|
Myxomatosis
Aug 10, 2007, 2:31 AM
Post #1 of 42
(11869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
I'm about to purchase a 400D next week with the twin len's kit. 18-35mm and 70-300mm. I'm getting it at a really cheap price and also get a good d/c on Canon so would like to stay with Canon 
I was just wondering what type of Len's you guys use or what you would suggest for climbing photos?
I am on a bit of a budget so suggesting a $1500 IS len's is a bit out of my reach But any suggestions would be apperciated
I already have a tripod, was thinking of getting a remote as well.. anything else Ill need? (Will get a free bag, but would like something more outdoor's oreintated)
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Aug 10, 2007, 3:22 AM
Post #2 of 42
(11855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
You are probably going to be using the 'lil lens a bit more. Practice.
One thing I think that is often underemphasized in the climbing photo's is lighting technique. May want to consider the application of strobes and off camera lighting.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 10, 2007, 3:40 AM
Post #3 of 42
(11847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Myxomatosis wrote: I am on a bit of a budget so suggesting a $1500 IS len's is a bit out of my reach But any suggestions would be apperciated
Bad question to ask. From recent threads with this topic it was settled that nothing less than a $1000 lens would suffice.
Some said, it must be a prime, some said primes were for old farts. But the consensus was if you had one ounce of self respect you would not insult your good name with a sub $1000 lens under any circumstances.
Looking at your kit though, if you had to get a lens I'd go wider than what you have. And maybe pick up a fast prime in the 35mm range.
So perhaps a 10-20 or 12-24 and a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm fast prime.
Two good lenses for a bit less than Canon are the Tokina 12-24 F/4 and the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6.
The Tokina seems to have a following in the Nikon circle while the Sigma in the Canon. I can only guess that is because the 10mm end on the Canon is the equiv to the 12mm end on the Nikon ( or closer than the other way around 1.5 vs. 1.6X). I briefly had the Pentax version of the Tokina (it's co-designed but the actual lenses are far different) but got a nice resell AFTER I kept the $100 rebate, so I basically made $100. I now own the Sigma and it's a good lens. I think the 12-24 was a bit better (at a $200 price premium) but it was far bigger and since I will be using this paddling, climbing, and backpacking I found the size a huge advantage. Plus, at 10-20mm 1) focus is almost hypefocal from the start so the dimmer viewfinder of the 4-5.6 is a non issue, and 2) This is a lens you'd probably shoot at f/5.6-11 anyway so not having the fixed f/4 isn't a big deal (although vari aperture lenses drive me nuts)
Having a fast prime is always nice and a 35mm puts you slightly above the standard 50mm in film format. Or a 24mm f/2.0/2.8 would also make alot of sense (approx 39mm or almost true normal on a 1.6x sensor).
don't underestimate how nice a bright fast prime can be in low light vs the zooms and having a prime allows you to easily make use of the DOF markings or hyperfocal distance charts when focusing by AF or by eye is not an option.
Oh, and get the cable release and/or wireless remote. Both are really useful for scenics and landscapes.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Aug 10, 2007, 3:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 10, 2007, 3:45 AM
Post #4 of 42
(11841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Oh this isn't my first camera, I have been using a Canon S3IS, So I am not a total newbie but I don't know much about len's :)
On my first climbing trip it was very overcaste (cloudy) and dull, it didnt help my photo's as I was climbing on grey rock. Some of them are quite... shit to be honest about them :)
This is the best one of 100
Here's one of my newer photo's...
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Aug 10, 2007, 4:25 AM
Post #5 of 42
(11830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
I picked up the Tokina 12-24. Didnt think I'd use it a whole lot but ended up finding it on the camera quite a bit. Can get some nice effects and shot's I didnt think were really possible (in the situation that is...)
|
|
|
|
|
localshredder
Aug 10, 2007, 5:23 AM
Post #6 of 42
(11812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2005
Posts: 55
|
A grey card might help your backgrounds on overcast days. Also try fooling with your white balance settings in your menu.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 10, 2007, 7:42 AM
Post #7 of 42
(11783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
uptick wrote: You are probably going to be using the 'lil lens a bit more. Practice. One thing I think that is often underemphasized in the climbing photo's is lighting technique. May want to consider the application of strobes and off camera lighting.
I have to agree, climbing photography, like any other photogrpahy is about light.
If a flash is out of your price range, consisder a reflector intead.
Personally, I prefer reflectors to flash for most situations anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 10, 2007, 7:54 AM
Post #8 of 42
(11780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Thanks pico23... very helpful information
Yeah I totally understand about Light etc I'm about to take a full on photography course next year but have done heaps of shooting outdoors using sunset's and sunrises's... But thanks for your advice anyway
Ganz.. I have been looking at Flash's with light detectors built in... might get one of the cheap $50 ones they sell
(This post was edited by Myxomatosis on Aug 10, 2007, 8:32 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Aug 10, 2007, 8:23 AM
Post #9 of 42
(11773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
what the point to buy a new lens when you've got myxomatosis and can't see anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 10, 2007, 4:56 PM
Post #10 of 42
(11728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
after you sell both of your current lenses get:
canon 28mm f/1.8
canon 50mm f/1.4
canon 200mm f/2.8
in that order.
you seem to have a good eye, now you just need the tools
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 10, 2007, 5:37 PM
Post #11 of 42
(11711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
grayhghost wrote: after you sell both of your current lenses get: canon 28mm f/1.8 canon 50mm f/1.4 canon 200mm f/2.8 in that order. you seem to have a good eye, now you just need the tools
For some reason the 28mm focal length escaped my mind. On a Canon it's about 45mm or closer to true normal than the 24mm. Although I'd personally find the 24mm a bit more useful the 28mm would be significantly cheaper and smaller than a 24mm 2.0.
How come you didn't mention the 200mm 1.8? Perhaps one of the sharpest Japanese lenses ever made wide open!!
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 10, 2007, 6:43 PM
Post #12 of 42
(11690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
the 18-35 oughta do you well.
I don't know cannon, but I mostly shoot in this range.
For bouldering, I'm generally 10.5 or 12-24mm (mostly the lower end)
70-300 is WAY too much.
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Aug 11, 2007, 11:16 PM
Post #14 of 42
(11626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
Well since you're talking BEST lens... any fast prime. 1.4 or faster. The end.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 12, 2007, 9:36 PM
Post #15 of 42
(11589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
The 10 to 22mm lense is a fantastic lense for when you are hanging around on a rope close to the climber/talent. You will be able to gain the wide perspective whilst getting very intimate details of facial expressions and action from the climber.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 13, 2007, 3:35 AM
Post #16 of 42
(11561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Hey thanks guys for all your advice. I'm still keen to get the twin lens kit with 70-300mm (as its only another $100 compared to a standard kit, so its a bargin)
But I think I have a good idea on what I'm going to need. Something fast and not to big... but I also plan on doing other type's of photography.
Thanks once again for your advice :)
On a side note... how do you guys go on changing len's while hanging there? Anyone got a horror story of dropping a lens? haha
(This post was edited by Myxomatosis on Aug 13, 2007, 3:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 13, 2007, 3:47 AM
Post #17 of 42
(11556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Out of curiosity, just how did you come to the conclusion that the singular, non-possesive noun "lens" should have an apostrophe?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 13, 2007, 5:08 AM
Post #18 of 42
(11539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
jt512 wrote: Out of curiosity, just how did you come to the conclusion that the singular, non-possesive noun "lens" should have an apostrophe? Jay
Jay, be nice or I won't show you the newest cliffs I found in Indonesia. (Remember 9 Dragons)
Another tough day in South East Asia.
Eman
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Aug 13, 2007, 8:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #20 of 42
(11516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Myxomatosis wrote: On a side note... how do you guys go on changing len's while hanging there? Anyone got a horror story of dropping a lens? haha
Its really scary. I did it just yesterday and was scared the whole time...when the funds work through, i'll likely get two bodies and bring them both.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 13, 2007, 6:52 PM
Post #21 of 42
(11486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: Myxomatosis wrote: On a side note... how do you guys go on changing len's while hanging there? Anyone got a horror story of dropping a lens? haha Its really scary. I did it just yesterday and was scared the whole time...when the funds work through, i'll likely get two bodies and bring them both.
Here is my final advice, and a fun one too.
shoot with what you have then run this program:
Exposure Plot
http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
and yeah, the rest of you can thank me for the link to it later.
its freeware, and it plots all your exposures (you'll get some weird #'s in the focal lengths if you use your editied cropped images, so limit it to the original files).
basically, it tells you how many times you shot at what aperture, ISO, shutter, and focal length.
why is this useful?
well for the most part it's not, i'd rather be taking photos of anything than staring at graphs.
for someone looking to invest in primes or "fast glass" it can tell you whether you need an f/1.4 or can live with a f2.8. It will tell you if that 35mm prime is a better choice than the 24 or 50mm you've been on the fence about. I mean if your zoom covers 24-105mm and you shoot mostly at 35mm it would be foolish to blow $500 on a 24 1.4 when you'd be better off with a 35mm 2.0.
what it can't tell you is if a focal length you don't currently have will be useful. If you widest lens is 18mm it can't tell you if you will like a 10 or 10mm wide. But at least you won't waste money replicating what you have but don't use.
just my 2 cents. Now have fun!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 13, 2007, 6:59 PM
Post #22 of 42
(11482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Laf....
the thing is, you choose a lens for DOF, speed, and focal length...climbing shots more times than not are in low light conditions, and climbers tend to move fast...so you need a fast lens.
Also, its hard to get far enough away from a climber to shoot a fixed 50 or 35 (both fast), so you get stuck with a 17-55mm F2.8 which does quite well.
and if you're really screwed and cannot get far enough away, you slap on a 12-24mm and deal with F4 (though you get a good bit of light into a 12mm at F4.0)
just some thoughts.
-Dan
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 13, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #23 of 42
(11470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: Laf.... the thing is, you choose a lens for DOF, speed, and focal length...climbing shots more times than not are in low light conditions, and climbers tend to move fast...so you need a fast lens. Also, its hard to get far enough away from a climber to shoot a fixed 50 or 35 (both fast), so you get stuck with a 17-55mm F2.8 which does quite well. and if you're really screwed and cannot get far enough away, you slap on a 12-24mm and deal with F4 (though you get a good bit of light into a 12mm at F4.0) just some thoughts. -Dan
Dan,
but thats your style. I don't think it's right or wrong, it's just your style.
I look at say galen rowells shots and he used a 24mm quite a bit. Actually he took very few shots that I've seen the "exif" from wider than 20mm. I can only think of one I've seen with a fisheye for example (not to say there aren't others but in the hundreds i've seen just one I can recall).
So your telling me he basically didn't know what he was doing? Well I'm not really asking you that, just posing it as a point.
You also assume everyone is doing single pitch top down shooting or bouldering. I'd be suprised if I personally ever took a bouldering shot so I certainly wouldn't buy a lens for it specifically.
Don't take what I'm saying as an insult. What I mean by it is everyone has a different style and different needs. Some people shoot wide open 100% of the time, others never hit that end of the aperture.
If your shooting say alpine mountaineering you might leave the lens fixed on 5.6 and hyperfocal to maximize sharpness and DOF of the surrounding terrain. Also, simply for convenience. When my hands are frozen I don't really feel much like selective focusing on people that might not want to stand still for me to compose, focus and meter. Zooms just complicate things even more IMO. They create doubt and make you question your composition. WHen I have a 28mm or 24mm (on my film bodies) mounted I know what the image will look like from the start before I even pull the camera out.
I also wouldn't want to lug a 1.4 24mm or 35mm where a 2.8 would do. Simply put sometimes size is prohibitive and means the difference between carrying and using a lens or not.
For this reason, I can give a personal example, I am currently looking to sell my Sigma 20mm 1.8 (a good lens) because it's simply too big. In it's place, a Pentax 21mm 3.2 pancake prime. Smaller and usable wide open (the sigma is pretty sharp by 2.8 but's it's 1.8 premium isn't worth it). And much less weight on my chest.
The same went for my Pentax 12-24(same as your Tokina 12-24 or do you have the Nikon?). I actually just sold it in favor of the much smaller Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6. This lens fits in a TLZ mini on my small camera body and goes places it might not take a bigger lens.
So it's just tough to say everyone should be shooting the same and not realize it's just not always practical.
At the same time, it wouldn't be fair to say my shooting style would work for everyone either.
But certainly to mock the thought of a different shooting style is just foolish. Some people have made millions shooting primes at 5.6. So it can be done. And some of those people have noted how characteristics of certain slower lenses are better, or more appropriate for various activities. At same time, my experience with top down shooting on single pitch routes is minimal so I'm not basing my comments on that, moreso on the fact that I shoot a wide range of activities and use different gear for all of them.
Anyway looking at my own EXIF. For sports I shoot below f/4 90% of the time with an ISO of 640-1600 95%. For mountaineering and outdoor adventure stuff I shot at 5.6 and above 70% of the time. The bulk of my scenics are shot at f/8-16.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 13, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #24 of 42
(11448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Pico,
The OP showed us what he wanted to shoot when he posted up examples that he hoped to improve upon.
Galen Rowell never took very impressive tight climbing shots like the OP is trying to take, he was more of a master of mountain light.
Please limit your suggestions to what the OP is asking for, a cheap(ish) lens for shooting sport climbing.
and for god's sake, please stop shooting at ISO 640!
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 14, 2007, 7:19 AM
Post #25 of 42
(11423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
grayhghost wrote: Pico, The OP showed us what he wanted to shoot when he posted up examples that he hoped to improve upon. Galen Rowell never took very impressive tight climbing shots like the OP is trying to take, he was more of a master of mountain light. Please limit your suggestions to what the OP is asking for, a cheap(ish) lens for shooting sport climbing. and for god's sake, please stop shooting at ISO 640!
Yes GOD
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 14, 2007, 12:04 PM
Post #26 of 42
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Great advice man. You're right. My narrow mind set is single pitch stuff...mainly what we have here.
I tend to shoot from Trees or from hanging on the next route over. I imagine if I were shooting mult pitch, I would find the 70-200mm F2.8 a necessary tool (all my photog friends keep pushing it on me =))
Good post man.
-Dan
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 14, 2007, 1:23 PM
Post #27 of 42
(2552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
As far as style is concerned, I've found that its good to get a good variety, for example, here is the same "pretty much" shot...one with a 35mm F2.0 and the other with at 12-24mm F4.0
35mm F2.0. Too bad my leg got in the shot...oh well...
and 12-24mm F4.0 (probably at the 12 end)...and once again, leg in shot that needs to be cropped.
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 14, 2007, 6:41 PM
Post #28 of 42
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
dbrayack wrote: As far as style is concerned, I've found that its good to get a good variety, for example, here is the same "pretty much" shot...one with a 35mm F2.0 and the other with at 12-24mm F4.0 35mm F2.0. Too bad my leg got in the shot...oh well... and 12-24mm F4.0 (probably at the 12 end)...and once again, leg in shot that needs to be cropped. -Danno
You should just cut your legs off. Think of the time you'll save in post editing.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 15, 2007, 3:54 AM
Post #29 of 42
(2502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: Great advice man. You're right. My narrow mind set is single pitch stuff...mainly what we have here. I tend to shoot from Trees or from hanging on the next route over. I imagine if I were shooting mult pitch, I would find the 70-200mm F2.8 a necessary tool (all my photog friends keep pushing it on me =)) Good post man. -Dan
Well you took it personally. Sorry. Too bad the rest of the world has real rock that is more than 100ft high.
Hows that for personal!!!!
Not much I can do to caress your ego, so I won't bother.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 15, 2007, 5:23 AM
Post #30 of 42
(2491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Come on guys, we are all friends around here We might not all agree on the same idea's but we all have the same passion's
DB... those photo's are a great example of the difference in len's. Hopefully my camera is ready to be picked up tomorrow.... Im like a little kid waiting for christmas at the moment. (But I wish it was Summer so I could climb outside and take some shots)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 15, 2007, 11:47 AM
Post #31 of 42
(2479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Laf yah, I take EVERYTHING personal (NOT.)
Wish we had stuff longer than 100 foot here...I hear its nice in Colorado this time of year?
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 15, 2007, 1:26 PM
Post #32 of 42
(2472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
dbrayack wrote: Laf yah, I take EVERYTHING personal (NOT.) Wish we had stuff longer than 100 foot here...I hear its nice in Colorado this time of year?
North Carolina shouldn't be to far from you?
|
|
|
|
|
nefarius
Aug 17, 2007, 6:02 PM
Post #33 of 42
(2443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2003
Posts: 128
|
For climbing shots, I mainly shoot with a 12-24 f/4, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8. I'd recommend buying the fastest glass you can get/afford. Fredmiranda.com has a really good lens/equip review/rating system. As you can afford it, buy all pro glass and you will seldom go wrong.
As far as switching lenses, I use 2 bodies. One always has a long zoom on it, the other has the wider lens. If I have to switch, I either do it in my lumbar pack (free climbs/shorter climbs) or my sub-haulbag, which is dedicated to photo/electronic gear, on walls. It's not often I need to switch lenses though. Also, my bag is attached to an anchor if possible.
I try to keep everything else attached in some way. My lens caps are attached to the lens with keeper straps, my digital image bank is attached to it's case, which is attached to either me or the anchor. My cameras are attached to a shoulder harness system, which I have modified. Etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 23, 2007, 4:29 AM
Post #34 of 42
(2366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
After a two week wait... I picked up my baby today... ohh I'm so in love.. hehehe.. it makes lovely noises :)
Thanks for your all help guys... might pick up a 28mm len's in a couple of weeks :D
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #35 of 42
(2352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Laf right on man..what'd you end up getting?
-Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Aug 23, 2007, 11:43 PM
Post #36 of 42
(2328 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
dbrayack wrote: Laf right on man..what'd you end up getting? -Dan
400D with twin lens kit.. including the 70-300 len's... Had some fun last night with blurr shots etc changing the focus. The SLR is definitly worth going for over a normal digital camera.
Im looking at a 28mm F1.8 USM lens...
http://www.canon.co.nz/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_wide_lenses/ef28mmF18usm.aspx
Is that the one you guys are suggesting? Apparently its a wide angle? Or should I go for the 35mm? Most clmbs in NZ aren't any higher than 50m's. Hmm decisions decisions... might play with my current ones for awhile, hopefully the weather is great this weekend and can do a RC shoot.
PS: I am already sick of the auto functions (portrait, lanscape, etc etc) haha... The damn flash always pop's up even in semi decent light.
(This post was edited by Myxomatosis on Aug 23, 2007, 11:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Aug 24, 2007, 3:04 AM
Post #37 of 42
(2310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone recommend the Canon 17-40 f4 L. While a bit on the expensive side (I paid $679 for mine from B&H) it produces amazing results and is far superior to the kit lens, and rivals prime lenses in terms of image quality. I briefly tried the Tokina 12-24 but found it to be too wide as I was constantly shooting zoomed all the way in. I also could not seem to get one that would focus accurately and sent mine back twice before I decided to spend the extra money and get the Canon 17-40. Tokina does have a reputation for making great lenses, but I seemed to have bad luck with mine. The Canon has performed flawlessly for shooting single pitch sport and bouldering. Image quality is excellent at all focal lengths and f-stops.
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Aug 24, 2007, 3:10 AM
Post #38 of 42
(2307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
Myxomatosis wrote: Im looking at a 28mm F1.8 USM lens... http://www.canon.co.nz/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_wide_lenses/ef28mmF18usm.aspx Is that the one you guys are suggesting? Apparently its a wide angle?
28mm is not really that wide on a digital. A 28mm on a digital camera would be equivalent to 45mm on a film camera. If you want a wide angle prime then you need to look at 20mm or below.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 24, 2007, 3:44 PM
Post #39 of 42
(2286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
I would revise my suggestion to the 24mm f/1.8 or the 20mm f/2.8, both will yield much better results than the kit lens.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Aug 24, 2007, 4:27 PM
Post #40 of 42
(2280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
grayhghost wrote: I would revise my suggestion to the 24mm f/1.8 or the 20mm f/2.8, both will yield much better results than the kit lens.
EF 24mm f/2.8 is a great prime lens, sharp, tiny and cheap. An old design though, but I like the ugly ducklings.
I have seen reviews claiming EF 24mm f/2.8 is better than EF 20mm f/2.8.
(This post was edited by melekzek on Aug 24, 2007, 4:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
imakehits
Aug 31, 2007, 11:57 PM
Post #41 of 42
(2196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2007
Posts: 11
|
I use a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for most everything... It's tack-sharp and gives a great useful range. I highly recommend this lens. You can find it for around $300.
My next purchase will probably be a Canon 10-22.
|
|
|
|
|
malacama
Sep 3, 2007, 2:46 AM
Post #42 of 42
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2006
Posts: 3
|
i have been using the 17-40 f4 for a year now and it gives me great results.. built is also great.
could have been better if I am using a fullframe camera for I find it not that wide sometimes.
I will be getting the 10-22 efs I hope its as sharp as my 17-40
|
|
|
|
|
|
. I'm sure if you look harder there might be a few more grammer errors, so please accept my heart felt apology. 
