|
anthonycuskelly
Feb 16, 2007, 10:44 AM
Post #1 of 20
(3016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2007
Posts: 51
|
Hey all,
Just wondering what lenses people use on their SLRs (both film and digital). I'm after manufacturer, focal lengths, and aperture ranges, and whether they're for full-frame or crop (most DSLRs) cameras. Opinions would be nice, too. I've had a look through the old posts, and found some answers, but was hoping for some more opinions.
I'm looking at getting a Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi in the States, I believe), and haven't made up my mind on lenses yet. The body I've decided on though! I'm specifically after lens suggestions for climbing & landscape photography.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Feb 16, 2007, 1:19 PM
Post #2 of 20
(3008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I'm a Nikon User, but the 12-24mm F4.0 DX is good (Tokina), I use my prime 35 ALOT and also a prime 50, but then I generally go for a super narrow degree of focus (DOF).
I don't know the Canon Equiv, but I just bought a 17-55mm F2.8 DX. With these 4 lenses, I'm pretty much covered for all climbing needs. (I have a 10.5mm Fisheye for bouldering, but you can likely get those shots with the 12-24mm F4.0)
Hope that helps,
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Feb 16, 2007, 5:20 PM
Post #3 of 20
(2993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
For the last couple of years my main setup was Eos 5, 19-35mm, EF 50mm f1.8, 100-300mm.
Current setup, Eos 20d, EF 24mm f2.8, EF 50mm f1.8, EF 85mm f1.8, zenitar fisheye 16mm f2.8. I fight hard not to get a crop-body only lens, but there are not many options to get wide angle, and my new EF-S 10-22mm is currently shipping.... oh I cannot wait....
|
|
|
|
|
summerprophet
Feb 16, 2007, 6:15 PM
Post #4 of 20
(2988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 764
|
My Eos 3i while dated still works really well for me. I have the following lenses;
28 to 200 4.5 - 5.6 which is my beat up lens I take up routes. not the best, but not worried about babying it and it has the range to do anything.
100mm 2.0, great for portraits and low light. likely be better as a 50mm if you are using a digital.
20 - 35mm the best, inexpensive Climbing lens you can get (haven't looked at the new stuff though)
and of course my 200 - 400 tamron which doesn't get used much anymore (no moose or wolves to photograph in the East Bay)
For your Canon, I would suggest sticking to Canon, Sigma or Tamron lenses. Most everything else is considerably lower quality.
|
|
|
|
|
dobson
Feb 16, 2007, 8:30 PM
Post #5 of 20
(2978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Posts: 104
|
I shoot a 20D and use:
17-40 F4L USM - I really like this lens, it's relatively small but built like a brick. Image quality is also great, and the focal range is good for climbing/landscape. This lens lives on my camera most of the time.
50mm F1.4 USM - A good fast prime. I use this mainly in low-light situations. The AF is good but could be improved. Kind of an awkward focal length on an APS-C sensor.
24-85 F4.5 USM - This was my general-purpose lens for a while. It performs pretty well when stopped down, but is soft wide open. On the plus side, it is small, light and pretty well built.
100-300 F5.6 USM - I use this lens for wildlife mainly. It also works well for close ups of climbers when you can't get close. It's small enough to take hiking even if it goes unused. This lens is not fast or particualrly sharp, but the AF is good.
50mm F1.8 - A very sharp/fast lens for the price. This lens is almost entirely plastic, and durability suffers for it (mine broke in two). The AF is noisy and slow and the focus ring is tiny. Bokeh is poor due to the five blade aperture. If you need a cheap, but sharp and fast lens; this is the one.
Phillip
|
|
|
|
|
rock_fencer
Feb 16, 2007, 8:36 PM
Post #6 of 20
(2977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Posts: 752
|
Used to have a 70-300 4/5.6 USM IS lens but then my shit got stolen while i was on break. Used it for wildlife mostly, have a macro for close ups of stuff but i dont remember what its details are except its a sigma
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 16, 2007, 10:55 PM
Post #7 of 20
(2958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
no one can pick a focal length for you. generally people gravitate towards their own taste if there are options. Obviously sometimes there aren't like in wildlife where longer is usually better.
Wider is usually better in climbing since you are usually shooting in close quarters. But this is dependent on your local crag, and your shooting style and setup (on rappel, on ground, from a ledge, etc.)
Canon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma all currently make great lenses. Just do a little research when you figure out a price range for a lens. good glass usually cost money but there are gems in less expensive glass. An example, I have a Sigma 70-300 4/5.6 that I got for $90 used in LN condition. It's optically excellent. it's slow but I use it where a 2.8 is too damn big to lug around, like travel or in the mountains. Plus, it's image stabilized with my current camera but on my previous cameras (film or digital) it was still a really good lens.
Hands down, you cannot beat the quality of the Tokina 12-24 f/4. Excellent lens. It should work out to 20-40ish on the Canon and thats pretty wide to normal at the long end. Another good semi wide on digital is the Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5 $150 new and it's optically excellent and built solidly as well. For a zoom the flare is really well controlled.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Feb 16, 2007, 11:58 PM
Post #8 of 20
(2946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I like fast zooms, so something like tamron 28-75 2.8 might be a good choice. If you like wider, then there are some good options there as well. Maybe some 2.8 - 4.0 variables, or even some 4.0 lenses might be fine, though I try to stay with 2.8.
My current setup
20d
5d
15 2.8 fisheye
28-75 2.8 tamron
70-200L 2.8
400L 2.8 IS
I am going to add a fast super wide next, probably 16-35 2.8L.
As was said, you need to figure out what you want to shoot, and how, then look at what lenses match those needs. I like to shoot climbing from a bit farther away, while other like super wide and up close.
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Feb 17, 2007, 3:37 AM
Post #9 of 20
(2934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Would help out but being I have no idea what I'm talking about, what I have been talking about or for that matter, what I will be talking about - just wont bother saying anything.
|
|
|
|
|
dobson
Feb 17, 2007, 5:47 AM
Post #10 of 20
(2922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Posts: 104
|
I'm betting you don't take that 400 on the wall with you much. If you do, I'm really impressed. 
|
|
|
|
|
anthonycuskelly
Feb 17, 2007, 10:30 AM
Post #11 of 20
(2907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2007
Posts: 51
|
Sweet, thanks for the responses guys. I'd already largely decided on lenses, this has just helped: I didn't want to say what I was planning on, then just have everyone tell me if they were good or not!
The current list:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 70-200 F/4 L
Canon 60mm f/2.8 crop macro or Canon 100mm f/2.8full-frame macro
Canon 10-22mm crop or Canon 17-40 full-frame
I'm currently leaning towards the full-frame macro (though it's more cumbersome, it's nicer), but not sure on the wide angle lens yet: the 10-22 is very nice, but it's also a crop. I've also noticed on my current camera that I don't use the 50-100mm (35mm equivalent) range much, so I'm happy not having anything in that range at least for now.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 18, 2007, 1:46 AM
Post #12 of 20
(2880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
the sigma 1.4 like all (or most) faster then 2.8 sigmas is not good wide open,
it's not all that unsharp, but it has a lot of CA in detailed images.
Count on it as a f3.2 lens where it starts to sharpen up.
I can't say I know a lot about the 10-22 but seriously look at the 12-24.
BTW, thats a hell of initial lens setup and a nice way to get into things, most people buy a higher end body and put low end glass on it.
Fall into some money?
anthonycuskelly wrote: Sweet, thanks for the responses guys. I'd already largely decided on lenses, this has just helped: I didn't want to say what I was planning on, then just have everyone tell me if they were good or not! The current list: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Canon 70-200 F/4 L Canon 60mm f/2.8 crop macro or Canon 100mm f/2.8full-frame macro Canon 10-22mm crop or Canon 17-40 full-frame I'm currently leaning towards the full-frame macro (though it's more cumbersome, it's nicer), but not sure on the wide angle lens yet: the 10-22 is very nice, but it's also a crop. I've also noticed on my current camera that I don't use the 50-100mm (35mm equivalent) range much, so I'm happy not having anything in that range at least for now. |
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Feb 18, 2007, 6:07 AM
Post #13 of 20
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
anthonycuskelly wrote: Canon 70-200 F/4 L Canon 60mm f/2.8 crop macro or Canon 100mm f/2.8full-frame macro Canon 10-22mm crop or Canon 17-40 full-frame
canon rebate is almost over, you can be eligible if you buy them 19th [link]
|
|
|
|
|
anthonycuskelly
Feb 18, 2007, 10:24 AM
Post #14 of 20
(2860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2007
Posts: 51
|
pico23: I keep hearing mixed things about the sigma lenses. On the whole I got the impression that they were normally fine, but not a particularly high-quality lens.
As for the setup: I generally spend ages figuring out exactly what I want, then I get it. I figure it's going to be easier and cheaper to upgrade bodies than lenses (hence preferring full-frame lenses). I can't afford it yet, but when I can, it'll be awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Feb 18, 2007, 3:04 PM
Post #15 of 20
(2850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Here's a link to a master photograper's work on the ephotozine photo forums. He seems to shoot almost exclusively with the 10-22mm and also the 18-55mm kit lens. Check out the first 12 pix which are "Editors Choices". Info on the lens used is usually included on all photo. Unfortunately, info on f stop used is lacking.
Made me rethink my opinion of the much "bad mouthed" kit lens!
http://www.ephotozine.com/user.cfm?user=20723
Paul
(This post was edited by Paul_Y on Feb 18, 2007, 5:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
gregr
Feb 19, 2007, 8:13 AM
Post #16 of 20
(2821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 49
|
I've read very good reviews on the new Tamron 17-50mm (SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)).
I'm also thinking of a 400D with this lens. If you buy your camera anytime soon, please let us know how it is - especially with the alleged underexposure issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Feb 20, 2007, 7:49 PM
Post #18 of 20
(2767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that! When I was a competition shooter there was a guy that could beat people using a plain vanilla gun while the others had some of the best gear money coud buy!
Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 21, 2007, 5:16 AM
Post #19 of 20
(2748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
The thing with the kit lens isn't that pictures don't come out clear on 800x600 (I didn't see any 3800x2000 shots posted).
Good and bad lenses get filtered out with print sizes. If you never intend to put a shot into print then any lens is "good" as long as you can tolerate it's weaknesses.
Flare, distortion, etc being the weaknesses.
Really a lens has to be just awful to not make a decent looking 4x6 print using a 35mm or APS sensor or film.
A good example of all this is, have you ever shot a nice shot but it was blurry (from a little shake). But when you make it 640x480 it looks damn good. Well a bad lens does the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
anthonycuskelly
Feb 21, 2007, 10:58 AM
Post #20 of 20
(2731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2007
Posts: 51
|
Well, the kit lens is just that: a fairly cheap lens. It all depends on what you plan on doing with your shots. I plan on keeping most of mine as digital, and printing some (at various sizes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
