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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 5, 2010, 7:36 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

I've been looking for that lens, too. Tack sharp, 10mm to 100mm focal range, f1, under $400, fast focus, no distortion or CA, should do it for a basic walk-around lens. Since this unit hasn't been made yet, we're forced to use what is available and deal with their relative strengths and weaknesses.

The best of the zoom lenses seem to cap out at f2.8, with the affordable models running f3.5-5.6. Primes can reach f1.2 for a hefty price, while the f1.4-2 range is much more affordable, depending on focal length.

For myself, I'm finding that I need a fast lens <80mm for indoor work with variable lighting - museums to school plays. The 50mm f1.8 is a bit too tight for some of what I want to do. I see a 35mm f2 for a reasonable price that will cover my needs for my kid's school plays. I used my kit lens most recently for this to get the wider angle, but found myself about one stop too slow for conditions. Which means the 17-55mm f2.8 would fit the bill nicely and be useful for many more situations, at 3x the price.

I guess my point is that there isn't one lens that does it all. More money = more capability if a person chooses carefully.

Jim
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2010, 10:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Nah.

One lens. 28mm f1.8 on your crop camera. Does everything worth doing. :-)
May be my next choice.
85 mm. f/1.8 is nice, but really overlaps with the 15-85 mm. and pushes me back a lot for portraits in context.
Wife will never know.

-I already know...
-Who're you?
-Wife!
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2010, 1:56 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
Add a litlle more to the cant do list of the 28
Portaits
Candids
weddings
Actually its easier to list what it will do
Landscapes
LOL. A 45mm equivalent can't do portraits, candids, or weddings but is best for landscapes???

We inhabit different photographic universes. I say it's the only lens you ever need because I had it on my 20D for over a year and never swapped it off. (Okay, TCav - except for one occasion when I was trying to photograph some weaver birds. The best sports photographs I have ever seen have all been taken with wide angle lenses, so I disagree there.) And now I have a 50mm on my 5D2 for 90% of the time, except when I swap for a wide angle.

The thing is though that there are questions of style and taste, and many people including some of the world's greatest photographers have been perfectly happy just using a single 35mm or 50mm focal length lens for essentially all their work.

It depends on who your photographic heroes are. Make a list of your top 10 photographers. Which photographers do you have on your bookshelf? Whose images bring you back again and again? Whose pictures could you not live without?

Why not try finding out what lenses ^^ they use.

There is absolutely no best choice of single lens applicable to every photographer, but there might just be one for you.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Dec 6, 2010 at 6:16 AM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2010, 6:51 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
Not that this is really the reason of this thread however, I'm looking at adding the 28 f1.8 for weddings work to give more creativity. 28 is fine for portraits, just more environmental than full length or anything. it comes back to personal choice and style. I agree, that a 28 isn't a 'normal' portrait lens but I'm often shooting wide angle at weddings or locations shoots. Studio is the difference when it's the 80-100mm range that I go for.
You definitely have a different style than most. I dont like doing portraits with wide glass as you have to get up in the subjects face. The shortest I have ever used was a 50 for potraits. Unless you are talking about a group then its another story. I just had to re-aquaint myself to make sure I havent lost my marbles and with my 24-70 at 24mm on a 1.3 crop Im less than 5 ft away to get a full body shot on a 6ft person, If I want just head and shoulders that closes the distance to less than 3 ft. For a head shot I can just hand the camera to the subject as at this point I have long since passed the personal approach boundary.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 9:53 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

I'm not reading great reviews of the 28 mm. f/1.8... Has anybody proved it?
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 10:59 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

peripatetic used one for a long time and it looking to get one again. I've seen some good results from one so it is pretty high up on my want list.

What have you seen that makes it look so bad?
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 12:15 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

I think peripatetic's point is that we can do more than we think with a simpler kit. I use a similar comparison for woodworking, my other hobby. The best woodworkers the world has ever known, namely the early American woodworkers, could put all their tools into a toolbox and carry it home at night. Bigger, better tools can make a job easier, but not better.
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 12:35 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
I think peripatetic's point is that we can do more than we think with a simpler kit. I use a similar comparison for woodworking, my other hobby. The best woodworkers the world has ever known, namely the early American woodworkers, could put all their tools into a toolbox and carry it home at night. Bigger, better tools can make a job easier, but not better.
Jim, this is both true and untrue. No matter how much you might want to - trying to use a saw instead of a drill when the job requires a drill is just ignorant. Similarly, if a person wants to shoot birds in flight and they like detail vs. pattern, they're going to be extremely frustrated trying to use a 28mm lens to do it. So, if the job requires a drill - not only does the job get done easier with a drill than a saw, it will get done better. Especially when you're going to repeat that job a couple thousand times. Or perhaps you cut wood with a hammer? Get the idea? My sigma 120-300 2.8 is a great lens but if I try to use it in my living room for photos Christmas morning I'm going to have some issues. It's the wrong tool for the job.

We don't always need the most expensive tools. But the idea that you can do any job with any tool just isn't true. Now, the way to end up with FEWER tools is to buy the RIGHT tools in the first place. That means understanding what job(s) you want done. The more you buy a tool without it being driven by a need (versus a desire for a new tool) the more you collect more lenses. And, even then, when your desire for higher quality grows that can still lead to acquiring a new tool. And, of course, as your needs change so to do the tools that best fit those needs.

Take me for example - I first bought a Canon 300d with 28-135 lens. I soon got interested in shooting sports. As much as I would like it to be different, 135mm is just too short for field sports. As much as I would have liked it to be different the lens didn't let in enough light for indoor sports. Unfortunately with poor ISO 1600 performance, indoor sports like basketball with 2.8 wasn't a reality. So, it was sigma 70-200 2.8 for outdoor and 85mm 1.8 for indoor. Flash forward 2 bodies and I'm on a 1dIV. I was ready for better IQ in my all-purpose lens - the 24-105 was bought and the 28-135 was sold. Along the way I wanted to make money and 200mm was too short for field sports so along comes the 120-300 2.8. As I'm making money, and with the ISO performance of my 1dIV, suddenly using f2.8 for indoor sports is possible. Now it becomes worthwhile for upgrade of the sigma lens to the canon - so in comes the canon and the sigma gets sold. It was now worth the better tool because that made better quality photos.

Could I have made saleable sports images with my 28-135? Not many - not enough. Could I have made images I simply enjoyed? Not many for sports - not enough. And, even everyday images - the quality of shots coming off the 24-105 and 85mm 1.8 for my family stuff is just phenomenal compared to the 28-135. Could a single prime lens replace what I do? No. My requirements are different than Peripatetic's. Doesn't mean he can't use a single lens for what he does. But it's flawed to think that because it works for his style it should work for everyones.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 12:56 PM   #19
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
I'm on a 1dIV.
Did I miss something exciting going on?
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2010, 12:58 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
Did I miss something exciting going on?
Freudian slip
Actually using 1dIII.
JohnG 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 12:56 AM.