Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 12, 2007, 6:32 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

If i had the money i would maybe go for the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but that`s just the thing , i want a good sharp lens for walkaround usage and portrait phopography all for a reasonable price.

Would these third party lenses compete with Canon lenses , like the 17-40 f/4 ?


- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5

- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8


These lenses are at least 250 euro cheaper then the Canon 17-40mm

Is it worth it ?

Any other ideas ?

Could you maybe post a few pics ?
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 12, 2007, 9:02 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

Well it depends on your camera choice (i.e. full-frame or not going forward), but in general a full-frame lens is older in design and their wider resulting projection are not as optimized as a newer 'digital only' designs which bring the ray of light more perpendicular to the sensor surfaces resulting in better MTF's - You can see from theses results that the smaller 'digital only' lenses are generally sharper and more contrasty than their full-frame counter part: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=65

Of course there's more to it like construction quality of plastic vs metal, weather sealing etc..., but then some newer lenses are pretty good at this as well like the all metal Tokina for example, who also happened to OEM weatherproofed lenses for Pentax...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 11:41 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Well it depends on your camera choice (i.e. full-frame or not going forward), but in general a full-frame lens is older in design and their wider resulting projection are not as optimized as a newer 'digital only' designs which bring the ray of light more perpendicular to the sensor surfaces resulting in better MTF's - You can see from theses results that the smaller 'digital only' lenses are generally sharper and more contrasty than their full-frame counter part: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=65

Of course there's more to it like construction quality of plastic vs metal, weather sealing etc..., but then some newer lenses are pretty good at this as well like the all metal Tokina for example, who also happened to OEM weatherproofed lenses for Pentax...
Well i was thinking of a Canon 400D which is probably not the best build body around but i believe it delivers the goods when needed.

I was first leaning on a Nikon D40x with a Nikkor 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 but i just noticed a very good deal in a shop concerning a Canon 400D.

The 400D body would cost me 510 euro which i consider very cheap for such a quality camera unfortunately i`m having trouble finding the right lens to replace what i had in mind for Nikon mount which were a 18-200mm Vr or a 18-70mm both from Nikkor.

So which walkaround lens should i buy for a 400D ? a lens that could also be very good for making portraits.


guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 3:35 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA
Don't own the lens but think it's my dream as a "walkaround" lens some day further down the road. Really good reviews. Great pics on pbase.com. I also found it interesting that many, many sports shooters and photojournalists both seem to carry this lens. It's the coveted "L" glass, fairly light weight and an ideal range for me.

The more knowledgeable here can ask you more questions and point you to more options, especially 3rd party, but check this one out if not familiar and not horrified by the price. You already mentioned a $900+ (US) lens so what's another $100 or so :-)

If it was f/2.8 for my low light needs, it would already be on my camera and I wouldn't be sitting typing in this site.
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 1:57 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

So much depends on the focal length you require in a walkaround. Some people are telephoto nuts, others prefer wide angle.

I like a wide angle walkaround or just a plain old "normal" prime. If I had to stick to a single lens forever I would probably choose a 50mm prime or perhaps a 35mm on my 5D.

As to a zoom walkaround I had the 17-85 with the 20D which was great, and now the 24-105 on the 5D. I would never use the 24-105 on the crop camera for a walkaround lens, simply not wide enough. I personally would rather have the IS and extra range rather than f2.8.

Each lens has its compromises, each user has their preferences. No right answers just choose the right one for you.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 6:18 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

to peripatetic's point,
Any reply should have started out with his original thought regarding "depends on focal length." THAT really would allow others to help you.

I pointed out the 24-105mm because, while I like other's wide angle shots, that's just not my interest. I like more people shots and details in cityscapes (the single isolated gargoyle not the entire cathedral.)

On more of a budget, the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM has a great range and IS. Wish I had bought that kit with 30d rather than 28-55mm. That seems the ideal starter lens to me.
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 2:09 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

I tend to agree with peripatetic - my favorite walkaround lens is the 12-24!
If I shoot outdoor portraits then a 300 range will be perfect - I would shoot portraits with my 500 f/4L too but it tends to get heavy... 300mm is about the right size and weight.

-> that's why I think the 120-300 f/2.8 is the most flexible! :-):lol::G
(Creamy 'bokeh' with just the right amount of compression)



guillermovilas wrote:
Quote:
So which walkaround lens should i buy for a 400D ? a lens that could also be very good for making portraits.
In your case I would rank them in the following order (for 'cropped' dSLR):
o Canon 17-55 f/2.8
o Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
o Tokina 16-50 f/2.8
o Sigma 18-50 f/2.8

... of-course the old standby with variable apertures:
o Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6
o Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5
-> Plus don't forget there's now a sigma 18-200 with OS(VR) to replicate your Nikon setup :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 1:59 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

When checking the prices i notice that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is very slightly more expensive then a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.


95% of the time i use my camera for portrait and citytrip shots .... you know what i mean , just walking around city centers and making pics of buildings , statues , streets , people , & so on .

Like in september i`ll be visiting Prague (CZ) and i`ll want a cool sharp effective lens on my cam , but that`s just the thing , i`ll want just one lens and not a whole bag full of them.

I wonder if the 24-105mm would be wide enough to capture monuments or churches in narrow streets where it`s impossible to take that extra step back.

The comment made by 'leeraff' is interesting too :

"I pointed out the 24-105mm because, while I like other's wide angle shots, that's just not my interest. I like more people shots and details in cityscapes (the single isolated gargoyle not the entire cathedral.)"

See why the Nikkor 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 lens is so popular , i`ve had it in the past when i had Nikon equipment , portrait shots were superb , i can show you a couple if you want ?
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 6:02 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

guillermovilas wrote:
Quote:
I wonder if the 24-105mm would be wide enough to capture monuments or churches in narrow streets where it`s impossible to take that extra step back.
Isn't this the whole idea? The difference between 55mm and 105mm is 13 degree on a cropped camera (27 vs 14 degree) which you can easily crop to obtain the right framing - That's what all the high megapixels is about

On the other hand even though the 7mm between 17 and 24 is much smaller than the seemingly larger span of 55 to 105, the difference in angle of view is a full 26 degree (78 vs 52 degree) which is twice wider than the difference at the tele end and you can't crop what you didn't capture in the 1st place!

Both are good lens and you can't go wrong either way, get what you need.
For peripatetic and I, it's a no brainer since an EF-S wouldn't fit (and 24mm is wider) on our cameras, but you have more flexible options on a 400D






Quote:
See why the Nikkor 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 lens is so popular , i`ve had it in the past when i had Nikon equipment , portrait shots were superb , i can show you a couple if you want
What's wrong with the Sigma 18-200 with Optical Stabilizer? :idea:
It does exactly what the Nikkor 18-200 VR do on a Canon - You just don't get the f/2.8... which you didn't have on the Nikon in anyway!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:47 AM.