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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 1, 2005, 8:11 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Interesting, how does the Sigma 20mm measure up against Canon's inexpensive 35 f/2 lens? I was just reading an article this weekend that referred to the Canon 35mm, which up until now I didn't know about.

I'm becoming convinced that what I really want is something wider than the 50mm, since the 1.6 crop factor is going to make it too tight for what I want to do. The Canon 35mm f/2 looks like its in the same price range as the 50mm f/1.8. The Sigma at 20mm might be a bit short, while the Canon 35mm is probably a little too long (sigh, now I see why zoom lenses are so popular).

davidyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 9:19 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 51
Default

In telephoto lenses, 15 mm isn´t all that great a difference - in wide-angel it means a lot. 32 mm, for example is considered today as a very tame WA, while 56 mm (which the 35 mm lens translates into) is a "little longer than normal" - standard lens (17 mm is called a "super -wide").

Consequently, also the DOF will differ greatly - I have no charts at hand, but I think you could look them up at the respective manufacturers HPges.

But anyway - I can´t believe that your home is so badly lit that you couldn´t do with a 2,8 standard zoom (like the Sigma 2,8 24-70 or the equivalent Canons, Tokinas or Tamrons).

Ciao, wolfie:-)








wolfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 10:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Hi David,
I have a question for you, you seem to be looking mostly to prime lenses.
Is there a reason for that?

All the lens research into modern designs has been going into the zooms and many of good quality zooms can now match or surpass the capability of the primes. Many of which have not seen a optical design update in a very long time.

Unless you are looking to a fast, long prime like a 300f2.8, 400f2.8, 500f4, 600f4, I be more inclined to select one of the modern zooms.

If you can find it I think the Canon 17-40 F4L would fit your requirenents.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 11:09 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 51
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
If you can find it I think the Canon 17-40 F4L would fit your requirenents.

Peter.



Peter,

I was thinkingalong the same lines - but the 17 -40 L should be out of the finacial chute and - more important- a 2.8 Zoom would imho just fulfill the requirements (as a Sigma Owner, I don´t think the-undoubtibly real, but small- differences in performance justifie the expense.)

ciao, Wolfie:-)


wolfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 11:24 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Actually me too :-)
Most of my lenses are now Sigma EX or Tamron SP, I've been moving away from the Canons as I break them :blah:

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2005, 11:28 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 51
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
Actually me too :-)
Most of my lenses are now Sigma EX or Tamron SP, I've been moving away from the Canons as I break them :blah:

Peter.
CU, Wolfie:-)
wolfie 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 9:26 AM.