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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 13, 2006, 3:22 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 69
Default

Ok so based on the above (thanks) I am considering the following-

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Zoom [email protected] £130

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO MACRO DG (CANON AF) @ £180

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 MACRO DG (CANON AF) @ £199

Canon EF90-300mm f/4-5.6 USM @£220



What do you folks think? and how much do you reckon i would get the chosen lens for in the USA?

Thanks
stustaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2006, 2:29 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6
Default

I just got the Canon 10-22mm and love it. It has good color saturation and good contrast. I love the wide angle, which on my Rebel XT is effectively 16-35mm. I would not recomment the Canon 17-85. I have one and have been disappointed in the lack of contrast and color saturation. It also tends to havevignetting at 17mm (effective focal lenght of 27mm). I have hadsome luck, undera few situations, with my 18-55 kit lense, believe it or not. In fact, I got some nice shots in Yosemite. But, it too lacks contrast and in bright sunlight lacks color saturation. It also has an effective focal length of 29-88mm, which is not wide enough for me for pictures of big panoramas.The 10-22 allows me to get wide panorama photos.Also, with the 10-22 you can get some fantistic depth of field shots, which you cannot get with the 18-55. If you want to get good pictures, rather than "snapshot" pictures, I would recommend the 10-22.
rndrnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2006, 3:20 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 101
Default

There is three very good landscape photography lenses offered by canon under $1000 US :

EF 17-40mm USM L ($640 US)- PRO'Ssharp, L series, goodrange coverage (27-64mm) CON's not best telephoto , not best wide angle

EF-S 17-85mm USM IS ($600 us/kit) PRO'S best range coverage (27-136mm),cheapest of three, IS, best telephoto

CON'Snot best wide angle, not as sharp as others (but still sharp), only work with EF-S mount

EF-S 10-22mm USM($800 US)- PRO'S best wide angle (18mm!!!) sharp, great for landscape

CON'S not best telephoto (35mm) ,only work with EF-S mount

In my oponion, the EF-S 10-22 is the best, if you don't need telephoto.
Homer J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2006, 9:34 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

If you are not coming until September, you might be able to get some Newer lenses that should be announced at PMA next week. There are some "rumors" of a Canon 18-200mm with IS coming out, but I would think at 200mm it may be slow. Also just now out & B&H is showing it at $389.00 is a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 DC mount only - not for full frame or film cameras.

Just my thoughts . . .
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 3:51 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 69
Default

Thanks folks some great info, unfortunately some of it though out of my price range realistically

what do people think of these lenses? they are more in my price rage and hacve decent reviews on-line

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC
"I just got this lens this morning and have shot about fifty images. I wasn't expecting miracles. Well Lo and Behold... I am "Gob-struck and Blown Away". When understanding the limitations of any lens one compensates to get the best out of it. Using my casual Canon 350D and knowing that it is best to reduce the contrast to -2 when shooting in JPEG Super Fine setting, the Sigma 18-200 DC lens is really quite amazing. "

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC In our opinion, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC is one of the best consumer/prosumer wide-angle zoom lenses we've used. While the price is a little higher than some lenses in this category, the constant – and usable! – f/2.8 aperture makes the lens a real winner in terms of value. While it would have been nice to have a HSM motor and a depth of field scale, the missing elements do not detract from its otherwise strong performance. If you are considering a wide-angle "digital lens," do consider giving the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 a try.

The 18 - 200 seems like it would be a good lens for having on the camera whist wandering around and would leave me enough cash to get a proper telephoto to push up my range at that end.

Then maybe add a 100-300mm to up my range.

What do you think?



Thanks



stustaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2006, 4:30 PM   #16
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

That is a lot of travelling. But I thought you said you're going to the North West? j/k

About a year and a half ago I went to Yellowstone, Grand Tetons and on our way back to California we went to Crater Lake in Oregon. Crater Lake is out of the way from the National Parks in Utah and Wyoming, especially if you're working your way to Yosemite and then Grand Canyon, but if make it to the North West, you'll appreciate Crater Lake. I think only the view from Yosemite's Glacier Point and the view of Grand Canyon can top it. At least from my opinion. There are several NPs in northern California and in Washington state, if you have a couple of weeks to spare.

I wish I had a good camera when I did that trip, but all I had was a 2MP P&S Fuji with 6x optical. In Yellowstone, we had to approach the bisons that were on a dried up creek. The creek was low so we couldn't get a good shot from above, and my camera didn't have a good zoom. Anyways, the bison then started climbing up the creek and everyone started running!

On our way back from Grand Teton, the road was stopped because a herd of bisons were crossing the road on their way to crossing a creek. The bisons were literally two feet from our car when they crossed in front of us! So a zoom wasn't necessary! But an extra pair of underwear would have been needed had they rammed my car. :-)

Anyways, from the trip, I do find myself needing both wide angle and zoom lenses, but the wide angle were more useful. I also do more landscape than wild life, unless the wildlife is there in the open. I don't go out hunting for small birds. Mainly because of my lack of equipment for that type of interest.

The same is true for our Northwest trip last year to Olympic, Mt Rainier, Mt St Helen and Lassen. Wide Angle lens would have been more useful, but there were vista points where a zoom was more appropriate.

Here are my pics from those trips. The pics are not great, they were taken with a 2MP camera at mostly clear sunny days. The camera also doesn't have settings for aperture control or shutter speed. But hopefully it gives you an idea of what lens and gears you would need. I plan on making that same trip with a 20D later this year and next year:

http://reyluvpics.blogspot.com/2004/...n-america.html
http://reyluvpics.blogspot.com/2005/...northwest.html


rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2006, 5:23 PM   #17
Member
 
eosthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 48
Default

I am at a loss to explain why all the photogs out there that think they need an ultra wide to get good landscape shots. With an ultra wide I usually find I have to crop out a lot of stuff, or move closer to the shot than I want to. On a film body 28mm was considered a decent wide angle and 24, 20, or yikes! 16, or even more yikes!15 fisheye were semi exotics or just plain exotics. I have taken Landscapes with everything from 17mm to 300mm(28mm to 420mm, 1.6x crop)and have NEVER felt the need for an Ultra Wide for landscapes. I admit I am a closet 50mm guy, but in just a quick perusal of Pbase all of the famous Yosemite, Glacier, and Teton landscape compositions have been taken with much longer lenses than 10(16mm). The only place I have ever wished for wider has been indoors, when I can't back up to get everything in. Rarely(maybe never)have I had this problem outdoors. My favorite for landscapes? Whatever provides the look I am after, and rarely(again, maybe never)have I wanted to go wider so I can provide more separation of foreground and background. Any lens can be a decent landscape lens and you will find in a lot of cases you will be composing for a FOV close to what your eye sees(40-50mm).
eosthree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2006, 10:08 PM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

eosthree wrote:
Quote:
I am at a loss to explain why all the photogs out there that think they need an ultra wide to get good landscape shots. With an ultra wide I usually find I have to crop out a lot of stuff, or move closer to the shot than I want to...
Can you get this kind of perspective on anything less than a superwide (i.e. 12mm)???








NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 10:27 AM   #19
Member
 
eosthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 48
Default

Nice shots NHL, and you are correct that you couldn't have captured them without an ultra wide. I also think those kind of shots are the exception rather than the rule. Like I said in the above posts a lot of the famous vistas, and most vistas shown on Pbase, Photobucket, etc. are taken with much a much narrower perspective than 10-22 gives. You have done a very nice job with that ultra wide and maybe even have me thinking I want one in the future. I admit I am a closet 50mm(film)guy and find myself seeking that perspective frequently. And a 10-22 or 12-24 will be a nice addition to a kit, but not the first landscape lens to purchase, it's perspective is too limiting and distortion inducing.
eosthree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 8:39 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

eosthree

You're correct, IMO most of the time one get used to the tool @ hand (i.e. lens) - I don't really need a 12mm, but to get a FOV that basically extends from what below your feet to the sky overhead can be quite addictive:


From snowcape...







... to seascape:


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 6:14 PM.