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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 8, 2005, 7:20 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic

There's also the 'practical' side: some folks may plan on moving to a full-frame so the EF-S are out for them - the 28-135 IS USM might be better in this case and changing to a 17-35 f/2.8 is no different than your "I'm not bothered about focal length beyond 85mm or so, because I'm happy to change lenses when I want a longer focal length." - we'll do the same @ the wide, but have more reach @ the long

... Plus I need a 'fast' lens to capture this fleeting color of moving waves and windy clouds:





BTW this 'practical' side is another reason I opted for the Sigma 12-24mm EX DG and not its EF-S equivalent :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 9:34 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

Another thing to consider has nothing to do with the lens, but what your going to carry everything in. Tamrac has the Velocity 7 and Velocity 9 bags that can be worn as a backpack but you can slide them around to get to your gear without taking it off. I carry the 7 and can get my camera with my 24-70 zoom attached and I also have my 85mm prime and just for giggles since it doesn't weigh much I have my 50mm f/1.8 in there too. But then, like Peripatetic, I don't mind changing lenses when I need to. And by the way to cover the wide end, for my money I've ordered the new Tokina 12-24mm f/4.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 11:03 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

NHL

The full-rame issue is certainly a valid characteristic of any lens to add into the mix. The weighting accorded will once again vary according to the individual's needs.

My personal view on that is that I can't really see anyone with an $8000 camera (even accounting for likely future price reductions) using this particular 28-135mm lens as a walkaround.

Regarding focal length yes you are 100% correct, it's perfectly valid to say that you prefer more at the telephoto and are happy to change lenses for wideangle. It just depends on the type of photos you like to take. Some might say they don't really want to change lenses at all and opt for an 18-200 and accept the other limitations of such lenses. And so on ad infinitum...
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 1:10 PM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

caboose, nice call on the tokina 12-24 f4.. i am considering one myself, i have heard nothing but excellent things about the image quality of this lens.. btw, where did you find one, i can't find one in stock anywhere...

actually for me the full frame issue also extends to film slrs... yes, remember these things?? hehe.. i still occasionally use my a2e and its nice to be able to use my 28-135 on it too..so its a bonus if you still or are planning on still shooting some film.. and we could prolly argue all day on what lens is appropriate for an 8000 camera, but i have seen some nice work done with the 28-135 and a 1DS.. actually we could prolly argue this topic for the next year without a clear answer... :G

p.s. speaking of film slrs, this PMA was the first time in 25 years that a new film slr was not unveiled....
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 2:40 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

Both B&H and Tristate both have the Tokina 12-24 listed as in stock. About the same price $490.00 at Tristate an 500.00 at B&H.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 3:48 PM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
My personal view on that is that I can't really see anyone with an $8000 camera (even accounting for likely future price reductions) using this particular 28-135mm lens as a walkaround.
What does price have anything to do with it and which 'L' zoom can you recommend for the same MTF? :blah:
... but like other have said as well a more affordable EOS-1D mark-II or a Kodak SLR/c can still use this lens whereas the EF-S would be useless on thoses cameras

BTW the Tokina 12-24 is sure reasonable... but wouldn't you guys prefer a full-frame Sigma (for the same reason as above) and HSM (i.e. Ultrasonic - fast & quiet with full time manual overide) for only $150 more: http://www.adorama.com/SG1224EOS.html

This lens is also a professional EX so it's full metal :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2005, 5:07 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Only $150 more? :blah:

Actually I was pretty surprised how loud the kit lens on the Rebel XT really was (even when I knew it wasn't USM)... But When I got the package I saved $100... so it was like the lens was basically free... Actually, I'd probably spend that extra 150 for silent performance...

I am one of those people that would prefer to have a primary lens to leave on the camera 95% of the time. I think I will have a specific lens for all types of portrait shots (with large aperture) and the other one for everything else (where I don't really have to worry about max aperture)...

But the EF 28-135 looks pretty good... Won't help me when I need wide pictures, but the range seems good to me (45-216 on the XT), people say it has good quality pics, and most importantly, it's a USM

what I think peripatetic meant was if you bothered spending so much money for a body, you're not doing justice by buying a cheaper lens...

Like buying a computer: if you buy a really high performing graphics card and amazingly fast CPU processor but you only wanted to play solitaire...
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2005, 6:01 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
what I think peripatetic meant was if you bothered spending so much money for a body, you're not doing justice by buying a cheaper lens...

Like buying a computer: if you buy a really high performing graphics card and amazingly fast CPU processor but you only wanted to play solitaire...
I do realize this, however 'cheap' has nothing to do with it: :?:

Have you check the MTF of this lens? Like the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, it's really sharp if not sharper than other L's @ 135mm, and at 28mm it's even better than the 17-40 L - The fact of the matter is no EF-S would fit on a full-frame, and by default the 28-135 IS USM is an 'excellent' walkaround lens alternative for a full-frame as well

-> The 24-70 f/2.8L is faster, but almost weights twice as much with less range and not as sharp at the long end...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 11:22 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Hoooba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 197
Default

You should also consider the Tamron 24-135 EX lens. I've read some good reviews about this lens. I've read more consistent reviews about this lens than the Canon 28-135. Read the review at Shutterbug.com
Hoooba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2005, 12:30 PM   #20
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Caboose wrote:
Quote:
Another thing to consider has nothing to do with the lens, but what your going to carry everything in. Tamrac has the Velocity 7 and Velocity 9 bags that can be worn as a backpack but you can slide them around to get to your gear without taking it off. I carry the 7 and can get my camera with my 24-70 zoom attached.........
I just bought then immediately (the very next day) sold the Velocity 7. I have the 20D and the Sigma 24-70 EX which I really like. It is fast at 2.8, in any reasonable light the auto focus works just fine, and it is a sharp lens as well for the money. BUT it is large, with an 82mm filter size. On the camera (wiith eyepiece extender and hood in place) it makes for a 9.25" long outfit (max length with lens extended it's 10.5"). With the lens hood attached the outfit has to be forced into the Velocity 7. All the velcro straps in there that hold the dividers interfere with getting the camer in, and if you reverse the hood they interfere with getting the lens out. I did like the bag and ordered the Velocity 9. It will be here on Tuesday.. if the UPS Gods are willing.

Randy G. 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 12:43 PM.