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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2005, 2:20 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
Default

get the 16-35 f2.8L USM and the 24-70 f2.8L USM

ARGH...........Lboy points me to a new lens : 24-70..........

Then my collection will be complete !!!!!!

Carl.

PS ... the 16-35 is superb, just got it 2 weeks ago and love it!
CarlsPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2005, 9:19 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Wow, NHL - you (and Parapatetic) pretty much nailed it: Canon Rebel XT¬* - Sigma 18-50 EX DC f2.8 - Sigma 70-200 EX DG f2.8. Seems like a perfect solution for me - Thanks!¬*¬*¬*-¬*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/laughing-smiley-002.gif[/img] -¬*¬*ThanksT Thankhanks
jerry88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 7:09 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

With your budget I think you've made about the best decision you can. I'm glad all round that you decided to opt for f2.8
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 8:27 AM   #14
hbh
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Default

LBoy 's suggestions is excellent. For a crop camera I recommend the 10-22mm lenses for the ww-section. You will need it soon.
hbh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 8:36 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks again, everyone. One last question - any recommendations on where to buy for best prices?
jerry88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 12:07 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

Jerry88 - If you're still around.


In spite of all the technical jargon, I have to say that the Canon 28-135 is a VERY underappreciated lens. I have 2 that My wife and I use for horse events. They are our real moneymakers. Granted they are f3.5 but they also have IS which really helps in certain conditions.
The range is adequate for a surprising amount of situations. The lens is black in color so not so much of an 'eye catcher' to others around. Costwise, it seems to be within your budget.


Now, when you get into the "Big Whites", Any of the L series will give you superior images. For photojournal work the IS really helps, if you are a bit excited and time is measured in seconds - any stabilizing influence can help.
Take time to "picture" the situations you will be in and get the lenses that suit those situations.


If you are going to be shooting bursts with the 20D, and I know you will, again, the IS will get you shots you might miss otherwise.


My stuff is at http://www.pbase.com/jpferguson all with either the 28/135 or the 70/200 f2.8 IS

Good luck.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 2:04 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Warren - Thanks for your input. You don't think that having f2.8 lenses will make up for not having IS? I'm afraid I'm not as savvy as most on this forum. Also, having my shortest lens be a 28 (44 equiv. on Digital) will definitely not be wide enough for me - I fear I would have to go for a third lens in that case. PS - nice pictures :-)
jerry88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 2:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Nice site Seti, however, every shot in there taken outdoors in full daylight. A little strange actually but I would imagine these shots - moving subjects withreasonablelighting conditions would have benefited more from a fast lens than one with IS.
Quote:
Granted they are f3.5 but they also have IS which really helps in certain conditions.
the reality is that it drops to 5.6 at the longer focal lengths.

Jerry

Go to a shop and try these lenses out. But if your dead stuck on the IS thenseriously consider the original17-85 IS suggestion. 28mm will not be wide enough on these crop cameras you have mentioned- (becoming 45mm)

IS is fantastic, but well its up to you, and as I stated it depends on what shots you will be seeking. In some cases the IS will be great in alot of others the higher shutter is what is needed and is my preference if i had to choose. It really depends on the subject and of courseonly you know how bad your hands are.

Anyway the lenses I mentioned are what pro-journalists are using. The sigmas that were pointed out in other link, would be my choice if the price was an issue. Of course I'd sell a kidney first .... haha :blah: From my avatar it looks like I already have.



LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 4:08 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Option 2 (17-40 f/4L and 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) is not a good match for the cropped 20D

... beside you'll find the EF 17-85 to be considerably better sharpness wise - All the nice wide FOV of the 17-40 L will be cropped away by the 20D, unless you plan to move to a full-frame at a later date.

You seem to be saying that the 17-85 EF-S is considerably sharper than the 17-40 L. Could you point me to some studies / comparisons that show this?

I don't even see any MTF's for the EF-S on Canon's web site, nor any sharpeness curves for the 17-40.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 5:46 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Madwand wrote:
Quote:
You seem to be saying that the 17-85 EF-S is considerably sharper than the 17-40 L. Could you point me to some studies / comparisons that show this?

I don't even see any MTF's for the EF-S on Canon's web site, nor any sharpeness curves for the 17-40.
This comparison has been posted many times already:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

... and with their respective MTF's:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65


With respect to IS, handshake is one thing, but subject movement is another :idea:
-> By the moment one selected an optimum shutter speed to freeze an action resulting from a subject IS becomes redundant - A faster lens is always better because:
1. A narrower DOF can cut out the background clutter
2. If the subjects do not move what's wrong with resting the camera down?
3. It's what you paid for - Dont you want more glass - instead of less for more $? :?
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 3:50 PM.