Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: What lenses do you own or recommend?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    3,428
    Images
    60

    What lenses do you own or recommend?

    Ok I shoot with a Canon 40D.

    I have the stock 18-55mm from my Digital Rebel 300D, and I have a Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 and Canon 50mm F1.8. I also have a 2x Quantaray Teleconvertor that is about useless when using AF.

    I keep reading about the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 and the 70-200mm F2.8. These lenses are supposed to be Uber, Will I see a difference as I can already cover these Focal Lengths?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,572
    Images
    24
    If you buy the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 you might as well sell those other two lenses, because they're just going to collect dust. Plus the fact that it's IS makes it way more worthwhile. That lens is arguably one of THE best general purpose lenses. It's the only one that sits on my baby day in, day out.

    As far as Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 versus Canon 70-200mm F2.8... that's a pretty fucking easy answer. Are you prepared to sell your left nut for the Canon lens? That's what the L means in the product name, "L"eft Nut. If you're prepared to do this, sell your right nut as well and buy the IS version of the "L" lens. Treasure your new status as a eunuch and celebrate by burning that Tamron lens in a fire. Otherwise, you already own the Tamron lens, put the Canon lens on your wish list for when you're a millionaire.

    (your answer should have been yes to all of the above questions)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    high altitude of colorado
    Posts
    399
    Images
    48
    depends on what you plan to use the lenses for...I own two "L" class lenses.
    Are they great lenses? Absolutely. Are they really needed? Well...my reasoning on this is if they can "make you money" then they pay for themselves....and they have. Honestly, I just don't see the need to spend money on expensive glass when you can get cheaper (but still with good IQ) lenses. Also keep in mind that some lenses are specific to that APS-C sensor. So if you did get that 17-55, you could only use it on the 20D-50D line. Since I have a Canon film camera, I cannot use the APS-C specific lenses, but that depends on whether you think you will ever get a full frame sensor camera.
    If you want to stick to just canon lenses, I would like to suggest the 17-85 IS 3.5-4.5 lens. Not too expensive and covers a wide range...plus IS!!
    There are plenty of other great lenses out there that are NOT Canon...you shoud research those too.
    Just for an F.Y.I, here is a list of my current lens lineup:

    Canon:
    -50mm F1.4
    -24-70mm L F2.8
    -70-200mm IS L F2.8
    -1.4x teleconverter
    Tokina:
    -12-24mm F4 (practically an L lens)

    Keep in mind that what those L lenses excel at the most is low light photography.
    Other lenses that I would recommend are:

    -Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM
    -Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM
    -Tokina AT-X 535 PRO DX AF 50-135mm f/2.8

    got any questions...just let me know!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    545
    Images
    3
    Nikon

    50mm 1.4
    24mm-70mm 2.8
    70mm-300mm

    I also sold my D300 and got the full sensor D700. Well worth it. Even though your talking about Canon just thought I post what I got.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 1998
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    2,244
    Images
    25
    Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
    i7 2600K + ATI 6990

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    3,428
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by x[p-slap] View Post
    Other lenses that I would recommend are:

    -Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM
    -Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM
    -Tokina AT-X 535 PRO DX AF 50-135mm f/2.8

    got any questions...just let me know!!
    So you recommend the BIGma? 55-500mm Sigma... I almost bought one used for $450.

    So the IS lenses are not a bunch a bs and they actually work... hmmm

    Oh and Vizor, nikon info is important too, this isnt a pc and mac thread

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,202
    Images
    5
    you haven't mentioned what kinda photography you usually do, so i'll just go with the flow...

    if you plan on going full frame, i would not suggest the 17-55 f2.8 IS. btw, the 5D mark2 looks very good ;)
    i want to suggest the 24-70 f2.8L but i've heard of many people complain about getting a bad copy of that lens and having to send that lens back to canon for repair/calibration. so it's really up to you if you want to take a risk. if you want to just play with a 24-70 f2.8 at a cheap price that has image quality close to the canon 24-70 f2.8L, i'd suggest the sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX.

    for the 70-200, i would not suggest the f2.8L (unless you absolutely NEED this lens with this large of an aperture). I'd suggest the f4L version of this lens because it's sharper than the f2.8L version and because it is much lighter in weight. For the price of the f2.8L IS, you can get yourself the f4L IS along with the 135mm f2.0L (which is a really great lens at a reasonable price).

    for something with a wider angle, i'd suggest the 17-40 f4L because it's got good image quality and because it's cheap. unless you absolutely need large aperture, than you can take a look at the 16-35 f2.8L II (but if i were to choose, i'd rather buy the 35mm f1.4L prime instead of the 16-35 and zoom with my feet instead).

    hope this helps.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,202
    Images
    5
    if you're also looking into nikon, i'd suggest the following:

    14-24 f2.8 (this lens is SUPERB! a zoom that has the image quality of a prime lens!)

    24-70 f2.8
    and the 70-200 f2.8 VR (but for this 70-200 lens, i'd wait a bit because nikon has announced an updated version of this lens with better compatibility with full frame cameras and i think a better VR system too).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    3,428
    Images
    60
    I bought my 40d (body only) for $700 almost new in the box. Guy bought it for his wife, and it was too much camera for her. It had under 500 accts on it. I was looking at 5D's but I couldn't justify the prices even used for Hobby Shooting.

    I'm extremely happy with it, but I'm not far enough in the hole to switch.

    I'm mainly interested in a walk around lens... so many choices.


    I enjoy my 50mm F1.8, so I'd like to find something similar with a wider range.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2677.JPG 
Views:	107 
Size:	819.9 KB 
ID:	4507  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,202
    Images
    5
    i originally bought the 40D also, but then a week in, canon announced the 50D, so i refunded mine and got the rebel xsi along with the battery grip and a 50mm f1.8 II prime lens waiting for the 50D. the 50D's out now, i dont' know if i still want the 50D because 50D's image quality is about identical to the 40D's other than the fact that it has 15 MP instead of 10MP. i'm thinking i might actually buy the Nikon D300 instead...

    concerning walk around lens, i just use my 50mm f1.8II as a walk around lens because it makes taking photos so much more entertaining, challenging, but much more satisfying than using a zoom (because u'll have to zoom in with your feet and have to compose your image much differently than if you were to have a zoom). prime lenses also give better image quality.

    if you're into prime lenses also, i would definitely recommend the 35mm f1.4L lens as a walk around (although it's a bit expensive, but it's totally worth it!!). the 35mm lens on a APS-C camera gives essentially 50mm on a full frame, and many people uses 50mm prime lenses exclusively as walk around lens.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,202
    Images
    5
    if you absolutely need a walk around zoom lens, i'd recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF. it's cheap, and the lens is extremely sharp starting from f 4.0, but good image quality at f 2.8. i want to suggest you the canon 17-85 IS but i know that this lens is prone to high chromatic aberrations (and i am one of those that can't stand chromas) and aperture starts at 4... however, chromas can easily be fixed using software, so it's really up to you. image quality wise, the 17-85 is not much better than the 18-55. 18-55 with IS is another great cheap lens, but seeing that you already have the first generation of the 18-55, you may want to consider something else.

    oh yeah, and if you want ultra wide angle for an APS-C, consider the tokina 11-16 f2.8. that thing has great image quality, has wide aperture, and is built like a tank!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    high altitude of colorado
    Posts
    399
    Images
    48
    BLk brought up a good point with the 70-200 F4L..it is a great lens. I believe they also make an IS version. Another lens I wanted to recommend was the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO. it's a great walkaround lens, plus macro. One thing that I forgot to mention about the 70-200 2.8 lens is that it is as heavy as hell. For most of my sport shooting I use a monopod now...shooting for an hour and half + just wears out my arms. On a side note, I just got an offer to shoot Denver University hockey ...no pay involved yet, but what a great opportunity to get involved in what I love!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,202
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by x[p-slap] View Post
    BLk brought up a good point with the 70-200 F4L..it is a great lens. I believe they also make an IS version. Another lens I wanted to recommend was the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO. it's a great walkaround lens, plus macro. One thing that I forgot to mention about the 70-200 2.8 lens is that it is as heavy as hell. For most of my sport shooting I use a monopod now...shooting for an hour and half + just wears out my arms. On a side note, I just got an offer to shoot Denver University hockey ...no pay involved yet, but what a great opportunity to get involved in what I love!
    yes, the 70-200 f4L has a IS version. he non-IS costs about $600 and the IS version costs about $500 more.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •