Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses-61/)
-   -   Lens suggestion (again) (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses/64797-lens-suggestion-again.html)

jonathan1011 Aug 24, 2005 3:03 AM

I will be in San Francisco and Yosemite in a few days time and need advice on which lens to buy to complement my 17-85 (On a 20D). I had a 10-22 but was just not satisfied with the sharpness... it was nice for close up work but disappointing in the city, I did a few shots in London and they were very fuzzy. I have now sold it and need advice for a replacement. Should I get the Canon 70-200 f4L... will this be okay handheld? Alternatively I'm considering just getting a 50mm f1.4 as a walk around lens that should get some sharp shots. Any advice is really appreciated.ThanksJonathanpps Any stores in camera San Francisco that you can recommend?

Hards80 Aug 24, 2005 4:31 AM

okay, so you sold your superwide and are considering to replace it with a 70-200 or a 50mm... i'm sorry if i am missing something here, but these are all VERY different entities.. (i am very surprised with your results with the 10-22 as it very normally regarded as being sharper than the 17-85 by almost everyone)

it really depends on what you want to do with the lens... the 50mm is a decent walkaround, but you already have the 17-85 which is more versatile.. the 70-200 f4 is a very nice lens that can be handheld easily.. it would work for candid street scenes from a distance..

jonathan1011 Aug 24, 2005 5:17 AM

Hi Hards80,Thanks for responding.. I know getting rid of the 10-22 flew in the face of your advice but the lens was just not performing as well as I expected. Maybe I had a good 17-85 and a bad 10-22 but there was just no comparison. I took some test landscape shots with the wideangle to try and convince myself that the lens was okay but it just convinced me further that the lens wasn't up to the job :(.I know the lenses I am now looking at are totally different to the 10-22 but that's as a direct result of owning one for a month. A priority for me now is a good quality sharp¬*lens. I thought that the 50mm, although already within the range of my current lens might give me some knockout shots and also enable me to do some fairly good low light shots in the city. Alternatively the f4L could give me a bit of reach that I now know I need.¬*My budget is ¬£500 ($890).I do really appreciate your advice/expertise Dustin, any other lens recommendations would be great¬*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/wink.gif[/img]

Hards80 Aug 24, 2005 5:37 AM

you may consider a fast wider prime.. that 50mm is going to be quite tight on a 1.6x crop factor camera..

you may look into the new sigma 30mm 1.4 DC HSM.. that would give you a very nice normal zoom magnfication on a 20d and is VERY fast (f1.4!!!)for low light situations.. i think on a 20d i would recommend this over a 50mm for anything but head and shoulder portraits.. this would be a great, lightweight, small travel lens that would be both at home taking full length portraits and group shots of friends/people you meet in the city, cityscapes, and landscapes in yosemite.. around 400USD (not sure the conversion off the top of my head)..

honestly for travel photo, i think you would use this lens more than you would the telephoto.. unless you plan on doing alot of wildlife shooting in yosemite.. but then you would need something longer than 200mm anyways..

regards, -dustin

jonathan1011 Aug 24, 2005 6:08 AM

Thanks,¬* the sigma certainly looks nice. It seems very sharp! It gets a good review here:http://www.whichlens.com/index.php?b...amp;amp;pb=1As for the 70-200 I thought it would be good for getting closer where manual zoom can't take me, like getting close to reflections on buildings or zooming into rock formations that might otherwise require a hike.¬*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/icon_lol.gif[/img]If I go for that I'll just have to work on my stalking skills..

LBoy Aug 24, 2005 10:28 AM

I have to agree with Jonathan with respect to the 10-22. Ok its not too bad if you want to go as wide as possible',but I never thought it anything special. Certainly not sharper or a better lens than the 17-85. While the 10-22 was acceptable I have been much more impressed by the 17-85. This is consistent with a number of these lenses I have had a try at or indeed from others I also know who own them.

However unfortunately your not left with too many other options when using a 20D at the wide end with Canon lenses. You'll have to test some other brands to see if you think they perform more towards your expectations.

Other than that you'll have to sell up, get a full frame camera and break the bank for a wide L.

It was always my opinion that combined with the 20D these two lenses however provided a nice overall travel pack with respect to image quality and portability.


I doubt the 50 will get you any better a shot than your 17-85 during the daylight hours. However at night or indoors its a very handy one to have with you.

wrb Aug 24, 2005 11:10 AM

If you were using a wide angle lens a lot I'd go with replacing that.

I've just come back from hols and the widest lens I had was the 18-55 kit lens (my standard walkabout and 70% of my shots were with a 28-135). I really missed a wider lens (more than I ever imagined!)

I also have the 70-200 f4 and it is a craker of a lens. Super sharp right through and great colour, however i found that 200mm was too short andI was constantly looking for more length, but most of my shooting was from a cruise ship(I picked up a 100-400 Canon in Gibraltar). If 200mm is long enough for you this lens is a steal in terms of price v quality. Mine will be shortly up on e-bay, but not because it's rubbish!

peripatetic Aug 24, 2005 11:22 AM

Think about the focal length you want.

My favourite prime is the EF 28mm f1.8 USM (*1.6=45mm)

It focuses quickly and gives a very useful focal length for snapshots, the 50mm (*1.6=80mm) is rather less useful except for tight portraits.

I like my 28 so much I often use it instead of the 17-85. Or more accurately I suppose I don't bother to change lenses if I have the 28 attached and often find I get through the day just fine without the zoom - even though I will usually have it in my bag.



jonathan1011 Aug 24, 2005 11:31 AM

Hi guys,Thanks for your input. I'm leaning more towards the 70-200 at the moment. The 17-85 is quite wide at the 17 end (I should have listened to your earlier advice LBoy).

wrb, I know you say you wanted more reach but I don't mind travelling a little way to get a shot ;) ( I appreciate your can't really do this from a cruise ship unless you're really friendly with the captain).

Peripatetic, thanks for the recommendation. If I do go for the prime root I will certainly go for the sigma 30mm that Hards80 suggested or the 28mm that you recommend. The Sigma looks very sharp but but I don't know which would provide the best overall image?

Anyway I'm off on Friday so I'm probaly going to be buying over there. In the meantime I'll see how I go with the one lens that I have.

Jonathan

mgipe Aug 24, 2005 12:11 PM

Nobody answered your second question, so I'll throw in one suggestion. Although it's an hour's drive south of San Francisco, you might enjoy shopping at San Jose Camera (www.sanjosecamera.com). Good people; good prices.

--M


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2