|
needtolearnhowtoclimb
Jul 13, 2004, 12:35 AM
Post #1 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2002
Posts: 216
|
I was just wondering what you guys think is the best all around lens for a 35mm SLR to use for shooting just about every type of climbing. Something you would pack in your bag to try to keep the weight down and still get the kinds of shots of you like. You guys know what im talking about. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Jul 13, 2004, 2:50 PM
Post #2 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I use a Sigma 28-300mm compact Hyper-Zoom.
While on backpacking trips or at the crag, I can put it on and not have to worry about changing lenses.
It is also pretty small for the zoom range, and the new version has Macro capability too.
|
|
|
|
|
danl
Jul 13, 2004, 3:54 PM
Post #3 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 288
|
40 mm pancake
if not that maybe a nice compact zoom say 28-135
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Jul 13, 2004, 3:59 PM
Post #4 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
of course we'll all pick our favorite lense...
so I'm not trying to objective here but I prefer my 24-85 f2.8-4 (Nikon also makes a 24-120ish) Those last 4 mm (from 24 to 28) make a world of difference for me. It really allows you to open things up to a nice wide perspective. Plus you can still reach out and get a close shot. Now if you're considering converting to digital you'd want something even shorter.
I've never used a 28 - 300, but that sounds tempting. However, it has to be pretty slow. And what about focusing that thing?!
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jul 13, 2004, 4:11 PM
Post #5 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Jul 13, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #6 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
The 28-300 is 3.5 - 6.3. I have no problems focusing it manually, or auto on my Canon 10D
I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS last weekend, and was impressed with the speed of the autofocus, but really it wasn't that much easeier to focus than my 28-300.
|
|
|
|
|
mike_the_sumo
Jul 13, 2004, 4:27 PM
Post #7 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 66
|
In reply to: 40 mm pancake |
|
|
|
|
joe
Jul 13, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #8 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
i like my Nikon 24-120mm, good range for one lens. versatile, but it's not as sharp as i'd like it. 24-80mm is good for climbing and it's not as expensive as the 24-120. if image quality is more important than focal range, then go with prime lenses. wide angled lenses are great, too.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 20, 2004, 2:10 AM
Post #9 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Something in the 28-105 or 24-105/120/135 is probably ideal as a do all lens. Macro focusing is a bonus.The wider the zoom gap the slower the focus (generally, and especially so on lower end lenses) so if AF is a requirement you might want to go with something with a lower zoom. Something like the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX nice lens at a reasonable price.
IMO wider is better so I'd opt for the 24mm range at the wide end of a do everything.
I'm starting to wonder what the advantages of a SLR are over a advanced compact. Especially in the digital age I don't really see much advantage to lugging around and SLR if you aren't going to use it's biggest feature which is interchangeable lenses. Even something as lowend as the 3.2MP Canon S1 32-320mm F2.8 ($420) gives full manual control and image stabilization at a fraction of the size and cost of a SLR with a do everything lens.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 20, 2004, 2:31 AM
Post #10 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I doubt what I use is the best, but I do a lot with what I have. I currently use Sigma zooms (28-80mm F3.5-5.6; 70-300mm F4-5.6 macro super II) and am generally pleased with their versatility, although I do miss my old lens, a 28-90 2.8-3.5. Heavy as a brick but steady focus. Come to think of it, I miss my whole K1000 outfit... may it rest in pieces...
I do wish my Sigmas were faster and zoomed closer, but they're featherweights, which I appreciate. When I have the bling-bling, I'll upgrade...
For climbing applications, get zooms. Primes are heavy to lug around and dicey to change in the elements. I'd also suggest picking the brains (well, by lurking) of the photo hardcore at places like photo.net.
|
|
|
|
|
mattheww
Jul 20, 2004, 3:07 AM
Post #11 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2001
Posts: 121
|
I have a Nikon F-100 and when weight isn't a problem I take a Nikon 18-35mm, Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, and a 1.4 converter. If I need to save weight on a trip I get by with a Nikon 28-200G f/3.5-5.6 which made great pictures on my recent trip to Scotland. It DOES have a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, but that's typical for super wide angle zooms.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Jul 20, 2004, 6:35 PM
Post #12 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
If I have to choose one lense, it's my 28-300 Tamron. Also f3.5-6.3, no real problems with auto or manual focus.
However, I definitely want to have a 20/22mm as a second lense, because 28mm is no real wide angle... Always want to see just a little more on my screen when using the 28mm :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
eoghan
Jul 27, 2004, 11:17 PM
Post #13 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 8
|
A nice wide angle zoom. If you're a canon person, the 17-40 F4L. Still gives you decent wide angle on a digital, and the zoom gives room for composition.
The thing about super zooms is that you're making a compromise on overall sharpness. And I almost never use a telephoto when climbing, that's just me, i don't want to carry the weight either. Then again, most of my shots are primarily about the landscapes, rarely just a climber in the frame.
-e
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jul 27, 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #14 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
OK, now who else read the title of this thread and arrived at the mental picture of a generic 50-200 macro zoom slung on some 8mm spectra and expanded across an off-width like a big bro?
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Jul 27, 2004, 11:43 PM
Post #15 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
I have a Tamron 28-300. Good pics, good price, and it retracts down to about the size of a standard 28-80.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Jul 28, 2004, 7:22 AM
Post #16 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
Ditto. Still my favorite lense. Almot never use the 50mm and 200mm anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
rockclimbingpyro
Aug 12, 2004, 3:55 AM
Post #17 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2002
Posts: 100
|
also the Tamron 28-300
But i also like to have my Promaster 18-35mm f./2.8-4
not the best but still very nice and handy.
|
|
|
|
|
darth_gaydar
Aug 12, 2004, 4:40 AM
Post #18 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Posts: 168
|
The best lens is fixed and fast. I guess with all the middle to low resolution pics and small sizes, glass doesn't matter to most people anymore, but zoom lenses and knock-offs just don't cut it for me. There is a noticeable difference in the images rendered from high quality glass and middle-of-the pack lenses. Learning to use fixed lenses teaches the eye to visualize final images better, quicker, and more efficiently, so that the end result is less images produced, but a denser selection of high quality images.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 12, 2004, 4:15 PM
Post #19 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: The best lens is fixed and fast. I guess with all the middle to low resolution pics and small sizes, glass doesn't matter to most people anymore, but zoom lenses and knock-offs just don't cut it for me.
for the most part no one, aside from the most descriminating photog, really cares about image quality anymore. since most people stick to 4x6 images even the cheapest lens will generally look sharp and give ok results. You can start to see the limitations of those same lenses at about 8x10. on the flip side the loss of many decent images to low res lenses really has me going against the grain and looking for the highest res glass i can get. at the same time i'm no lens snob. if i can get as good or better glass from a 3rd party for half or less of the cost i will certainly have no reservations about going "knock off". I consistently see Sigma lenses out perform there OEM (Nikon, Canon) counter parts so aside from resale value I really don't see the need to fork over that much cash just for a name.
it's not suprising though that with all the low quality screen res jpegs that have become common place that image quality of lowend low res lenses really doesn't matter anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
joe
Aug 12, 2004, 7:33 PM
Post #20 of 20
(4582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
In reply to: I consistently see Sigma lenses out perform there OEM (Nikon, Canon) counter parts so aside from resale value I really don't see the need to fork over that much cash just for a name.
sigma has been pretty good to me as far as sharpness goes. i think the issue with sigma is their durability, which hasn't been a problem yet. i've bashed my 20mm around quite a bit and it's still hanging tough. i also have a 105mm macro that has been excellent, and a couple hundred bucks or so cheaper than the nikon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
