|
Myxomatosis
Jun 16, 2009, 11:30 PM
Post #1 of 9
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Hey guys, just looking for some beta on what everyone uses for there standard climbing lens or a good back up..
I already have two kit len's from Canon (18-55 and 70-300) and also going to purchase a 50mm prime while im at it...
But have a few dollars left over for another lens, looking at
Fisheye 15mm F2.8 $1300nz
100 F2.0 prime $950nz
85mm F1.8 prime $850nz
28mm f2.8 prime $930nz
10-22mm f3.5-4.5 $1600nz
Im looking at prime's because I hate using anything above iso400 to shoot but Im getting a 50mm anyway so not really that important. But in saying that the 10-22 is the most expensive by a long way.
Most of my climbing shots come in around 50-80mm range.
Fisheye, for some reason I am really keen to get the fisheye, I love doing close up shots. Anyone use one for climbing photography?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 17, 2009, 1:19 AM
Post #2 of 9
(4136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Have you considered the tokina 11-22mm, you don't have a lens nearly equivalent to it on your list.
What about a 24mm f1.x-2.0 imo a bit more useful than the wide normal perpective 28mm (on ff, and precisely normal on aps-c)
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Jun 17, 2009, 1:42 AM
Post #3 of 9
(4127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Picco.. has to be Canon as I get good deal's through my company 
Seems Canon has three 24mm's... and even a 20mm. Will look up prices today. Thanks mate.
Edit: Actually made a typo on my lil bit of paper, was meant to be 20mm f2.8 above not 28mm.
20mm is $929 and 24mm is $750.... Swaying to a 20 or 24 at the moment.
Anyway, anyone have any experince with fish eyes?
(This post was edited by Myxomatosis on Jun 17, 2009, 1:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 17, 2009, 4:03 AM
Post #4 of 9
(4109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I would dump the kit lenses first off. Even if you don't get much money back, they are just taking up space...
If you are planning on staying with crop sensors, then the 17-55 2.8 IS ef-s would be my first choice. It isn't a really exciting range, like the fisheye or 10-22, but it is solid. And you need a solid lens to build on.
Next up would be 24-70 2.8, 16-35 II 2.8 (though might be too much, so 17-40 is just as good IQ, but f4). Maybe 24-105 f4IS?
Fisheyes are rad, but the effect will get old kinda quick, I usually just use it every once in a while. It is sweet on the 5d/5dII though and the colors are really nice.
If you use telephoto more then wide, the 85 1.8 is a really nice lens as well, great for the price. And the 135 f2 L is becoming my favorite piece of glass. Ever. Or, the 70-200 f4 IS should be in your price range, and that is a hella sharp lens.
|
|
|
|
|
pseudolith
Jun 18, 2009, 12:53 PM
Post #5 of 9
(4061 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 96
|
I'd go with the 10-22. I'm shooting with a crop sensor Canon, and my Sigma 10-22 is my favorite lens for climbing shots. Without a ultra-wide angle lens, it's sometimes impossible to get far enough away from the subject to get what you want in the frame. Especially in tight boulderfields like HP40. You can also acheive some interesting foreshortening effects with an ultra-wide.
Definitely ditch the shorter of the two kit lenses, as it will quickly become redundant. You may still get some mileage out of the longer kit lens, even though it's probably pretty slow, especially zoomed all the way in to 300mm. But if you're shooting outdoors in good light, it will probably work well enough until you get the itch (and the money) for a f2.8 70-200, or something of the sort.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Jun 18, 2009, 9:43 PM
Post #6 of 9
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Hey guys.... I think I am gonna take Wes's suggestion and go for the 17-55 f2.8.
Altho its $2000, so another $700 more than I was going to spend but like he said, its something to build on.
I like my 70-300, although its not flash and crap in low light, its taken some alright photo's outside at distance.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jun 19, 2009, 12:00 AM
Post #7 of 9
(4020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Myxomatosis wrote: Hey guys.... I think I am gonna take Wes's suggestion and go for the 17-55 f2.8. Altho its $2000, so another $700 more than I was going to spend but like he said, its something to build on. I like my 70-300, although its not flash and crap in low light, its taken some alright photo's outside at distance.
I don't know much about Canon kit lenses and I've never owned a kit lens myself. But to me they do have a purpose if you aready have one. They are decent quality (esp stopped down), light, compact, and good beater lenses.
I'm actually adding a weather sealed kit (yeah, weather sealed kit) when I get the K7, I don't need it, probably won't use it much, but I like the idea of having a $200 lens I can beat the crap out of in any weather.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Jun 19, 2009, 12:36 AM
Post #8 of 9
(4010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Hahah yeah always need a good beater, its part of the reason I don't want to upgrade to a 5D because the thought of dropping a $3000nz camera over a $800nz one lets me rest a little easier at night  I dont think Ill sell my kit lens either, only get like $60.. whats the point.
Anyway, I like taking photos in low light, something about pure black in my photos, thats why I am keen to get something faster than f3.5 while I still have access to the discount.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 20, 2009, 3:44 AM
Post #9 of 9
(3963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Cool, you will have to let me know how you like it! That is one lens I really wish they made in an EF format, rather the EF-S, but it is killer on a crop camera. I use a 40d as a 2nd body right now, and still have a 20d as a back up, but we mostly use FF and the 1.3 crop, and I think all our future bodies will be one of those as well, so doesn't make sense for us right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
