AAAAAAAAHYc/kegQ93vZStw/s800/IMG_2363.JPG

100% crop here: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2XP0u9hkmtYsTbvEH0wYKQ?feat=directlink

[gars]

hey, i'm thinking of getting a tele zoom lens to add to my collection. Right now, i have a 40D (which i JUST upgraded to from a 1000D) with a Sigma 10-20, and 18-50 f2.8.

thinking of one of the following. they're relatively close in price here in the UK.

Sigma 50-150 f2.8
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
Canon 70-200 f4

the sigma, i've been trying to find some good reviews on it, but can't really. It would compliment my current collection well, because with the other 2, i would lose out between 50-70, which isn't that big a deal. but it's also the fastest lens, but it might not be the sharpest.

i've heard amazing things about the 70-200 f4, but the IS i would get with the 70-300 would help a lot. plus, i don't know if i'm ready for an L lens quite yet....

any thoughts?

edit: i think the 50-150 sigma works with their teleconvertor, but i heard it looks like crap... anyone seen it before?

[Mashimaro]

^I just picked up the 70-200 F4 L and i can't believe what a difference L-glass makes! the image looks amazing...sharpness is great, and the colors are so vivid it just pops out at you.

i now know what i've been missing. :)

get one, you won't be disappointed dood.

[!Nhan]

Just a question to all the Nikon users, for those of you who have the 50mm lens, which F do you have? and does it make a difference at all selecting either one?

[CP.AR]

I'm just a very new guy in the field of Photography - just got my first DSLR back in December.
Currently using a Canon XS/1000D

Because of my love of shooting aircraft, I want a good telephoto lens, but also inexpensive.
I am looking to throw around max 500-600 dollars on it - are there any in this price range that I can consider?

[roastpuff]

I would probably recommend the Canon 70-300IS - decent quality, pretty long reach and IS for shooting hand-held.

Here's one for 650: http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/pho/1316974924.html

[Senna4ever]

EF-S 55-250mm IS? About $375.

[Matsuda]

gotta agree with that, i love the 10-20 wideangle, but i can understand, for someone more professional, they would hate this lens. its af, and thus 1/2 the time it is hard to get it to focus right.

after playing with it for a good year now, i must say i almost never use it at its fullest wide angle. the picture is just too distorted.

I love my Sigma 10-20mm too. From what Senna has said though, I probably won't buy another Sigma lens. I do find my 2 Sigma lenses are a bit soft.

[lilaznviper]

i got the 55-250mm IS lens and its awesome
good quality plus its an awesome lens to have for landscape pictures just like any other zoom lens and at the price its at its worth it

[gars]

I love my Sigma 10-20mm too. From what Senna has said though, I probably won't buy another Sigma lens. I do find my 2 Sigma lenses are a bit soft.

i have this lens and it works great. it's not tack sharp, but you can't compare it to the canon one that is something like 1.7 times the price or something.

and the reason why you would get a super wide angle is for the crazy perspective, not to fill the picture with everything you can see.

[ddr]

i have the 55-250IS. i'd have to say i was impressed by such a budget lens.

now i'm thinking about the 70-300 IS USM and the 70-200 f4L. how do they compare? reach is definitely swaying me and reviews deem the former as a 'hidden L lens'. but u guys keep tempting me with ur 'L' talk

[Senna4ever]

The 'L' will be sharper and have higher contrast for sure, and is built to a higher standard. The 70-300 isn't a bad lens by any means though. Test them out at Leo's, they have a good selection of Canon lenses in stock.

[gars]

just wanted to chime in that the 70-300's focus rotates... so it won't work well with circular polorizers... while 70-200 f4L doesn't....

[g35x]

The casual user doesn't know what a high quality lens is capable of. Of course, budget constraints play a role, and Sigma does have some unusual focal lengths, but most amateurs have never experienced the sharpness or high contrast of a high end lens.

Senna, what do you think of Tamron Lenses overall??
I own a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and I feel that it's really a great value lens, sharpness is pretty good as well overall.

[Senna4ever]

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the 90mm f2.8 macro are really nice lenses, as is the new 70-200mm f2.8.

[ddr]

so hard to pick, the three zooms mentioned above are all around the same price range

[Senna4ever]

so hard to pick, the three zooms mentioned above are all around the same price range
Have you looked at the 70-300 DO lens? It's not much more than the 70-200 f4 IS.

[roastpuff]

I'd rather get the L rather than the DO, though. Just because the DO's aperture range isn't all that great and it's such an odd duck.

The F4IS is a killer lens in terms of image quality.

[gars]

after carrying around my lenses all day, that DO is looking mighty light and compact right now.....

[Mashimaro]

after carrying around my lenses all day, that DO is looking mighty light and compact right now.....

Seriously consider the 70-200 F4 L (with our w/o IS). I have the non-IS and it's not a very heavy lens at all to carry around. my friends are usually surprised how light it is and it's MUCH lighter than the F2.8 version (that thing is 3.5lbs i think?). I only find it gets heavy when i'm gripping my cam (50D) with the 70-200, and also my 580 EX II speedlight attached...

IQ is amazing on the F4, especially in the day time or outdoors. Colors just pop out.

The crappy thing is, once you have tasted what an L lens offers, it's tough to go back.... :cry:

[Senna4ever]

It's not tough to go back. It won't even occur to you to use a non-L lens. :)

[Mashimaro]

It's not tough to go back. It won't even occur to you to use a non-L lens. :)

that's the problem...all i look at are L lenses now... :(

i don't even want to look at the EF-S lenses since Full Frame would be nice down the road...LOL!!!

damn this money-pit called digital slr photography...

[Senna4ever]

My photography professor's favourite saying was: "If you want to make a small fortune in photography, start with a large one."

[gars]

Seriously consider the 70-200 F4 L (with our w/o IS). I have the non-IS and it's not a very heavy lens at all to carry around. my friends are usually surprised how light it is and it's MUCH lighter than the F2.8 version (that thing is 3.5lbs i think?). I only find it gets heavy when i'm gripping my cam (50D) with the 70-200, and also my 580 EX II speedlight attached...

IQ is amazing on the F4, especially in the day time or outdoors. Colors just pop out.

The crappy thing is, once you have tasted what an L lens offers, it's tough to go back.... :cry:

ya, i'm still lost as to what to get.... honestly, after spending a day out with my kit (it's not even that big), i have a 40D, with a Sigma 10-20, 18-50 f2.8, and a recently re-aquired 50mm f1.8, my shoulder hurts... i can't imagine getting another lens in my collection and carrying it around the whole day.

[roastpuff]

Get a good backpack-style bag with a nice contoured back support pad. It really helps.

[IMASA]

Yes, I used to carry everything in a shoulder bag, crumpler 6 million dollar, but ever since I switched to a backpack, it made carrying my gear much easier.

[lilaznviper]

can someone recommend me a decent marco lens?
and possible to get for less than 600

[roastpuff]

can someone recommend me a decent marco lens?
and possible to get for less than 600

Yes, Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro. Awesome macro lens, and great for potraits too! Should be able to get for ~$600, check around on craigs!

[Boostslut]

For a good macro lens look at the Tamron 90mm macro. Much less than $600 and its great!