[Senna4ever]

The 50mm f2.5 macro is about $400.

[IMASA]

I second the Tamron, can be found used for around $350-400 and new on Ebay for $400ish.

[Boostslut]

the 50mm 2.5 only goes to 1:2 lifesize.

[roastpuff]

All of the other macro lenses don't have USM, which I like in a macro lens due to the speed and quietness. My old 90mm macro lens from Sigma (so old that it can't be rechipped!) makes a very annoying motor noise when it's focusing and extends out a lot.

[!MiKrofT]

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.
That's what I have the crumpler 6MDH. Nice bag but I may switch to the kata series backpack/sling instead.

[Senna4ever]

All of the other macro lenses don't have USM, which I like in a macro lens due to the speed and quietness. My old 90mm macro lens from Sigma (so old that it can't be rechipped!) makes a very annoying motor noise when it's focusing and extends out a lot.
When shooting macro, you won't be using AF anyways.

[IMASA]

That's what I have the crumpler 6MDH. Nice bag but I may switch to the kata series backpack/sling instead.

Yeah, I'm using the Kata 3N-20 right now. Much better than the 6MDH in terms of comfort. I think the 6MDH's problem is you can store a lot of gear in there and it hurts your shoulder. The 3N-20 is getting too small for me.

[!MiKrofT]

Yeah I just like the crumpler's idea of having a camera bag that doesn't look like a camera bag.

[lol FAIL]

Question,

Since this is a prime lens, does it mean it cannot optical zoom in/zoom out?

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10122408&catid=25819&logon=&langid=EN

Noticed it says 70mm not 70-200 or something.

[roastpuff]

Yes, you cannot zoom in and out optically. The focal length will remain on 70mm.

@Senna I tend to do macro in the field... and I don't normally bring a tripod. XD

[Rated B]

Where can I get a Tamron 17-50mm for Canon locally?

[Senna4ever]

@Senna I tend to do macro in the field... and I don't normally bring a tripod. XD
I'm going to guess you're missing a lot of shots.

[lilaznviper]

anyone know where i can get the Tamron 90mm macro locally?

[IMASA]

Lens and Shutter.

[Boostslut]

Viper, i might know someone that MIGHT sell his. Not too sure, but i can swing it by him.

[lilaznviper]

^sweet

i am also wonder how are the sigma lens for marco cuz i see like 70-300mm DG macro for <200 bucks

[Senna4ever]

the 50mm 2.5 only goes to 1:2 lifesize.

Doesn't matter with the resolution of modern DSLR's. Almost all of my macro shots have been taken with a 50mm 1:2 macro lens, and all of the images I posted prior to 2008 were done on a 6MP DSLR and I've made 11x14 prints out of them. :)

[Senna4ever]

^sweet

i am also wonder how are the sigma lens for marco cuz i see like 70-300mm DG macro for <200 bucks

That lens is not a true macro - more like close focusing, and as a zoom lens, the images won't be as sharp as a dedicated prime macro lens.

[Boostslut]

Viper, that lens is brutal. Not sharp at all. Pick up a dedicated macro lens and it'll be many many times more sharp.

[roastpuff]

I'm going to guess you're missing a lot of shots.

Yes, and that's ok. I macro mostly for fun, and I use a 90mm Sigma lens ~15-20 years old. I don't particularly mind... I'll pick up the 100mm Canon USM macro lens when everybody's switching to the new one with IS. ;)

[lilaznviper]

i'm looking at lens and shutter for the tarmon 90mm and can;t find it on their website
anyone know anywhere else i mite be able to get it locally?

any input one the Tokina AT-X AF 100 f/2.8 Macro?

[Soundy]

i'm looking at lens and shutter for the tarmon 90mm and can;t find it on their website
anyone know anywhere else i mite be able to get it locally?

http://www.kerrisdalecameras.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Tamron-SP-90mm-f%2F2.8-Macro-Adaptall-Manual-Focus-Lens-Lenses&catalog[product_guids][0]=599ff5f5-ade1-4fb5-ac1f-5547bdc6360b

[ddr]

anyone try this yet? Tamron 60mm f/2.0 macro

http://blog.shutterbug.com/jonsienkiewicz/tamron_60mm_f2_macro_-_double_life/

http://www.photocrati.com/tamron-sp-af60mm-f20-di-ii-ld-11-macro-lens-review/

http://stores.shop.ebay.ca/Prodigital2000_Other_W0QQ_fsubZ1QQ_sidZ78072130QQ_ trksidZp4634Q2ec0Q2em322

[roastpuff]

Arg, APS-C only. :(

[Rated B]

I'm having a hard time making a decision on which of these two lenses to buy...it will be a walk around lense on my Canon 40D.

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8

Or

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L

[IMASA]

i'm looking at lens and shutter for the tarmon 90mm and can;t find it on their website
anyone know anywhere else i mite be able to get it locally?

any input one the Tokina AT-X AF 100 f/2.8 Macro?

Surprised it's not listed on L&S' website, but they have it in the store. I was at the West Broadway location 2 weeks ago and it was there.

[K-Dub]

tamron for the f2.8. if you're staying 1.6x
canon if you want to go to full frame in the future, it'll be your investment.

[Boostslut]

I borrowed the Tamron 90mm macro, and it works on my full frame. Its great... but loud... and it hunts when i was walking around in the evening at the night market.

[IMASA]

Yes the Tamron 90's focusing is super slow and is a bit noisey, however it's quite sharp and pretty nice bokeh for the price. I just used it today for some portraits and was quite impressed. The poor man's Nikkor 105mm F2.8 AF-S micro lens.

[Boostslut]

I feel the same way about this lens, its very very very good at what it does.

[lol FAIL]

if i got a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens, would it be able to take indoor pictures? what are the chances i might still be able to require a flash?

ie. dinner photo, as dim enough that maybe just candle style lighting.

[Senna4ever]

if i got a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens, would it be able to take indoor pictures? what are the chances i might still be able to require a flash?

ie. dinner photo, as dim enough that maybe just candle style lighting.
If you use a high ISO setting (depending on camera body) you should be ok, but if your camera is a crop body, 50mm may be too long. With candle light, your subjects will still need to be relatively still.

[Bonjour43MA]

If you use a high ISO setting (depending on camera body) you should be ok, but if your camera is a crop body, 50mm may be too long. With candle light, your subjects will still need to be relatively still.

ditto.

I'd get a 30 or 35mm lens for indoor shots using a non-fullframe body.

[Senna4ever]

Just get the 24mm f1.4. Problem solved! :p

[RCubed]

Looking for a ultrawide,
Looking at these two options:

Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
or
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Edit:
K ignore me, i went with the tokina. haha

[!MiKrofT]

Any opinions regarding the Canon 80-200 F2.8 L? It's an oldie with no USM but 2.8 and an L droool.. Wonder if I should move into this from my 70-200 F4 L?

[K-Dub]

Looking for a ultrawide,
Looking at these two options:

Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
or
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Edit:
K ignore me, i went with the tokina. haha
yay tokina.

[roastpuff]

Just get the 24mm f1.4. Problem solved! :p

Great lens, the 24L! Get the Sigma 30mm f1.4 if you are crop body and have less $$. And go with a local retailer so you can pick a lens that doesn't have focus issues. :haha:

Any opinions regarding the Canon 80-200 F2.8 L? It's an oldie with no USM but 2.8 and an L droool.. Wonder if I should move into this from my 70-200 F4 L?

I have one, and I love it! The color, contrast sharpness and bokeh doesn't lose to the 70-200 f2.8IS that my friend has, and the black is cool IMO. I would even say that color might be a little bit better. AF speed is pretty fast though it's not USM-fast. If you have a 70-200 f4L though I'm not sure if I'd want to move to this one. F4 and F2.8 isn't that huge of a difference, IMO, unless it's like indoors with no flash and desperately dark, in which you'd rather have IS anyways.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dionditan/sets/72157619158977831/
This set was shot with the 80-200L during an ultimate game. No sharpening added in post, just a few WB/color tweaks if even that. Body was 5D2... the AI Servo ain't bad! :)

[77civic1200]

Just a note, the 80-200 is no longer serviced by Canon. If something goes wrong, your stuck looking for third party repairs. great lens for the money, but its a gamble.

[!MiKrofT]

Yeah the servicing was what worried me the most since my F4 L is almost new. Guess I'll stick with what I got :D

[roastpuff]

Just a note, the 80-200 is no longer serviced by Canon. If something goes wrong, your stuck looking for third party repairs. great lens for the money, but its a gamble.

Yah, I know. I'll take it when it happens. ;)

[Mashimaro]

So i took the plunge and purchased a new Canon 24-70 F2.8 L yesterday...

my wallet is hurting a bit, but i'm blown away by how good the image quality is with this lens!!!! :thumbsup:

[Slo40]

I love my 24-70mm, congrats. That and my 70-200 2.8 IS are the only lenses that leave my bag anymore.

[Mashimaro]

I love my 24-70mm, congrats. That and my 70-200 2.8 IS are the only lenses that leave my bag anymore.

Yah dood, i love the lens! i've also got a 70-200 F4 and the pics out of both lenses are just amazing!

i was deciding between the 17-55 F2.8 IS (yup, i'm on a APS-C body), the 24-105 F4 L IS, or the 24-70...i'm glad i went with the 24-70 over those 2 lenses.

it would be nice if the 24-70 came with an IS version, but i'm sure they're working on it and it'll probably be a $2K lens at that point.

now it's time to look for a wider angle to fill the lower gap :)

[Slo40]

I find I don't really need IS on the 24-70 since it is a fast and mostly wide lens.

[Mashimaro]

That is true and that was also another selling point for me to go with the F2.8 :)

i'm guessing you must be on a FF body? i like the 24 as a walk around, but i find it a bit narrow for landscape shots (compared to my 17-85mm kit lens of course).

perhaps it's time to save up for the 16-35mm? or perhaps i should just go with the 10-22mm EF-S....

[Slo40]

Not FF yet, still on the 40D, but I'd love to get a 5D soon tho. I was thinking about he 10-22mm myself, but I wanted more distortion than it gives so I've pretty much decided on the 15mm 2.8 fisheye.

[Mashimaro]

the fisheye's are alway interesting to shoot with!

i just don't like the cost of the 10-22 EF-S...reviews seem kinda so so as well on that lens...guess i'll just use my kit lens in the meantime for wider shots. :)

[Senna4ever]

So i took the plunge and purchased a new Canon 24-70 F2.8 L yesterday...

my wallet is hurting a bit, but i'm blown away by how good the image quality is with this lens!!!! :thumbsup:

If you're impressed with the canon version, don't try the Sony Zeiss & Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses - you'll be disappointed.

[Senna4ever]

the fisheye's are alway interesting to shoot with!

i just don't like the cost of the 10-22 EF-S...reviews seem kinda so so as well on that lens...guess i'll just use my kit lens in the meantime for wider shots. :)

Tokina 11-16 beats every other APS-C wide angle zoom. Period.

[Mashimaro]

If you're impressed with the canon version, don't try the Sony Zeiss & Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses - you'll be disappointed.

So the brick i just bought is 'lacking' compared to the Ziess and Nikor? :(

and i've seen great reviews on that Tokina UWA for the APS-C's...looks like a great third party lens.

[Senna4ever]

So the brick i just bought is 'lacking' compared to the Ziess and Nikor? :(

and i've seen great reviews on that Tokina UWA for the APS-C's...looks like a great third party lens.
Yeah, the canon is the oldest design. It's fine on a 5DmkII, but due to the pixel density of the 50D or 7D, you'll notice that it could be better on the latter two bodies. It's a bit less sharp than the Nikon, and flares a bit more. The Sony is the sharpest of the three, but to me, it seems as if Zeiss sacrificed some bokeh quality for ultimate sharpness. I did a test shot with the Zeiss on a A900 body, and it is absolutely amazing, but the bokeh isn't as smooth & creamy as the canon & Nikon. The Nikon is probably the best balanced one, but there are rumours of a new Canon 24-70 IS, which should be much better.

[Mashimaro]

Yup, just read up on those 2 lenses...they look pretty damn good!

but geez, the cost of the Nikkor is up there at $2G's USD. ouch!

i'm thinking of going with a full frame body in the future, hence why i purchased the 24-70 in the meantime over the 17-55 EFS lens. :)

seems like a lot of people are happy with the Canon so i feel it's a safe bet. however, an IS version is probably going to hit the markets in the near future i'm thinking as well, but that should bring the price up quite a bit as well (add another 400bux?).

What do you think of Leica lenses? their image quality looks great from the sample pics i've seen so far.

[Senna4ever]

Yup, just read up on those 2 lenses...they look pretty damn good!

but geez, the cost of the Nikkor is up there at $2G's USD. ouch!

i'm thinking of going with a full frame body in the future, hence why i purchased the 24-70 in the meantime over the 17-55 EFS lens. :)

seems like a lot of people are happy with the Canon so i feel it's a safe bet. however, an IS version is probably going to hit the markets in the near future i'm thinking as well, but that should bring the price up quite a bit as well (add another 400bux?).

What do you think of Leica lenses? their image quality looks great from the sample pics i've seen so far.
Leica and Zeiss lenses are on an entirely different level from Canon/Nikon/non-Zeiss Sony. Contrast, colour, sharpness, resolution & detail rendition are miles ahead. There's a reason why my Leica 35mm f1.4 cost $4500 vs. the Canon 35mm f1.4, which only costs $1500.

[endless402]

wondering if i should change my tamron 17-50mm to the nikon 17-55mm

havent played with the nikon but the photos ppl put out with it seem to have better colours / contrast? sharpess is the same

[Senna4ever]

The Nikon has more contrast and should be sharper.

[LC21]

I need some input for my next walk-around lens, other then the 18-55 kit lens that i have.
I'm thinking of a 17-85, what do you all think?

[Soundy]

My 40D came with the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, and I like it! :thumbup: For something packaged as a kit lens, it's pretty clean, and a good complement to my older EF 75-300 - nice to have a little overlap rather than a 20mm gap (I had the 18-55 with my 300D).

[K-Dub]

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro

Any one have experience with it?

[Mashimaro]

I need some input for my next walk-around lens, other then the 18-55 kit lens that i have.
I'm thinking of a 17-85, what do you all think?

i had a 17-85 and sold it about a month ago.

you'll find that it's very soft from the 17-50 range. they're not too bad in the used market (price wise, as i find the BNIB prices to be rediculous).

focal range is great for a walk around lens though. :)

[Senna4ever]

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro

Any one have experience with it?

It's okay, nowhere near as good as the Nikon 105 VR or Canon 100 IS.

[Senna4ever]

Tamron has just announced a 17-50mm f2.8 IS/VR, shipping immediately.

[Mashimaro]

^interesting...i wonder how it is, compared to the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS?

[endless402]

i played with the tamron in japan a few weeks ago. quite impressed but it's weakest point is at 17mm in terms of corner sharpness. then again, it's best bang for the buck

[Senna4ever]

^interesting...i wonder how it is, compared to the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS?

Not sure, but the new Canon 15-85mm is insane sharp.

[LC21]

what's a decent budget walk around lens for canon? any suggestions? shooting a xsi.

[RCubed]

what's a decent budget walk around lens for canon? any suggestions? shooting a xsi.

Tamron 17-50mm

[Mashimaro]

Not sure, but the new Canon 15-85mm is insane sharp.

true, i've seen some pretty nice sample pics on POTN as well...but the cost is the only downside IMO.

[ddr]

got a 17-55. love it.

[//RacingSpirit>>]

17-55 2.8is or 17-40 L for my rebel xt? feel like finally upgrading the kit lens...

[Senna4ever]

17-55 for the extra stop of light.

[//RacingSpirit>>]

17-55 for the extra stop of light.

is there a big difference in the sharpness of the two lens?

[vietfx]

Body: Canon Rebel T1i
Current lens: EF-S 18-55mm IS Kit lens

For sure I want to get the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II

But now, here is my dilemma! I'm stuck between a few lenses. I don't want to be spending over $900 after taxes. So here are my options (if there is something better, please recommend it)

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS + Canon EF 28mm f2.8
OR
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM
OR even this one...
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM I'm really leaning towards this lens though

[Senna4ever]

is there a big difference in the sharpness of the two lens?
The 17-40 is sharper IIRC by a little bit.

Body: Canon Rebel T1i
Current lens: EF-S 18-55mm IS Kit lens

For sure I want to get the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II

But now, here is my dilemma! I'm stuck between a few lenses. I don't want to be spending over $900 after taxes. So here are my options (if there is something better, please recommend it)

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS + Canon EF 28mm f2.8
OR
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM
OR even this one...
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM I'm really leaning towards this lens though
I'd personally get the 70-200 f4, but it all comes down to what your needs are.

[Boostslut]

Vietfx, i ran into the same dilemma when i was new to photography as well. I wanted more reach then what my kit lens gave me. Even tho it was a fine first lens. If i was you i'd pick up a used 50mm 1.8 and get the 70-200 f4. It might seem like alot more money, but its a worth while investment. There is one for sale in the classifieds here on revscene, and its a decent price too. Those other two lenses won't give you, what the 70-200 F4 will. As well if you pick up the L, if you wanted you could basically sell it for the same price that you got it for. Its a good choice.

In my personal experiance, super zooms like all the 18-200's are convient but not that great. I always like to think, a lens that less is alot more then a lens that does alot.

[Senna4ever]

If you do get a 18-200, forget the Sigma and go with the Canon version. You'll find that with the high pixel density of the T1i, some lenses will be out resolved by the sensor, and you'll notice a particular lens' shortcomings are greatly magnified compared to say an 8MP DSLR. Get the sharpest lenses you can afford.

I've had so many customers complain after buying a 5D mkII that the camera is not producing sharp photos, because the lenses they used on a 5D were tack sharp, but the images look soft on a 5D mkII. For example, an older 28-135mm EF lens is great on a 5D, but on a 5D mkII, it's not very good at all, as the 5d mkII has a higher resolving power than what the 28-135 lens can produce.

[!Aznboi128]

Hey guys,

Thinking of picking up a tokina 11-16. Anyone got one? Thoughts? Thanks. gonna to match it with my d80 and d300
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TOS'd]

So, im pretty new to photography still. Ive had my d80 w/ 18-200mm for about 2 years now? But for the most part it has been a paper weight. What kind of lens should I get, Im looking for something that can be a good for close up and like "regular" distance photos? I dunno what to call it exactly but im basically a noob looking for something to spark some interest in photography and put my camera to use. Im not looking for somehting with a crazy zoom though, since i dont see myself doing much zooming in great distances for a shot. Thanks.

[vietfx]

If you do get a 18-200, forget the Sigma and go with the Canon version. You'll find that with the high pixel density of the T1i, some lenses will be out resolved by the sensor, and you'll notice a particular lens' shortcomings are greatly magnified compared to say an 8MP DSLR. Get the sharpest lenses you can afford.

I've had so many customers complain after buying a 5D mkII that the camera is not producing sharp photos, because the lenses they used on a 5D were tack sharp, but the images look soft on a 5D mkII. For example, an older 28-135mm EF lens is great on a 5D, but on a 5D mkII, it's not very good at all, as the 5d mkII has a higher resolving power than what the 28-135 lens can produce.

How are you able to tell the Canon is better than the Sigma? For future reference.

[Boostslut]

How are you able to tell the Canon is better than the Sigma? For future reference.

The Canon is faster because its 5.6 at 200mm and the Sigma is 6.3

If you want reviews on both of these lenses, go here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
Its a real good one!

[vietfx]

Thanks for the quick reply.. Damn I overlooked that! haha

I'm now thinking about the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, after watching this. But one step at a time.. I don't want to get ahead of myself.
http://www.vimeo.com/5252275

[//RacingSpirit>>]

Pretty much leaning towards the 17-40L lens (may go ff in future).....is $839.99 at Broadway Camera a good price? Or should I buy it online?

[Boostslut]

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00031

Check out your prices for the lens here. You can always buy in Canada and save on taxes if you get it shipped in from out of BC.

I love my 17-40 on full frame, but not so much on a crop.

[ColinK]

^ cool link!

[Mashimaro]

Thanks for the quick reply.. Damn I overlooked that! haha

I'm now thinking about the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, after watching this. But one step at a time.. I don't want to get ahead of myself.
http://www.vimeo.com/5252275

I've got the Canon 10-22 and i also picked up a B+W slim CPL as well. it's a great lens but i'm still trying to get used to it as it's VERY wide at the 10mm range.

i might be selling it in the next few months though if you're interested. :)

so far, it's a great lens IMO.

[Boostslut]

I'm looking into a Canon 500mmL. I have a chance to pick a 600mmL for $800 more than the 500mmL. Which one would you choose? I know the obvious weight, and size difference, and of course focal length. IQ, sharpness, focusing speed. Which one would you pick? And yeah i'd have a tripod and wimberley head. Opinions? I need to choose in the next two days or so.

[Senna4ever]

My opinion is that the 500mm is the best compromise of weight and focal length. If you're just going to shoot wildlife, then maybe consider the 600mm, but in most cases for me, 500 is just fine...the 600mm is very heavy....BIF's will be much more difficult compared to the 400mm f5.6 even with the Wimberly. Since I like going to the Abbotsford Airshow, I found that the 500mm was almost too long even on a full frame 1Ds mkIII. I would have preferred a 400mm there.

You have to consider your support system too. The 600mm is going to require a heavy duty tripod & head, so be prepared to spend $1000+. No cheaping out on a Benro or Giottos!

[Boostslut]

400mm on full-frame was perfect at the airshow! And yeah, i'll most likely go for the 500L, because of the weight issue, and i can always get a 1.4 for it to get some extra reach if i think i need it, on a cropper.

[ColinK]

I know someone locally who is selling their canon 50mm f1.4 with a uv and cp filter along with the lens hood for $450.

I have the canon 50mm f1.8 right now and am semi satisfied with it. Biggest thing I dont like about it is that it doesn't always focus accurately.

Can someone talk me into the f1.4 for the extra money? Or is it not worth it?

[Senna4ever]

Totally worth it...much better build quality, and the DoF fall off is amazing, at least on a FF body. If you don't buy it, 10,000 puppies will die via spontaneous combustion.

[lilaznviper]

alright so finally i have the money to get a macro lens
now im deciding which one i should get since broadway camera has the canon 100mm for 689.99 or should i go for the tamron 90mm

[Senna4ever]

They're both good. Broadway Camera includes the instant rebate in their pricing...be careful, as they may not be the cheapest overall. :)

[Boostslut]

Go for the Tamron 90mm, its ugly but such a sweet lens! Pretty cheap too! The Canon 100mm macro, everyone knows how awesome it is.

[Senna4ever]

The Tamron is very nice, actually. I know that some pros use it for their commercial work. If you save up a bit more, you can get the new Canon 100mm IS macro, too.

[ilvtofu]

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00031

Check out your prices for the lens here. You can always buy in Canada and save on taxes if you get it shipped in from out of BC.

I love my 17-40 on full frame, but not so much on a crop.

Hey i have the same lens!
Definitely when you crop doesn't look very clear nemore, Although I use a 40D so lower res then the newer cameras I guess.

Thinking of getting a really high aperture lens, nething else thats a good deal besides the 50mm 1.8?

[ColinK]

^ not for that kind of money.

I might be selling mine soon tho. I'm thinking of getting the canon or sigma 50mm 1.4.

I'm located in Kelowna, but could ship it to you...

[Boostslut]

I had a really nice canon 85 1.8 but i sold it yesterday for $340 with a filter, and a hood n stuff.

Go Tamron macro!

[ilvtofu]

^ not for that kind of money.

I might be selling mine soon tho. I'm thinking of getting the canon or sigma 50mm 1.4.

I'm located in Kelowna, but could ship it to you...

How much are the sigma 50mms?

[lilaznviper]

went to broadway cameras and they sold out of the canon 100mm

[ColinK]

How much are the sigma 50mms?
$750
$630 $Cnd from this website: http://www.adencamera.com/prod-overview.asp?ProdID=2359&Category=7

[Senna4ever]

If, for whatever reason you go the Sigma route, I would suggest not buying on-line. I would go to a store and try out their lenses, as Sigma's QC tolerances are so loose that the lenses vary greatly in image quality. They may back focus, front focus & even have a tilted plane of focus. Yes, the back focus & front focus problems can be compensated for in higher end bodies, but not every DSLR has this feature. Sigma & Tamron are notorious for this.

[murd0c]

The G/F just got a Canon EOS and was looking for good zoom lens. I saw this one bestbuy and was wondering if this would be a perfect starter lens for her?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10093802&catid=26562#

shes going to use it mainly for nature/Animal(bird) shots.

[vietfx]

The G/F just got a Canon EOS and was looking for good zoom lens. I saw this one bestbuy and was wondering if this would be a perfect starter lens for her?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10093802&catid=26562#

shes going to use it mainly for nature/Animal(bird) shots.

I was deciding between that one and the 18-200. I'm glad I bought the 18-200 because it has an awesome range for carrying it around. If you're going to bring one lens for everyday use, it's perfect.

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=565_566&products_id=3944

Got mine for $669 more than 2 weeks ago! Should have waited and saved myself over $100.

[Senna4ever]

The G/F just got a Canon EOS and was looking for good zoom lens. I saw this one bestbuy and was wondering if this would be a perfect starter lens for her?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10093802&catid=26562#

shes going to use it mainly for nature/Animal(bird) shots.

She may find it a bit lacking in the sharpness and contrast department, depending how picky she is. It's not bad, but it's not great. Depending on your or her budget, the 70-300mm f4-f5.6 IS USM is a much better lens.

[CP.AR]

not exactly a lens, but I didn't want to start another new thread...

I'm in the market for my first flash - this will generally be used indoors to bounce some extra light off the ceiling etc...
I'm looking at getting a used Canon 420EX speedlite for my Rebel T1i - is this a good choice for my budget? (I'm looking at sub $200 on my measely student wallet)

EDIT: he is willing to let it go for 175

[ddr]

go at least 430

or maybe look on strobist and read about the lp210 they advertise

[Senna4ever]

I'd go for it. The 420EX isn't a bad flash...should be great for 90% of your usage.

[Soundy]

Agreed, the 420EX is a good flash (I have the same one), but the one thing it's missing that I wish I had was more manual control. It works with the E-TTL flash control through the camera, but there's no way to use it fully manual or manually set the exposure control like on the 430.

Now that said, it WILL be a great starter unit for you, and it will work as a slave with other flashes like the 580, should you upgrade in the future.

[ddr]

isn't manual control important once you feel adventurous enough to go beyond a single flash?

[CP.AR]

dragonone go to sleep :D
Anyways i think i an going for the 420. I took a look at the 430 but the price difference is pretty steep, since 175 is already pushing my boundary. Thank for the input guys!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[CP.AR]

Hehe I just got the 420EX, gonna have fun with it once it starts getting a bit nicer out

[Senna4ever]

Nice...

[freesole]

Anybody have any thoughts on the 100mm f2.8 macro with IS from Canon? I just purchased it but want to know some thoughts from fellow RS'ers. The optical quality is excellent but the range may not always be useful on a crop camera. Deciding on whether to keep or return at this point.

[BrendanS]

I have a D3000 with the 18-55mm lens, I'm not looking to put out a lot on a real fish-eye lens. But I'm considering a fisheye lens adapter, I've looked into it a bit and see that the quality won't be as good but it'll do for 90% of the shots I want. Anyways, just wondering if there is a certain fisheye lens adapter that any of you guys recommend. Doesn't have to be from a local source. Any info you guys could give me on these would be helpful.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[moky]

any canon users here that have zeiss lenses on their dslrs as primes?
i thought about the 85mm f/1.4 since it's an attractive aperture/range. i don't see other lenses in this range/aperture combo, save for the vivitar series 1 85mm f/1.4 as well

[Senna4ever]

Canon 85mm f1.2?

[moky]

i thought about the canon 85/1.2, but something about the zeiss just attracts me to it even if it is fully MF

[Senna4ever]

I'd pick the Zeiss, too.

[ilvtofu]

Found on CL
Nikon 50mm 1.8D Prime Lens $120

Is this any good?
I'm a canon guy and know absolutely nothing about nikon lenses, it's a gift for a good friend of mine who wanted a prime lens, uses a D90, brand doesn't matter

[Senna4ever]

You're giving a used lens as a gift???

[Soundy]

^I'd take a used lens as a gift... better than NO lens, especially if I'm not paying for it!

[IMASA]

For $120 used, you're better off buying new for $140, especially if it's a gift. At least they get 5 year warranty. I wouldn't pay more than $100 for a used 1.8.

[ilvtofu]

You're giving a used lens as a gift???

Actually more interested to find out whether this lens is any good LOL
and any other primes that are good not just the nikon 50mm

[IMASA]

Actually more interested to find out whether this lens is any good LOL
and any other primes that are good not just the nikon 50mm

If they are a DX user, try the 35mm 1.8, that's less than $300. Else the 50mm 1.8 is hard to beat, provided that their Nikon camera has a built in focusing motor.

Another lens note: Just got myself an used twin ring Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D. Looking for a teleconverter. I've read the Tamron/Kenko 1.4x, 1.7x are the best that will work with this lens and still provide full functionallity. Anyone have experience w/ the 1.7x? Does it scarfice too much IQ or would it be as good as the 1.4x?

[mickz]

Hey guys, I'm a newbie here with a D40. I'm looking to buy a decent all around lens and I'm wondering what do you guys think about the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Version II? http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=3710&zenid=n46m0pn1um19ptokjve9vcge63

I was also looking into the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM but after reading some reviews online and in this thread that might not be the best route to go. The Sigma looks to be similar in specs but it's cheaper than the Nikon so I know we're obviously not comparing apples to apples here.

I've tried playing around with the Nikon 18-200 lens when my cousin let me borrow it. Due to the weight (or lack of), the D40 it tends to be a little heavy towards the lens side. Other than that I just wanted other opinions about it and whether or not I should look elsewhere.

Upgrading my body will also be something I want to do in the future so if there's a better choice out there I'll save up and buy the lens and body together later on and just make the best of the gear I have now. Thanks.

[ilvtofu]

Neone tried the sigma 24-70 2.8 for Canon?
Or is the Canon that much better used prices are about 40-50% that of the canon 24-70 >.<
I use a 40D and have the 17-40 F4L

Also interested in this Sigma 30mm F1.4
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/pho/1590419583.html

[Boostslut]

I really enjoy my 70-200 F/2.8L non-is. It's wonderful.

[LiquidTurbo]

Hi guys, I shoot with a lowly Nikon D40, with the 18-55mm kit.

I am thinking about getting the 16-85mm VR as a upgrade to an all-purpose lens... is this a good idea?

Are the optics far superior (sharper) in the 16-85? I briefly considered the 18-200mm VR, but it seems like I'll never use the 100-200mm range.

[m3thods]

Hi guys, I shoot with a lowly Nikon D40, with the 18-55mm kit.

I am thinking about getting the 16-85mm VR as a upgrade to an all-purpose lens... is this a good idea?

Are the optics far superior (sharper) in the 16-85? I briefly considered the 18-200mm VR, but it seems like I'll never use the 100-200mm range.

Ever consider a third-party constant aperture lens like the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 2.8? I replaced my EF-S 17-85 with the Sigma and I almost use the Sigma exclusively (along with my 50mm). I'd imagine they're all in the same price bracket, plus it's a nice benefit to have the constant aperture (2.8 although soft, is pretty handy in low-light).

Haven't used the 16-85, but from my experience (and reviews) the two third party lenses are very sharp- assuming you buy *in store* and try multiple copies.

[LiquidTurbo]

Ever consider a third-party constant aperture lens like the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 2.8? I replaced my EF-S 17-85 with the Sigma and I almost use the Sigma exclusively (along with my 50mm). I'd imagine they're all in the same price bracket, plus it's a nice benefit to have the constant aperture (2.8 although soft, is pretty handy in low-light).

Haven't used the 16-85, but from my experience (and reviews) the two third party lenses are very sharp- assuming you buy *in store* and try multiple copies.

I've read enough comments like this to almost make me go Original brand route...

If, for whatever reason you go the Sigma route, I would suggest not buying on-line. I would go to a store and try out their lenses, as Sigma's QC tolerances are so loose that the lenses vary greatly in image quality. They may back focus, front focus & even have a tilted plane of focus. Yes, the back focus & front focus problems can be compensated for in higher end bodies, but not every DSLR has this feature. Sigma & Tamron are notorious for this.

[m3thods]

I've read enough comments like this to almost make me go Original brand route...

Well that's why I said try it in store. I tried 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma, and luckily the Sigma was the sharpest out of the bunch. Just thought I'd mention the "cheaper" (in price, not IQ) route considering the difference between the Nikon and the 3rd-party lenses is quite substantial (~$200)

Doing a quick check Photozone says that the 16-85 is sharp throughout the range, and having the extra reach is pretty nice. So it seems if you're looking at it, you can't really go wrong.

[LiquidTurbo]

Well that's why I said try it in store. I tried 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma, and luckily the Sigma was the sharpest out of the bunch. Just thought I'd mention the "cheaper" (in price, not IQ) route considering the difference between the Nikon and the 3rd-party lenses is quite substantial (~$200)

Doing a quick check Photozone says that the 16-85 is sharp throughout the range, and having the extra reach is pretty nice. So it seems if you're looking at it, you can't really go wrong.

There is definitely a price premium to be considered. I'll definitely checkout Sigma perhaps in real life. Thanks for the inputs!

[moky]

i definitely agree with trying several sigmas in store. about 2 years ago i bought a sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 because upon comparing it with canon's 17-85, i felt the colors were better and the image was sharper with the sigma than the canon 17-85, and price was good overall too.

[Senna4ever]

Sigma colours better? Seriously? I personally don't like Sigma lenses due to their slight warm tone.

[moky]

the sigma copy i had was pretty even on the colors, it didn't really exhibit that slight warmer tone i've seen on others. either that, or it must have been the settings i had on the camera (i was shooting jpeg then)

[Senna4ever]

the sigma copy i had was pretty even on the colors, it didn't really exhibit that slight warmer tone i've seen on others. either that, or it must have been the settings i had on the camera (i was shooting jpeg then)
Shoot some slide film. You'll notice it. :)

[moky]

thanks senna, i'll keep that in mind when i buy a film slr (which i have been meaning to, just lazy to get around to it).

on a side note, ever have experience with voigtlander lenses on a dslr? i read somewhere voigtlander (the new ones) are rechipped/re-mounted so that they work on nikon/pentax/canon dslrs.

i saw the 20mm f/3.5 color-skopar and the image on 5d mkII was amazing!

[LiquidTurbo]

Anyone know what the "wholesale" cost of a lenses roughly is? For say a lense that cost $700, how much markup is on theses things? Something I've always wondered about..

[Senna4ever]

Anyone know what the "wholesale" cost of a lenses roughly is? For say a lense that cost $700, how much markup is on theses things? Something I've always wondered about..
Mark-up on camera bodies and lenses isn't much, about 3%-6%.

[sebberry]

Mark-up on camera bodies and lenses isn't much, about 3%-6%.

Wow, that is low.

[$_$]

Hey guys, need some advice here... I want to get a telephoto lens, and so far have only experienced with 18-55mm. Here are the ones that I am currently looking at... Trying to go for a good bang/buck ratio

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=47

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=3710

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=46

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=26

I'm thinking of just throwing down and spending a good deal of money on this telephoto, instead of spending 200-300$ on a 200-300mm and get mediocore to not good quality. Am I right to assume so ? Give me some advice guys!

[Senna4ever]

What body do you have, and what's your budget? I'd get the 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, but that is pretty expensive. For something a bit more affordable, I'd suggest the 16-85mm ED VR or 18-105mm VR & the 70-300mm ED VR.

[$_$]

^^ I have the d5000 body right now!!

Can someone explain the zoom range ? Like the 18-200mm lens I'm looking at has a 11.1x zoom range vs the 300mm one which only has a 4.3x zoom range. What difference will it look like in my pictures?

The 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II are definitely out of my budget though :(... something under 1000?

[Senna4ever]

Usually, the less zoom range, the better the image quality.

[LiquidTurbo]

^^ I have the d5000 body right now!!

Can someone explain the zoom range ? Like the 18-200mm lens I'm looking at has a 11.1x zoom range vs the 300mm one which only has a 4.3x zoom range. What difference will it look like in my pictures?

The 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II are definitely out of my budget though :(... something under 1000?

I just picked up the Nikkor 16-85mm VR. GREAT lens. I love the 16mm.

What kind of things do you like taking pictures of?

Here's a link you might be interested in.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm

I really like taking pictures of landscapes.. so I really like the 16mm on the 16-85mm VR. The 18-200 is heavier, bigger, more expensive, a little bit less image quality. Since most of my photos never need Telephoto, I didn't think I needed the 100-200mm part. If you want a cheap telephoto, you could always get a 55-200mm. Very inexpensive and good quality lens.

These videos will help you out too.

YouTube- Nikkor 18-200mm VR zoom lens review

YouTube- Nikkor DX 16-85mm VR review

YouTube- Nikkor DX lens group test review

[$_$]

Well what I'm asking is ... will I get a drastic difference with closer up shots i.e indoor shots that don't require telephoto? And how much clearer will a 500$ lens vs a 8xx$ be?

[LiquidTurbo]

Nikon kit 18-55mm is a pretty sharp lens already. Don't underestimate it.

And no, there will not be a "drastic" difference. The most 'drastic' difference comes from framing the shot correctly and using the right settings.

[Senna4ever]

You'll notice a little bit of difference, but only if you print big. What's your final image size going to be?

[77civic1200]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/focal_length_comparisons.htm

take a look at that site, it will help you understand the difference in focal lengths, see just how much of a difference 1mm can make

[$_$]

You'll notice a little bit of difference, but only if you print big. What's your final image size going to be?

I haven't found a reason to print big yet, so right now I've only printed regular size so far (4x6). I do a lot of sharing photos online so that's a reason I don't want to lose quality.

So, the 70-300mm will probably work for me at a pretty decent price (giving me the telephoto that I want) and allowing me to take decent everyday photos?

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_14&products_id=26

Is broadway camera decently price or there are cheaper alternatives? How are second hand lens? Where do you work again Sena?

[m3thods]

^^ I have the d5000 body right now!!

Can someone explain the zoom range ? Like the 18-200mm lens I'm looking at has a 11.1x zoom range vs the 300mm one which only has a 4.3x zoom range. What difference will it look like in my pictures?

The 17-55 f2.8 & the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II are definitely out of my budget though :(... something under 1000?

FYI- the "x" rating of a zoom rating is useless really- it just takes your max focal length and divides it by your min.

For lenses, the important numbers are the actual focal lengths (taking into account any crop factors, which in your case is "focal length x 1.5") and the aperture numbers. There are numerous other factors in lens construction price, but those are the first ones that people normally look at.

[ColinK]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/focal_length_comparisons.htm

take a look at that site, it will help you understand the difference in focal lengths, see just how much of a difference 1mm can make

there are some fantastic photos on there!

[moky]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/focal_length_comparisons.htm

take a look at that site, it will help you understand the difference in focal lengths, see just how much of a difference 1mm can make

i can certainly see the huge diff of the FF wide angle lenses! makes me want to get a sigma 12-24 now lol

i wonder if there's a site similar to this that compares macro lenses...

[Senna4ever]

The Sigma 12-24mm isn't very good.

[LiquidTurbo]

The Sigma 12-24mm isn't very good.

A friend of mine got that lens and can't stop talking about how good it is. What's your take?

[Senna4ever]

A friend of mine got that lens and can't stop talking about how good it is. What's your take?
Take a look at the overall sharpness of the lens and the corners....it's shit. Also, the wavy distortion produced by the lens is impossible to correct in software, so it's useless for architecture. It's a good lens for the price, I guess, and is popular with the consumer, but unacceptable for professional work if one's final image sizes are going to be 11x17+.

Mananetwork had one a few years ago, but he sold it. The photos were great with web size images, but with bigger prints, it fell apart.

[mickz]

A bit off topic but where would be the cheapest place to pick up a rear lens cap for Nikon? I put mine in my camera bag and it's gone missing...

If you guys were buying your first prime lens, which would it be? The 50mm AF f1.8D, f1.4D or something else?

From the reviews I've read online, the f1.8D is a bargain at $150 and is even sharper than the f1.4D. However at 2.5x the price, the f1.4D has a better build quality and an extra 2/3 of a stop, which may be useful for the occasional shot. I'm leaning towards the f1.8D right now but wanted more opinions on it as most of the forum posts I found via Google are a few years old. Thanks!

[m3thods]

A bit off topic but where would be the cheapest place to pick up a rear lens cap for Nikon? I put mine in my camera bag and it's gone missing...

ebay, but if you're in a hurry they're at most camera shops for around 5-10 dollars.

[LiquidTurbo]

A bit off topic but where would be the cheapest place to pick up a rear lens cap for Nikon? I put mine in my camera bag and it's gone missing...

If you guys were buying your first prime lens, which would it be? The 50mm AF f1.8D, f1.4D or something else?

From the reviews I've read online, the f1.8D is a bargain at $150 and is even sharper than the f1.4D. However at 2.5x the price, the f1.4D has a better build quality and an extra 2/3 of a stop, which I may be useful for the occasional shot. I'm leaning towards the f1.8D right now but wanted more opinions on it as most of the forum posts I found via Google are a few years old. Thanks!

I believe the 1.8 is a bit better for daytime shooting, but the differences are noticible only if you pixel-peep. This guy does a decent job of reviewing em.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm

[m3thods]

I'd say go with the 1.8. I'm not sure how the Nikon build quality on their 1.8 is, but if it's anything like the Canon there's definitely a lot more to be desired.

That being said, the reason I say go with the 1.8 is that it's a great deal for a great prime, and if you are careful with your lenses you probably won't be replacing it. 1.4 is nice but I guess it also depends on what/where you are shooting, since that's a pretty shallow depth of field. To be honest I don't use apertures larger than 2.8 on my 50 unless it's really low light. You could also up your ISO if you're really pushing shutter speeds to their lower limits. Considering you got the D300s, I don't think you'll be complaining too much with low-light shots :thumbsup:

[Senna4ever]

If you have a 1.5x crop camera, try having a look at Sigma's 30mm f1.4. Just make sure you get a good copy.

[Wykydtron]

I have an Eos Rebel XS and am going to start taking more pictures at concerts. I was thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8. Prob the Sigma variant of it. Any thoughts? Or do you suggest upgrading my body first?

[m3thods]

I have an Eos Rebel XS and am going to start taking more pictures at concerts. I was thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8. Prob the Sigma variant of it. Any thoughts? Or do you suggest upgrading my body first?

like previously stated.. if you go the sigma route make sure you buy in store and try multiple copies.

I personally have never used it but doing a quick review search shows that it's a very good lens for the price - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/318-sigma-af-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-canon-lab-test-report--review?start=1

And for me I'd personally invest in glass before upgrading the body.

[LiquidTurbo]

If you have a 1.5x crop camera, try having a look at Sigma's 30mm f1.4. Just make sure you get a good copy.

Why not get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for almost half price?

[Senna4ever]

Why not get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for almost half price?

Because the extra 1/3 stop is worth it...


......and because I totally forgot about that Nikon. :p

[m3thods]

Does anyone know a local store that sells the Tamron 90mm (Canon) other than Kerrisdale? I want to try them in store but can't seem to find one! :cry:

[$_$]

Hey everyone, I just bought a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for Nikon, and I was wondering if its normal for it to have some resistance while zooming about halfway in. The zoom will be smooth to about 50, 50-80 has noticible resistance, while 135-200 will be fine. The retraction feels smooth with 0 resistance. Is this normal, or should I switch it?

[LiquidTurbo]

Hey everyone, I just bought a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for Nikon, and I was wondering if its normal for it to have some resistance while zooming about halfway in. The zoom will be smooth to about 50, 50-80 has noticible resistance, while 135-200 will be fine. The retraction feels smooth with 0 resistance. Is this normal, or should I switch it?

That sounds strange. I haven't compared them side by side, but I would suggest that the nikkor will be quieter, faster and more accurate. it's also a stop faster at the tele end which could come in handy.

The VR works about 1 stop better than the OS on the Sigma. If I were you I would return it and try another one to see if you have the same resistance problem. Have you tried the Nikon 18-200? I think its worth saving up for just because of the 5.6 at the 200mm end, and the superior VR system. Its hard to keep things still at the 200mm end.

Additionally the build quality is a tad better on the Nikon.

So in short, why the Nikon is better than the Sigma.

1. Lighter Weight.
2. f5.6 instead of f6.3 at the 200mm end
3. VRII works better than the OS by about a stop
4. Better resale value on the Nikkor.

Downside:
Cost.

Either way, exchange the Sigma to see if the lenses are supposed to be like that. I've tried 3 Nikkor 18-200s and they were all smooth from end to end.

[LiquidTurbo]

I have an Eos Rebel XS and am going to start taking more pictures at concerts. I was thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8. Prob the Sigma variant of it. Any thoughts? Or do you suggest upgrading my body first?

Concert = Low Light. Therefore:

Upgrade your lens to a fast one..2.8 should probably be enough... Ideally you probably want even a faster one, like something f1.4-f1.8. But since those are primes, You probably need a zoom since you can't really move around at a concert.

Upgrade lens and photo skills before getting a better body. Then when you feel like you need a better body, (such as more efficient menus, or needing to print pictures at a larger size, or need higher fps) then go for it.

Good lens and good skills are far better to invest in, than a expensive body. The next logical jump is a full-frame sensor which would allow you to crank up the ISOs with less noise than a crop-frame sensor, thus allowing better low light snaps, but the price jump is very large.

So you gotta decide, what's it worth to you? Upgrading to another crop-frame sensor does not make much sense to me. A full-frame one, maybe sometime in the future, or if you have money to spend.

[ddr]

Hey everyone, I just bought a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for Nikon, and I was wondering if its normal for it to have some resistance while zooming about halfway in. The zoom will be smooth to about 50, 50-80 has noticible resistance, while 135-200 will be fine. The retraction feels smooth with 0 resistance. Is this normal, or should I switch it?

it's better than zoom creep imo

[$_$]

That sounds strange. I haven't compared them side by side, but I would suggest that the nikkor will be quieter, faster and more accurate. it's also a stop faster at the tele end which could come in handy.

The VR works about 1 stop better than the OS on the Sigma. If I were you I would return it and try another one to see if you have the same resistance problem. Have you tried the Nikon 18-200? I think its worth saving up for just because of the 5.6 at the 200mm end, and the superior VR system. Its hard to keep things still at the 200mm end.

Additionally the build quality is a tad better on the Nikon.

So in short, why the Nikon is better than the Sigma.

1. Lighter Weight.
2. f5.6 instead of f6.3 at the 200mm end
3. VRII works better than the OS by about a stop
4. Better resale value on the Nikkor.

Either way, exchange the Sigma to see if the lenses are supposed to be like that. I've tried 3 Nikkor 18-200s and they were all smooth from end to end.


I just traded my Nikkor 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 VR for this lens and I noticed that the Sigma was significantly heavier. It also twists counter-clockwise as opposed to clockwise. I ended up going with this one because I thought it would be better as an everyday lens because I would be able to shoot from 18 all the way to 200. I do realize the Nikkor 18-200 will be a lot better in almost every aspect, but the 300$ gap is still too much for me right now especially since I'm still missing tripod and a close range lens in the near future. In any case, I will bring the lens back to Broadway Camera in Aberdeen tomorrow for them to have a look. Contemplating whether I should go back to the 70-200mm VR.... The F6.3 handicap is quite noticeable on the 200mm end and I'm really missing the build quality on the nikkor.... Do you guys think its bad to exchange it for a third time? The salesperson that was helping wasn't very nice when I cam in for the exchange, he was also the person who sold me the lens though lol.

[LiquidTurbo]

I just traded my Nikkor 70-200mm F4.5-5.6 VR for this lens and I noticed that the Sigma was significantly heavier. It also twists counter-clockwise as opposed to clockwise. I ended up going with this one because I thought it would be better as an everyday lens because I would be able to shoot from 18 all the way to 200. I do realize the Nikkor 18-200 will be a lot better in almost every aspect, but the 300$ gap is still too much for me right now especially since I'm still missing tripod and a close range lens in the near future. In any case, I will bring the lens back to Broadway Camera in Aberdeen tomorrow for them to have a look. Contemplating whether I should go back to the 70-200mm VR.... The F6.3 handicap is quite noticeable on the 200mm end and I'm really missing the build quality on the nikkor.... Do you guys think its bad to exchange it for a third time? The salesperson that was helping wasn't very nice when I cam in for the exchange, he was also the person who sold me the lens though lol.


Is it the guy with the cataract in one eye? I noticed from that place they say "No returns, only exchanges." He's got an obligation to show you he isn't selling you a defective product, so the next Sigma 18-200 he pulls is supposed to be the same.

Another option you could do is pick up the 55-200mm to complement your 18-55mm.

Granted, you have to switch lenses more, but you save $300. 55-200mm is also a super light, and quality lens too. It seems like there's 3 options for covering 18-200

Nikkor 18-55mm + 55-200mm = $250
Sigma 18-200mm = $550
Nikkor 18-200mm = $850

Interesting how each jump is exactly $300.

[$_$]

^^ My mistake, I traded in my 55-200mm.

Nah, it wasn't that guy, but a mousey looking guy. Right now, I'm seriously considering just switching back to the 55-200mm and get my 170$ back and just switch lens.

[freesole]

I really want a wide angle lens that can rival the 14-24 from Nikon. Being a Canon user, any solid suggestions? The ones I am thinking about are the Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 16-35mm II but are there any other suggestions? The 14mm is likely far too expensive for me unfortunately!

[LiquidTurbo]

I really want a wide angle lens that can rival the 14-24 from Nikon. Being a Canon user, any solid suggestions? The ones I am thinking about are the Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 16-35mm II but are there any other suggestions? The 14mm is likely far too expensive for me unfortunately!

How about the Sigma 10-20mm?
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=sigma+10-20mm&oq=&gs_rfai=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=7403694952281693910&ei=cGakS_3jN5TIsAPUnKnfAw&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQ8wIwAA#ps-sellers

[m3thods]

I really want a wide angle lens that can rival the 14-24 from Nikon. Being a Canon user, any solid suggestions? The ones I am thinking about are the Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 16-35mm II but are there any other suggestions? The 14mm is likely far too expensive for me unfortunately!

Considering the price/performance, I don't think it gets any better than the Tokina 11-16. They don't seem to be on back order as much anymore so you should have ample selection around town.

[Senna4ever]

I really want a wide angle lens that can rival the 14-24 from Nikon. Being a Canon user, any solid suggestions? The ones I am thinking about are the Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 16-35mm II but are there any other suggestions? The 14mm is likely far too expensive for me unfortunately!
Rival Nikon's 14-24 in image quality and flare control? None. The Tokina 11-16 is good, as is the 16-35, but the 16-35 is approaching the price of the 14-24. There is Sigma's 12-24, but than again, does not approach Nikon's 14-24 in optical quality. Your best bet is the Tokina 11-16 - you can also use it on a full frame camera as a 16mm f2.8 prime.

[mickz]

How important would VC be on a Tamron lens?

I'm looking for something to shoot in dimmer situations and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 looks like a good choice both picture quality and price-wise. The non-VC is $480 and the VC-version is $650. I know there's a few other minor differences between the two lenses but from I've read VC is the most significant. Would you guys recommend ponying up the extra $170 for VC?

I don't currently have anything for low-light but I am also considering picking up the Nikon 50mm f1.8D this week as I mentioned in a previous post. I am trying to plan out my lens purchases and would it make sense to own both these lenses or should I just scrap the 50mm f1.8 and stick to the 17-50 f2.8? I know we're not comparing apples to apples here but I'd appreciate any input you guys would have. Thanks!

[Senna4ever]

The VC won't do anything for subject movement though. How about a 17-50 VC and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 if budget allows?

[1exotic]

Does anyone know any camera stores that sell filters for good prices, since futureshop and best buy etc don't really sell them... I'm looking to get a few of them... thanks

[m3thods]

^ I get mine from eBay. There's another retailer online that sells "legit" high end stuff (b+W, etc) for pretty good deals. I can't remember the name though but they do have an eBay outlet.

And reading photozone's review on the tammy with VC, you're probably better off saying the 170 and putting it towards that fast prime Senna suggested. The non-VC is apparently sharper than it's VC-laden counterpart.

How important would VC be on a Tamron lens?

I'm looking for something to shoot in dimmer situations and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 looks like a good choice both picture quality and price-wise. The non-VC is $480 and the VC-version is $650. I know there's a few other minor differences between the two lenses but from I've read VC is the most significant. Would you guys recommend ponying up the extra $170 for VC?

I don't currently have anything for low-light but I am also considering picking up the Nikon 50mm f1.8D this week as I mentioned in a previous post. I am trying to plan out my lens purchases and would it make sense to own both these lenses or should I just scrap the 50mm f1.8 and stick to the 17-50 f2.8? I know we're not comparing apples to apples here but I'd appreciate any input you guys would have. Thanks!

[Senna4ever]

^^^ What do you need?

[ddr]

Does anyone know any camera stores that sell filters for good prices, since futureshop and best buy etc don't really sell them... I'm looking to get a few of them... thanks

a few of them? maxsaver.net

[ddr]

couple questions:

why isn't AF confirmation on a manual fisheye lens important? something about most things being in focus and it's only a problem when focusing on close objects?

i have a 430exII. should i upgrade to a 580EX for master functionality or get additional ones like a di866, yn467 ? I have cheapo wireless triggers to play with. i'm not sure if ttl is important in the off camera ones since one would like to manually set flash power to achieve a specific effect, right?

who held your reflectors when you just started out experimenting them? just use light stands?

is it worth it to get a color calibrator on a non-ips panel? or (which is) a panel less than something like a 110% color gamut? perhaps a recommendation for a versatile one I can use on a lcd tv that's plugged in the computer? (<$200 i hope).

TIA

[mickz]

Thanks for your input guys.

It looks as though not that many places carry Tamron locally? Kerrisdale and Gastown Photo are the only places I found Tamron lenses just by browsing their websites. Are there any other dealers? Tamron Canada's website doesn't have a list of dealers, or am I not looking hard enough? I want to be able to go into a shop to try out the lens before I buy so online is out of the picture.

[m3thods]

Thanks for your input guys.

It looks as though not that many places carry Tamron locally? Kerrisdale and Gastown Photo are the only places I found Tamron lenses just by browsing their websites. Are there any other dealers? Tamron Canada's website doesn't have a list of dealers, or am I not looking hard enough? I want to be able to go into a shop to try out the lens before I buy so online is out of the picture.

Dunne and Rundle but they're only M-F (dunneandrundle.com). Leo's has the Tammy as well. DaR have it cheaper though.

a few of them? maxsaver.net

yeah that's the one. :thumbsup:

[vietfx]

lens and shutter has a really limited selection on their website.

[Dangerphoto]

Hey guys,

I am deciding on whether getting a 70-200mm f2.8L or the 70-200mm f4/ISL lenses or even the non-IS version of the F4.
The f2.8 would be really nice for me to shoot more blurred images at the long end since I am attempting to take more "the moment" shots. I am mostly taking outdoor shots during the day with ample amount of light.

Would the F/4 have a less burred effect and would it be a problem(shaking) if I hand held the non-is F/4 to take daytime shots?

Budget is sort of a concern.

Thanks.

[Senna4ever]

Wait, so you *want* to shoot blurred images? :p

The f4 lenses are sharper than the v1.0 of the f2.8 lenses, but the new 70-200 f2.8L II has closed the gap. Of course, if you have the budget for it, I would get the new f2.8 IS, but if not, I'd get the f4 IS, as it will give you up to a 3 stop advantage over the non-IS lens.

[Dangerphoto]

Wait, so you *want* to shoot blurred images? :p

The f4 lenses are sharper than the v1.0 of the f2.8 lenses, but the new 70-200 f2.8L II has closed the gap. Of course, if you have the budget for it, I would get the new f2.8 IS, but if not, I'd get the f4 IS, as it will give you up to a 3 stop advantage over the non-IS lens.

I meant the blurred background effect without photoshop:cry: but damn found out that the f4 IS is weather sealed!:D

On another note, would you recommend buying a used one off craigslist? To save myself from tax and such.

[Senna4ever]

The f2.8 will give you a creamier background, but I know a lot of people that are happy with the f4 IS. It's much lighter, too. Buying anything from a stranger on-line is risky. Inspect the lens thoroughly.

[ColinK]

is there anywhere I can sign up to find out automatically when Canon has rebates on?

[Dangerphoto]

The f2.8 will give you a creamier background, but I know a lot of people that are happy with the f4 IS. It's much lighter, too. Buying anything from a stranger on-line is risky. Inspect the lens thoroughly.

Roga, thanks bud.

[Senna4ever]

couple questions:

why isn't AF confirmation on a manual fisheye lens important? something about most things being in focus and it's only a problem when focusing on close objects?

i have a 430exII. should i upgrade to a 580EX for master functionality or get additional ones like a di866, yn467 ? I have cheapo wireless triggers to play with. i'm not sure if ttl is important in the off camera ones since one would like to manually set flash power to achieve a specific effect, right?

who held your reflectors when you just started out experimenting them? just use light stands?

is it worth it to get a color calibrator on a non-ips panel? or (which is) a panel less than something like a 110% color gamut? perhaps a recommendation for a versatile one I can use on a lcd tv that's plugged in the computer? (<$200 i hope).

TIA
Focus confirmation isn't very important with a fisheye...just use hyperfocal focusing.

I have a Nissin Di866 on loan from Nissin...I can let you try it out if you want. It's actually quite a decent flash. I'm actually going to buy it I think. I used it at a wedding with no problems at all.

TTL can be useful, as you can set the flash ratios from the master, and do away with manually controlling them. Just learn the Inverse Square Law.

It's totally worth investing in a colour calibration device no matter what monitor you have. Of course, having a decent monitor would be advisable...and by 'decent' I mean a monitor that can display at least something close to 100% Adobe RGB 1998. For a 24" screen, look at spending at least $700 if you're doing anything to do with graphics or photography for income.

[mickz]

Hey guys, thanks for the advice. I ended up going for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC. Other than the VC, the size and weight of the VC was larger and overall the lens seemed a little better built than the regular version. I'm very satisfied with it after one day of shooting so far.

The VC motor is very loud when you use it and the lens hood on it feels a bit cheap. Other than that, the image quality is pretty good, especially for just $640.

Thanks for the recommendation for Dunne and Rundle as well. I went to their shop at Bentall Centre and they had the two lenses I wanted to try out in stock. The lady behind the counter seemed very helpful and their prices were very competitive. $10 cheaper than other places locally for the lens and $10-$15 cheaper for the filter. Would definitely shop there again over places like Future Shop.

[TurboTalon]

Does anyone know where I might be able to find a Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM locally?

thanks

[Senna4ever]

Leo's has a large selection of Sigma lenses.

[IMASA]

Let's talk about fisheye lens. Lately I've been craving to own one and have been considering the Nikkor 10.5mm. Has anyone used this before? I wanted rent it to see if I would even use it enough to justify buying it, but I'm not sure if any places have it, I see that Beau only has the full frame 16mm fisheye.

[Senna4ever]

Nope, no 10.5mm in rentals. :( You can try the 14mm FF lens, as the field of view will be similar.

[K-Dub]

Let's talk about fisheye lens. Lately I've been craving to own one and have been considering the Nikkor 10.5mm. Has anyone used this before? I wanted rent it to see if I would even use it enough to justify buying it, but I'm not sure if any places have it, I see that Beau only has the full frame 16mm fisheye.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Product-Review-Pro-Optic-8mm-f35-Fish-Eye-CS-lens

Cheap fisheye for >$300?

[ddr]

I'm not sure if lens manufacturing is the same as something like TV's, where % of specific grades of panels are given to certain manufacturers. that popular 8mm f/3.5 MF fisheye is manufactured by samyang AFAIK, and re-branded to a dozen manufacturers such as vivitar, rokinon, bowen, pro-optic etc.

if you get it from their .pl website, you can pick a video SLR version which has an aperture ring. if you go to their ebay store, it's just the one version, plus i think it feels safer to go through ebay and paypal and such.

[mickz]

Looking for some more recommendations and second opinions again. :)

I'll be attending a few concerts and graduation ceremonies in the coming months so I'm looking for a new telephoto zoom lens. Walking around to get closer or using flash is pretty much out of the question so I'll need to get a faster lens. I have the budget Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6 right now and that just won't cut it for hand held shots in low light.

I'm not a professional obviously so I'm going to try to refrain from breaking the bank on this purchase. After reading some reviews the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM (as well as the newer version) looks like the front runner at the moment.

Other lenses I have in consideration are the Nikon 80-200 f2.8D ED AF (About $300 more than the Sigma) and the Tokina 50-135 f2.8 (Not as much reach as the other two lenses.) Open to other lenses you guys may recommend as well. Looking to stay in the $800-$1100 range at most.

[m3thods]

Looking for some more recommendations and second opinions again. :)

I'll be attending a few concerts and graduation ceremonies in the coming months so I'm looking for a new telephoto zoom lens. Walking around to get closer or using flash is pretty much out of the question so I'll need to get a faster lens. I have the budget Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6 right now and that just won't cut it for hand held shots in low light.

I'm not a professional obviously so I'm going to try to refrain from breaking the bank on this purchase. After reading some reviews the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM (as well as the newer version) looks like the front runner at the moment.

Other lenses I have in consideration are the Nikon 80-200 f2.8D ED AF (About $300 more than the Sigma) and the Tokina 50-135 f2.8 (Not as much reach as the other two lenses.) Open to other lenses you guys may recommend as well. Looking to stay in the $800-$1100 range at most.

I know this is at the upper end of your limit, but the Sigma 70-200 HSM would minimize your "upgrade lust" :p. If possible I'd go with that. But the other two shorter lenses are pretty good as well, but I think they're not very practical lengths imo (as opposed to the more classic 70-200), and probably are more likely to get upgraded :P

Second hand lenses may be another option as well (i.e. CL).

[IMASA]

I found a mint Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 AFD twin ring for $650 on CL, and most do go for $700-850, I'd go that route if you're on a budget. I love this lens, it's built like a tank and has the old skool black crinkle finish, unlike the newer Nikkors which IMO don't stand up to abuse as much as the older style stuff. Focusing is a bit slower but still good enough for most things that I shoot. I'd go with this vs the Sigma lens as they do have QC problems and the Nikkor is known to be pretty sharp. The prices of used 70-200VR are coming down, but still around $1300 -1600.

[aznrsx1979]

I've been doing a lot of searching and a lot of reading on a wide angle lens. I've been reading up on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4.0 for a Canon mount (I picked up a T1i). Reading up on past posts, looks like a lot of people have picked it up the 11-16mm here.

I'm just wondering if the 12-24mm is a more useful range then the 11-16mm, even though I've seen some gorgeous photo's taken with the 11-16mm.

[m3thods]

I've been doing a lot of searching and a lot of reading on a wide angle lens. I've been reading up on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4.0 for a Canon mount (I picked up a T1i). Reading up on past posts, looks like a lot of people have picked it up the 11-16mm here.

I'm just wondering if the 12-24mm is a more useful range then the 11-16mm, even though I've seen some gorgeous photo's taken with the 11-16mm.

Assuming you have the kit lens, I'd go with the superior optics of the Tokina. (Almost) every review out there has it rivalling or beating the canon 10-22 at 400 dollars less. You can't go wrong there.

[K-Dub]

I've been doing a lot of searching and a lot of reading on a wide angle lens. I've been reading up on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4.0 for a Canon mount (I picked up a T1i). Reading up on past posts, looks like a lot of people have picked it up the 11-16mm here.

I'm just wondering if the 12-24mm is a more useful range then the 11-16mm, even though I've seen some gorgeous photo's taken with the 11-16mm.
throwing in my +1 for Tokina. Loveeeee this lens!

[Senna4ever]

...and as I've mentioned before, if you ever go FF, the Tokina can be used as a 14-16mm prime. :)

[mickz]

I know this is at the upper end of your limit, but the Sigma 70-200 HSM would minimize your "upgrade lust" :p. If possible I'd go with that. But the other two shorter lenses are pretty good as well, but I think they're not very practical lengths imo (as opposed to the more classic 70-200), and probably are more likely to get upgraded :P

Second hand lenses may be another option as well (i.e. CL).

I usually don't like buying online but B&H has the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM for $799US, about $250 cheaper than locally but is the warranty still honored in Canada if I purchase a lens from the USA? On their website's FAQ it just briefly mentions a 1 year international warranty and not much else.

[m3thods]

I usually don't like buying online but B&H has the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM for $799US, about $250 cheaper than locally but is the warranty still honored in Canada if I purchase a lens from the USA? On their website's FAQ it just briefly mentions a 1 year international warranty and not much else.

I haven't done much cross-border shopping (but will start with the dollar this high).. but I think Sigma offers international warranties, but if it's like my Manfrotto warranty it asks that you return it to the place of purchase. I'm not sure on this, but the only TRUE international warranties I've come across are HP and Canon :S Worst case you mail it yourself on your own dollar. But like Senna mentioned many times, I'd be weary about buying 3rd party online. It's luck of the draw wrt getting a good copy. But with the dollar this high, it's definitely a really interesting risk.

[aznrsx1979]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm gonna pick up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Hopefully I can find it at a good price.

[aznrsx1979]

Well I ordered the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Gonna pick it up next Saturday. Paid $599 US so that should come out to about $615 CAD, pretty good deal. Everywhere else I tried looking had it listed for $799 or was out of stock.

[mickz]

I haven't done much cross-border shopping (but will start with the dollar this high).. but I think Sigma offers international warranties, but if it's like my Manfrotto warranty it asks that you return it to the place of purchase. I'm not sure on this, but the only TRUE international warranties I've come across are HP and Canon :S Worst case you mail it yourself on your own dollar. But like Senna mentioned many times, I'd be weary about buying 3rd party online. It's luck of the draw wrt getting a good copy. But with the dollar this high, it's definitely a really interesting risk.

After doing some research it doesn't look like buying Sigma online from the States will be a good option for me. I save $250 right off the bat but I only get a 1 year international warranty not like the 10 year offered if I were to buy locally from an authorized dealer.

I found a used one locally and I'm just wondering if anybody has purchased a used Sigma lens and had warranty work done on it? I'm still pretty new to the hobby and have never bought a used lens before. The seller is willing to give me a copy of the receipt from Broadway Camera and the warranty card is blank. Assuming the serial numbers on the receipt, box, lens, warranty card, etc all match up is there anything I should be worried about warranty-wise?

[LiquidTurbo]

Question for you experts,

I have a 67mm diameter front lens currently with a nice B&W UV filter protecting it. If I decide to get a polarizing filter, will I get vignetting if I screw it over the top of the UV filter? Or will I have to remove to the UV filter first to use the polarizing?

[roastpuff]

Question for you experts,

I have a 67mm lens currently with a nice B&W UV filter protecting it. If I decide to get a polarizing filter, will I get vignetting if I screw it over the top of the UV filter? Or will I have to remove to the UV filter first to use the polarizing?

The lens is not 67mm... 67mm is the diameter of the front of the lens. If you can tell us what the proper focal length of the length is we will be able to tell you if it vignettes or not.

[LiquidTurbo]

The lens is not 67mm... 67mm is the diameter of the front of the lens. If you can tell us what the proper focal length of the length is we will be able to tell you if it vignettes or not.

Oops, edited. It's a 16-85mm with a 67mm front glass diameter.

[Senna4ever]

You should always remove the UV filter if you're going to put a polarizer on your lens.

[freesole]

Has anyone ever though of using some alternative lenses with their cameras? By that I mean alternative lenses to the traditional Nikkor, Canon, Sigma, etc, but more so along the lines of Leica, Mamiya, Zeiss, Rokinen lenses? I know all of these are manual focus but some of the pictures that come out of these lenses are stunning. SOOC they capture so much detail with great contrast and the colors are quite saturated (but not overly so). I was thinking of waiting to see if I can find a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZE mount for my UWA instead of getting a 16-35mm at this point. Anyone else been thinking about this? :D

[moky]

@freesole, yeah i had been thinking about this too. i was looking at a cosina voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar EOS mount and compared to the canon and sigma versions, the cosina seemed to produce better pictures because of the richness of the colors (of course, post processing etc would make a difference too).

[77civic1200]

I own and have used a bunch:

35-70 f3.4 zeiss
135mm f3.5 pentax x2
50mm f1.4 pentax
55mm f1.8 pentax
28mm f3.5 pentax

all used on my 30D or 5D

[Senna4ever]

I put a 30 year old Nikon 55mm f2.8 Ai-S micro Nikkor on my 5DmkII, and it's stunning how sharp it is.

I also use a Leica 35mm f1.4 & a Leica 90mm f2.8 often, but those attach to my Leica M6. :D

[freesole]

I own and have used a bunch:

35-70 f3.4 zeiss
135mm f3.5 pentax x2
50mm f1.4 pentax
55mm f1.8 pentax
28mm f3.5 pentax

all used on my 30D or 5D

Did you find that using the manual focusing took some practice? That is my only concern. Although, practice makes perfect :)

Although if I get the 21mm ze, it is mainly for landscape photography anyway so manual focusing probably won't be so much an issue.

[Senna4ever]

Manual focusing on a crop camera is a little difficult compared to a FF body, as the viewfinder is a little restricted. Also, the focusing screen makes a huge difference too. I'm not sure if you can get one for a 5DmkII but a split-screen viewfinder is great for manual focus.

[freesole]

Manual focusing on a crop camera is a little difficult compared to a FF body, as the viewfinder is a little restricted. Also, the focusing screen makes a huge difference too. I'm not sure if you can get one for a 5DmkII but a split-screen viewfinder is great for manual focus.

I actually have a 5D2 now. I am not sure yet how that will make a difference but I look forward to giving it a shot.

[77civic1200]

Ya some of the wider lenses were hard to shoot wide open on the crop body, but fine on the FF. I never got into it enough to switch focusing screens, got lazy and used AF lenses isntead =)

One thing you may want to look into is the mirror clearance on the 5D2, not sure if its the same, but not all lenses work on the 5D without hitting the mirror. My 35-70 hangs up some times, I can kinda flex the adapter slightly and the mirror springs back down, but its annoying. I don't want to modify the camera or the lens, so I just live with it.

[freesole]

Ya some of the wider lenses were hard to shoot wide open on the crop body, but fine on the FF. I never got into it enough to switch focusing screens, got lazy and used AF lenses isntead =)

One thing you may want to look into is the mirror clearance on the 5D2, not sure if its the same, but not all lenses work on the 5D without hitting the mirror. My 35-70 hangs up some times, I can kinda flex the adapter slightly and the mirror springs back down, but its annoying. I don't want to modify the camera or the lens, so I just live with it.

Yeah that is what I heard too about crop bodies vs. FF. Luckily I won't have to worry about that but I have been thinking of switching to a precision focusing screen if I do go ahead and get the 21mm.

The clearance should be fine with the Zeiss ZE mount as it was meant for canon EOS builds and it seems that everyone with a 5D2 hasn't experienced any problems. The only thing I need to consider is whether a $1500, manual focusing, prime is worth it :S

[77civic1200]

Ahh your looking at the new one, sorry automatically thought you meant the contax/yashica mount original

[Senna4ever]

The only thing I need to consider is whether a $1500, manual focusing, prime is worth it :S

That depends if the high micro contrast, insane sharpness & 3D look is for you. Of course, a 30 year old Pentax m42 mount 50mm f1.4 came pretty close to the current Zeiss according to a respected Japanese camera magazine test. :)

[freesole]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/4559255297_ddf91415d3_o.jpg

Well, you guys helped convince me...

[Senna4ever]

Nice... Where did you buy it?

[ddr]

I take it you guys know which decade-old primes to hunt for from experience. What are some notable ones? I don't mind reading a nice long list or a website to refer to.

[77civic1200]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

[freesole]

Nice... Where did you buy it?

I got it from camtec in Montreal! Low prices and the shipping was super fast (ordered it monday, got it on tuesday afternoon).

[keitaro]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/4559255297_ddf91415d3_o.jpg

Well, you guys helped convince me...

Wow very nice purchase. I haven't been keeping up in this thread, but which Zeiss lens is that?

I would love to own the 21mm Distagon T* one day....

I dunno if i should get my first L lens 17-40L or a gitzo 2541 tripod :(

[freesole]

Wow very nice purchase. I haven't been keeping up in this thread, but which Zeiss lens is that?

I would love to own the 21mm Distagon T* one day....

I dunno if i should get my first L lens 17-40L or a gitzo 2541 tripod :(

That is the 21mm Distagon ZE mount :)

I would probably get a good tripod first. If you plan to do landscapes or shots with long exposures, you wouldn't be able to do that effectively (for a lot of shots) without a tripod.

[77civic1200]

I can take more shots without a tripod, than I can without a lens =)

[Senna4ever]

I can take more shots without a tripod, than I can without a lens =)

Amen to that!

[Senna4ever]

I take it you guys know which decade-old primes to hunt for from experience. What are some notable ones? I don't mind reading a nice long list or a website to refer to.
The old Nikon 55mm f2.8 Ai-S Micro Nikkor and the 85mm f2 Nikkor Ai-S are absolutely amazing.

[Wykydtron]

I'm looking at a few budget telephoto zoom lens. I have 2 options, tell me what you think.

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_46_47&products_id=319&zenid=oic1unam8bd8qj3mnn9punobl4

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-200mm-f4-56-dc-os-hsm-sigma

[Senna4ever]

Try them out before you buy, and see which one suits you the best.

[Kamui712]

I'm torn between buying a new prime lens.

1. Canon 28mm f/2.8
2. Canon 35mm f/2.0
3. Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I tend to shoot in low light and the subjects are people (inside houses, restaurants... casual stuff). Has anyone had experience with these lenses? The sigma is the lowest price of them all, but it also has the largest F... thoughts?


Also, can someone recommend me a 28-35 mm prime lens that's good for casual photography and is not going to cost me an arm and leg?

[gars]

something to add to your list, the Canon 28mm f/1.8

i don't know the prices in Canada, but here, they're just a little bit more than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

[m3thods]

yummy.. but looks to be around 1800-2000 CAD :(

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/SG70200OEO.html

[freesole]

yummy.. but looks to be around 1800-2000 CAD :(

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/SG70200OEO.html

Wow... that's about the price of the 70-200 IS Mark I used.
Not sure if this bodes well for the upcoming 8-16mm and the 85mm :(

[m3thods]

^ I know :( All this waiting for nothing it's essentially double the non-IS Sigma which I'm probably going to get.

[Senna4ever]

something to add to your list, the Canon 28mm f/1.8

i don't know the prices in Canada, but here, they're just a little bit more than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Canon 28mm f1.8 is $729.

[Boostslut]

Canon 28mm F1.8 - Photoprice.ca is your friend.

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00024/Canon-EF-28mm-f1.8-USM-price.html

[mickz]

Where would you guys look for used lenses locally other than RS, Craigslist, Broadway Camera's forums and in store at Kerrisdale Camera? I don't like the idea of buying from an online forum and having it shipped because I would like to inspect the lens in person before buying. Thanks!

[Senna4ever]

^^^ What are you looking for?

[mickz]

^^^ What are you looking for?

At the moment I'm looking for the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G as my first prime.

In the coming months I'm looking at the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR if I can find it for a good price.) The VRII may be a bit out of my reach price-wise.