- Status
phoenix7 said:Re: Policar
Yes, would be great to have a 17mm TS-E or even the Zeiss 21mm I keep reading about. For those
prices though it had better grow arms and legs, walk out and pose every dang tree and bush for my
landscape photo, walk back, mount itself on my camera body and reach back and hit the shutter release.
Of course that's fantasy and it's nice to hear about those sorts of lens but they are totally impractical
for lego_boy's or my budget. Currently I'm about at about his budget going towards a EF 20mm 2.8 early next
year.
I would have to greatly disagree that his or my own budgets make getting a lens impossible. Challenging
perhaps but not impossible at all. I've been doing quite a bit of research and I'm still looking at adapting
an M42 mount, for $50US and $10 for an el cheepo adapter it's right in the price range my wallet likes.
As for other options; the 2 lenses I've also been looking are the old-ish Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. Both seem like decent lens from what I have read. When they are available
the Tamron is less than $200US (about 130GB) and the Canon less than $275US (about 180GBP).
Don't be intimidated by having to adapt and old style lens. Canon's EF mount being as verstile as it is and
in our budget range it's actually a very real option.
The 17mm TSE isn't very expensive for what it does. Compared with a Master Technika and a 65mm LF lens ($12,000) and $6 per frame to shoot and $200 to scan for LF or a tech camera and MFDB (which could run $60,000+ for a decent set up) a 17mm TSE and 5D II is an incredible deal.
Granted I'm not a very good photographer and don't want to give the impression that my gear snobbishness correlates with an ability to get much out of it, but I still can't see how an UWA with T/S can be replaced with a cheap, not terribly wide zoom without any lens movements. (Unless you're shooting FF, in which case 17mm is legitimately UWA, but still lacks lens movements and sharpness.) If you're taking pictures of buildings then that's fine… if you're serious about architectural photography I just don't know how you can make this work. Maybe a panoramic head, stitching and perspective correction in post, but I couldn't pull it off. More power to you if you can.
That said, if you're not worried about having the sharpest print and are willing to recompose a bit in post, any very wide lens could work for architecture. Just stop way down to give infinite focus and fix perspective in post and it's as good as T/S.Or if you're in an area where you can back up really far from the subject, even a not-so-wide lens could work. I just wouldn't want to rely on it professionally.
Fwiw, the 14mm Samyang, while dreadfully full of distortion, is a great deal and could pull this off with a lot of post work. The 10mm f2.8 Samyang (when it's released) might be a very viable option so long as you're okay with fixing perspective in post.
I'd take the 28mm f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 but not for architecture. Of the lenses you've listed in your price range none are even close to as good for it as the kit lens (but you'll still need to fix perspective in post). For architecture, I'd get a tripod.
Upvote
0
L
lego_boy
Guest
Thanks again for all your input!
Just to note; I'm not looking to photography as a profession, merely a hobby. But because of what I do, I end up photographing a lot of buildings and it is incredibly annoying when you can't quite fit it all in.
That's usually been with the old stock 18-55, so still pretty wide. Hence the reason for wanting wider and with always wanting better quality I was looking at primes.
I understand this is where it gets tricky. Primes at this range are £1000's so even if I could afford it its not worth it on an aps-c.
Also, with being just for a hobby, a range of lengths is probably more suited.
So looking at a suitable zoom range: an efs 10-22mm seems appropriate, unfortunately this is £350+, the tamron 17-35mm as suggested by phoenix, however this isn't much wider...is it considered at better than the canon 18-55 is?
Sorry to swing this back round, but you guys have far more experience than I have.
Just to note; I'm not looking to photography as a profession, merely a hobby. But because of what I do, I end up photographing a lot of buildings and it is incredibly annoying when you can't quite fit it all in.
That's usually been with the old stock 18-55, so still pretty wide. Hence the reason for wanting wider and with always wanting better quality I was looking at primes.
I understand this is where it gets tricky. Primes at this range are £1000's so even if I could afford it its not worth it on an aps-c.
Also, with being just for a hobby, a range of lengths is probably more suited.
So looking at a suitable zoom range: an efs 10-22mm seems appropriate, unfortunately this is £350+, the tamron 17-35mm as suggested by phoenix, however this isn't much wider...is it considered at better than the canon 18-55 is?
Sorry to swing this back round, but you guys have far more experience than I have.
Upvote
0
I don't know if that old lens is all that great. Just something I came across in your price range.
I've read good things about the 10-22mm aps-c, it's basically 16-35mm full frame.
As I said the 18mm you have now is ~28mm full frame. So if you get at 28mm lens you are
seeing what that would show on full frame, but then you have to take into account 1.6x crop
so it's ~44mm. That's why I was trying to mention other options smaller than 28mm.
I've read good things about the 10-22mm aps-c, it's basically 16-35mm full frame.
As I said the 18mm you have now is ~28mm full frame. So if you get at 28mm lens you are
seeing what that would show on full frame, but then you have to take into account 1.6x crop
so it's ~44mm. That's why I was trying to mention other options smaller than 28mm.
Upvote
0
Ray2021 said:
Go for a 28mm F1.8 + 50mm F1.8. They are nice combo with APS-C. The 28mm isn't soft if you stop down to at least F2.2. Here are some sample pictures with the 50mm and the 28mm:
50mm @ F1.8
28mm @ F2.2
Upvote
0
lego_boy said:
I can't tell if you are referring to using the old 18-55mm non-IS lens and not having tried the new 18-55 IS yet. If so, the non-IS one was optically bad (that might be a bit harsh but it's the best way to describe it), whereas the new IS version is optically very good and an outstanding value. And IS will help quite a bit if you don't have or don't want to use a tripod.
In addition to the 18-55 IS, I have the 50mm f/1.8 for my T3i, and I'm very happy with it. Although it sounds like it's trying to smash itself to pieces when it autofocuses, it works well enough and takes great photos, especially in low-light. The 50mm focal length is a bit limiting, but I can work around that.
So I would recommend trying the 18-55 IS or 18-55 IS II (they are the same) if you have the 18-55 non-IS. If you still aren't happy with photos from the 18-55 IS, you probably need better technique.
If shaking is the problem, there are many things you can try. You can use a tripod more often, or you can try to always find a way to brace the camera. Try bracing the camera or your body on something solid like a wall or a railing. Always hold the camera close to your body with two hands. You could also make a string monopod http://www.instructables.com/id/String-Tripod/.
If you simply aren't happy with the "look" of the pictures, it could be any number of things, such as the camera settings (mainly aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) or how you process the images, or your composition. You might read a few books such as "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson or "The Digital Photography Book Volume 1" by Scott Kelby.
Upvote
0
i've read the original post over and over.
Motion blur: shoot at faster shutter speed to eliminate the problem. An internet search can provide you with a list of suggested shutter speeds to achieve the right amount of blur or eliminate it altogether.
You have the 18-55mm and a crop sensor body. You want to shoot landscape and architecture. You said that the problem is that you can't fit it in the frame. Additionally you can't afford the 10-22mm.
New lens is not going to help you. The only options are:
1. take a step back or more.
2. photo stitch a panorama and correct in software.
3. shoot 'architectural' photographs. ie not the whole building but parts of the building that stand-out architecturally.
Motion blur: shoot at faster shutter speed to eliminate the problem. An internet search can provide you with a list of suggested shutter speeds to achieve the right amount of blur or eliminate it altogether.
You have the 18-55mm and a crop sensor body. You want to shoot landscape and architecture. You said that the problem is that you can't fit it in the frame. Additionally you can't afford the 10-22mm.
New lens is not going to help you. The only options are:
1. take a step back or more.
2. photo stitch a panorama and correct in software.
3. shoot 'architectural' photographs. ie not the whole building but parts of the building that stand-out architecturally.
Upvote
0
As many others already told you, a tripod is mandatory for landscape and architecture photography. Get one as soon as you can.
I take landscape pictures with a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and i'm very happy with it. It is close to the Canon 10-22 regarding IQ, at 2/3 of the price. Stick with the kit lens until you can afford an ultrawide.
I take landscape pictures with a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and i'm very happy with it. It is close to the Canon 10-22 regarding IQ, at 2/3 of the price. Stick with the kit lens until you can afford an ultrawide.
Upvote
0
L
lego_boy
Guest
I take your advice on getting a tripod.
I'll stick with the 18-55mm IS MKii for now, yet to try it out (got to wait for the 25th!), from what you all say it's much better than my old 18-55mm with the 350D.
Like I've said though 18mm just doesn't feel wide enough. So I've realised that I'm going to have to spend a little more money. So, lenses I've been looking at are:
- Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6
- Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
The reviews are just so varied that I'm not quite sure which to focus on. Thoughts?
I am seduced by the 50mm, surely many of the best taken are from a full frame? Doesn't that mean a 28mm or 35mm is a substitute? I'm just finding it a little hard to justify it when my 18-55 covers the same range.
Thanks again!
I'll stick with the 18-55mm IS MKii for now, yet to try it out (got to wait for the 25th!), from what you all say it's much better than my old 18-55mm with the 350D.
Like I've said though 18mm just doesn't feel wide enough. So I've realised that I'm going to have to spend a little more money. So, lenses I've been looking at are:
- Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6
- Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
The reviews are just so varied that I'm not quite sure which to focus on. Thoughts?
I am seduced by the 50mm, surely many of the best taken are from a full frame? Doesn't that mean a 28mm or 35mm is a substitute? I'm just finding it a little hard to justify it when my 18-55 covers the same range.
Thanks again!
Upvote
0
As for brand, I'm in the Canon only camp, especially with today's auto-focus systems. With third-party lenses, you risk focus software issues. In theory, they have been tested with current Canon bodies, but when you upgrade down the road, that third-party lens may hiccup with updated focus software on next generation bodies.
The 50 1.8 is a great lens. Mine is from a film Rebel G and has held up well despite it's plastic construction. With a crop body, I wanted a little wider lens and went with the 35 2.0. This is another great lens for crop (but soft in the corners on full frame). However, the 35 is almost three times the price of the 50 1.8.
My new favorite grab shot lens is the 40 2.8 pancake. With current rebates, it's only $150. You lose just over a stop in speed from the 50 and a stop from the 35, but you have to stop down both of these lenses to 2.8 to get close to the IQ of the 40. Both the 50 and the 35 are weakest in the corners which makes them great for crop bodies where the "corners" are "cropped" out. But, the 40 is sharper at 2.8 from corner to corner.
The 40 equates to a 64 on full frame (or film), so it is a little long. Some may find it too long for indoor family gatherings, but I most often want to get a little closer and find this focal length to be very workable.
As for IS, it ALWAYS helps. Many suggest that it's unnecessary with faster shutter speeds, but I find that it gives you a bit more edge in sharpness. Everything you do to eliminate hand held movement is a plus.
I prefer available light and often push the limits of ISO and f-stop on my lenses. As much as I like the 40, whenever shooting slower than an 1/60 of a second, I get more reliable results with my IS zoom. When shooting candids, I can often get good results with 1/30 second with IS on. If my subject is stationary, 1/15 will work.
For budget zoom, I'd recommend the 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, either the old model or the STM version.
For crop, my working lenses are the 70-200 f2.8L II (my absolute favorite lens) and the 17-55 f2.8 IS. But, neither is cheap.
Also, consider shopping the Canon refurbished store. I have full confidence in lenses and bodies refurbished by Canon.
The 50 1.8 is a great lens. Mine is from a film Rebel G and has held up well despite it's plastic construction. With a crop body, I wanted a little wider lens and went with the 35 2.0. This is another great lens for crop (but soft in the corners on full frame). However, the 35 is almost three times the price of the 50 1.8.
My new favorite grab shot lens is the 40 2.8 pancake. With current rebates, it's only $150. You lose just over a stop in speed from the 50 and a stop from the 35, but you have to stop down both of these lenses to 2.8 to get close to the IQ of the 40. Both the 50 and the 35 are weakest in the corners which makes them great for crop bodies where the "corners" are "cropped" out. But, the 40 is sharper at 2.8 from corner to corner.
The 40 equates to a 64 on full frame (or film), so it is a little long. Some may find it too long for indoor family gatherings, but I most often want to get a little closer and find this focal length to be very workable.
As for IS, it ALWAYS helps. Many suggest that it's unnecessary with faster shutter speeds, but I find that it gives you a bit more edge in sharpness. Everything you do to eliminate hand held movement is a plus.
I prefer available light and often push the limits of ISO and f-stop on my lenses. As much as I like the 40, whenever shooting slower than an 1/60 of a second, I get more reliable results with my IS zoom. When shooting candids, I can often get good results with 1/30 second with IS on. If my subject is stationary, 1/15 will work.
For budget zoom, I'd recommend the 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, either the old model or the STM version.
For crop, my working lenses are the 70-200 f2.8L II (my absolute favorite lens) and the 17-55 f2.8 IS. But, neither is cheap.
Also, consider shopping the Canon refurbished store. I have full confidence in lenses and bodies refurbished by Canon.
Upvote
0
http://www.amazon.com/Joby-GP8-BHEN-GorillaPod-Ballhead-bundle/dp/B003II3FD0/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1356227648&sr=8-15&keywords=gorillapod+slr
I always have my gorilla pod with me. The ball head is also surprisingly nice.
I always have my gorilla pod with me. The ball head is also surprisingly nice.
Upvote
0
lego_boy said:
If you really want wide and you are upping your budget to consider those wide zooms you
might what to think of an 8mm fisheye. Heavy distortion but a fairly easy fix most photo
software. The Bower/Rokinon/et al 8mm f/3.5 might be something to look at. I've heard
good things about those Samyang lenses, esp. the 14mm UWA which I've considered getting
as well since it is fairly inexpensive. Also as for Tamron in general, I have the 70-300 Di VC.
Really nice tele-zoom so I wouldn't hesitate on a Tamron zoom at the other end personally.
I love my Plastic Fantastic. She's a great little lens. There are refurbs on Canon's online shop
for $80 right now. Primes are in a class by themselves. Less things mechanically to go wrong
in general. Also you get a fixed f-stop which is usually much larger than any sort of zoom. That
is why I suggested getting a m42 screw mount prime as my first choice for your situation and
budget. Those things are rugged and seemingly last forever.
And then there are lenses like this:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?p=133996
Upvote
0
Nothing wrong with the new 18-55 kit lens, if you use lightroom or ACR you can correct the color and distortion to give pretty good images. Sharpen using the smart sharpen in Photoshop and you will see a huge difference, almost like you bought a new lens. Some clever PP might be all you need. (assuming you shoot RAW).
A tripod will help but good technique and IS can get you clean shots at relatively slow SS. At 18mm on crop, you could get away with 1/8s with good IS. You might have to take multiple shots but it is possible. Of course thats an extreme, you could just crank up ISO a bit and shoot around 1/30.
If you do go tripod route, make sure to switch IS off, use live view with manual focus and mirror lock. Release the shutter with a remote or 2s timer. Make sure the tripod is weighed down. That will help you get sharper images.
A tripod will help but good technique and IS can get you clean shots at relatively slow SS. At 18mm on crop, you could get away with 1/8s with good IS. You might have to take multiple shots but it is possible. Of course thats an extreme, you could just crank up ISO a bit and shoot around 1/30.
If you do go tripod route, make sure to switch IS off, use live view with manual focus and mirror lock. Release the shutter with a remote or 2s timer. Make sure the tripod is weighed down. That will help you get sharper images.
Upvote
0
[/quote]
I'd recommend a tripod, honestly. If you're getting image shake that can help, and then you can stop down all you want to improve image quality. Or saving up for the 11-16mm or 10-122mm (for architecture) and fixing distortion in post. Or getting the 30mm f1.4 Sigma (or 28mm f1.8 Canon) as a general purpose lens, though it is not great for architecture.
The $12 fotodiox macro tube is nice for macro, though. That's one thing that's cheap and useful.
[/quote]
I agree that a tripod is what is needed here. Before I had my 17mm TS I often shot buildings and other architectural shots with regular lenses. If you have photoshop or photoshop elements, corrections are easy to do, just be sure that you have enough space around the building (becase as you are bending the picture, it 'cuts' away either at the top sides or the bottom sides). Another thing you could try in photoshop is stitching. If the focal lenght is limiting you, try shooting several shots of the object horizontally (with 25% or so overlapping to allow the software to find the information it needs) and let photoshop do the stitching. In my opinion that works well
I'd recommend a tripod, honestly. If you're getting image shake that can help, and then you can stop down all you want to improve image quality. Or saving up for the 11-16mm or 10-122mm (for architecture) and fixing distortion in post. Or getting the 30mm f1.4 Sigma (or 28mm f1.8 Canon) as a general purpose lens, though it is not great for architecture.
The $12 fotodiox macro tube is nice for macro, though. That's one thing that's cheap and useful.
[/quote]
I agree that a tripod is what is needed here. Before I had my 17mm TS I often shot buildings and other architectural shots with regular lenses. If you have photoshop or photoshop elements, corrections are easy to do, just be sure that you have enough space around the building (becase as you are bending the picture, it 'cuts' away either at the top sides or the bottom sides). Another thing you could try in photoshop is stitching. If the focal lenght is limiting you, try shooting several shots of the object horizontally (with 25% or so overlapping to allow the software to find the information it needs) and let photoshop do the stitching. In my opinion that works well
Upvote
0
L
lego_boy
Guest
FTb-n:
With the 50mm; everyone raves about its clarity, beautiful bokeh etc, all for an amazing price.
I agree the 35mm is 3x the price....but that aside....do you still think it has the same qualities?
I would consider the 40mm, but given it doesn't quite have the width I'd want from it, nor is it as cheap as the 50mm...if I'm paying more I may as well go for the 35mm and get close to the Nifty.(if you agree with my question above).
Again, this aside...this lens would only be an option if I thought my 18-55mm IS Mkii wasn't giving me what I need (or you guys said...."one of these primes will blow your mind...you have to get one!!!"). For now I think my money is probably best spent getting something wider and a I'll buy a prime if I find some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Given the non-canon thing aside (im willing to take my chance given the cost difference) do you not reckon much to those lenses? Which do you think is the best of the bunch??
phoenix7:
Yes, I am looking at upping my budget.....it seems I'm going to have to.... For some reason (maybe it's my naivety) but I have always disliked the "fish-eye" look....I have always seen distortion as a negative quality..and I agree you can improve this with Photoshop...but I think the less work you have to do the better. So I don't really feel I want SUPER-wider.....just wide enough.
You mention the Samyang 14mm over the lenses I'd suggested.....those were the 10-20mm ish...giving me quite a nice range...do you think the 14mm is far superior in quality than those to justify the increased range? Are those lenses not regarded as good?
That little lens is mind blowing....I need to take a trip to Russia to find me one of those!!
Yes sorry...I'd glanced over your M42 suggestion....Just because I wouldn't really know where to start with them...a quick ebay search throws up these (industar/pentax/Carl zeiss): http://bit.ly/UmIGne
Thanks again all for your various comments/advice....all noted...I've learnt so much over the past 2 weeks...(given that at the start I was at the level where I didn't fully know the difference between APS_C and FF)
With the 50mm; everyone raves about its clarity, beautiful bokeh etc, all for an amazing price.
I agree the 35mm is 3x the price....but that aside....do you still think it has the same qualities?
I would consider the 40mm, but given it doesn't quite have the width I'd want from it, nor is it as cheap as the 50mm...if I'm paying more I may as well go for the 35mm and get close to the Nifty.(if you agree with my question above).
Again, this aside...this lens would only be an option if I thought my 18-55mm IS Mkii wasn't giving me what I need (or you guys said...."one of these primes will blow your mind...you have to get one!!!"). For now I think my money is probably best spent getting something wider and a I'll buy a prime if I find some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Given the non-canon thing aside (im willing to take my chance given the cost difference) do you not reckon much to those lenses? Which do you think is the best of the bunch??
phoenix7:
Yes, I am looking at upping my budget.....it seems I'm going to have to.... For some reason (maybe it's my naivety) but I have always disliked the "fish-eye" look....I have always seen distortion as a negative quality..and I agree you can improve this with Photoshop...but I think the less work you have to do the better. So I don't really feel I want SUPER-wider.....just wide enough.
You mention the Samyang 14mm over the lenses I'd suggested.....those were the 10-20mm ish...giving me quite a nice range...do you think the 14mm is far superior in quality than those to justify the increased range? Are those lenses not regarded as good?
That little lens is mind blowing....I need to take a trip to Russia to find me one of those!!
Yes sorry...I'd glanced over your M42 suggestion....Just because I wouldn't really know where to start with them...a quick ebay search throws up these (industar/pentax/Carl zeiss): http://bit.ly/UmIGne
Thanks again all for your various comments/advice....all noted...I've learnt so much over the past 2 weeks...(given that at the start I was at the level where I didn't fully know the difference between APS_C and FF)
Upvote
0
I have gotten some really good advice in here. If you want additional places to look, I would go to the review sites, and in this order:
photozone.de
the-digital-picture.com
Dpreview.com
And you have a bunch of other quite good places as well, such as the luminous landscape, or lensrentals.com
sometimes if I have the time, and or are bored, I even check out customer reviews on the B&H site. The latter is also a good place to know how much you should pay seccond hand, because B&H and Adorama with their riddiculous prices (low as compared to other places in the world) is a good point of reference. You should at least not pay more for second hand lenses than what you can get greymarket lenses for at B&H.
G.
photozone.de
the-digital-picture.com
Dpreview.com
And you have a bunch of other quite good places as well, such as the luminous landscape, or lensrentals.com
sometimes if I have the time, and or are bored, I even check out customer reviews on the B&H site. The latter is also a good place to know how much you should pay seccond hand, because B&H and Adorama with their riddiculous prices (low as compared to other places in the world) is a good point of reference. You should at least not pay more for second hand lenses than what you can get greymarket lenses for at B&H.
G.
Upvote
0
What you want really is the EFS Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, why not just admit it! 
Save for that. Don't waste money on cheaper stuff, you'll regret it later. The Canon holds its value really well. Theres rumors of a replacement to the 10-22 so you could wait and snap up a second hand version one. At around 12mm and f/5.6 the Canon produces very nice sharp images. It is worth every penny and a must have lens on aps-c cameras IMO.
Save for that. Don't waste money on cheaper stuff, you'll regret it later. The Canon holds its value really well. Theres rumors of a replacement to the 10-22 so you could wait and snap up a second hand version one. At around 12mm and f/5.6 the Canon produces very nice sharp images. It is worth every penny and a must have lens on aps-c cameras IMO.
Upvote
0
Both the 50 1.8 and the 35 2.0 have 5 bladed diaphragms which can (but not always) lead to pentagon looking bokeh. The 40 2.8 has 7 rounded blades that many consider more appealing in the bokeh department. Reality is sometimes different than head-to-head specs suggest.
I bought my 35 because I needed a low light lens wider than my 50 for a wedding and I wasn't ready to invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS. (I wasn't the wedding photographer, I was the brother-in-law who couldn't leave the camera home.)
My subject matter is mostly people in less than ideal lighting situations so I often shoot wide open or close to it. I do find the larger aperture bokeh on the 35 to be quite appealing. Below is a shot from that wedding.
I love the 40 2.8. It's fantastically sharp, freakishly small, and focuses down to 12 inches. However, I won't part with my 35. There are times when I want the extra stop and it focuses down to 9.6 inches. I don't have much need for macro, but every once in while I find this quite handy.
Admittedly, part of the appeal to the 40 is it's size. The 35 and the 50 are twice as deep, but still rather small. Of the three, I do believe that the 35 2.0 is the most versatile. It offers the extra stop over the 40 and extra reach. Another minor consideration, wider non-IS lenses are easier to hand-hold at slower speeds.
My 50 is stored in the "mostly retired, but can't quite part with it" camera bin in the basement. Both my 35 and 40 are kept handy.
One note to be aware of. None of these lenses are USM. The 50 and the 35 each have noticeable motor noise when focusing from far to near and vice-versa. In practice, this isn't a big issue. Once you pre-focus, the little adjustments needed to track your subject is much less noticeable. But, the whir from quick grab shot of child or a pet could alert the subject. The 40 uses the new STM system which is almost as quiet as the USM.
As for third-party, I won't say don't buy, just know what your getting. I've read good things about Sigma, including the 30 1.4 (which compares to a 48mm on full frame). Frankly, a 30 1.4 is quite attractive on a crop body.
Check out www.The-Digital-Picture.com for lens reviews, both Canon and third-party. Also check out the head-to-head test tools such as the link below. Just be aware of which body is used in the test.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Photo taken with Canon 60D/35 f2.0, ISO 3200, 1/30 sec at f2.0 (roughly 50% crop to get under 4 MB upload max and show bokeh in window):
I bought my 35 because I needed a low light lens wider than my 50 for a wedding and I wasn't ready to invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS. (I wasn't the wedding photographer, I was the brother-in-law who couldn't leave the camera home.)
My subject matter is mostly people in less than ideal lighting situations so I often shoot wide open or close to it. I do find the larger aperture bokeh on the 35 to be quite appealing. Below is a shot from that wedding.
I love the 40 2.8. It's fantastically sharp, freakishly small, and focuses down to 12 inches. However, I won't part with my 35. There are times when I want the extra stop and it focuses down to 9.6 inches. I don't have much need for macro, but every once in while I find this quite handy.
Admittedly, part of the appeal to the 40 is it's size. The 35 and the 50 are twice as deep, but still rather small. Of the three, I do believe that the 35 2.0 is the most versatile. It offers the extra stop over the 40 and extra reach. Another minor consideration, wider non-IS lenses are easier to hand-hold at slower speeds.
My 50 is stored in the "mostly retired, but can't quite part with it" camera bin in the basement. Both my 35 and 40 are kept handy.
One note to be aware of. None of these lenses are USM. The 50 and the 35 each have noticeable motor noise when focusing from far to near and vice-versa. In practice, this isn't a big issue. Once you pre-focus, the little adjustments needed to track your subject is much less noticeable. But, the whir from quick grab shot of child or a pet could alert the subject. The 40 uses the new STM system which is almost as quiet as the USM.
As for third-party, I won't say don't buy, just know what your getting. I've read good things about Sigma, including the 30 1.4 (which compares to a 48mm on full frame). Frankly, a 30 1.4 is quite attractive on a crop body.
Check out www.The-Digital-Picture.com for lens reviews, both Canon and third-party. Also check out the head-to-head test tools such as the link below. Just be aware of which body is used in the test.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Photo taken with Canon 60D/35 f2.0, ISO 3200, 1/30 sec at f2.0 (roughly 50% crop to get under 4 MB upload max and show bokeh in window):
Attachments
Upvote
0
lego_boy said:
given architecture as your main focus I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, or even the 50mm
tho if you want to take portraits (esp. posed) of friends and family the 50mm f/1.8 II is the one
to get on on a crop sensor. As I mentioned I've had enjoyed the one Tamron lens I do have
and so would recommend that brand. I haven't heard as many good things about Sigma until
lately, especially with customer service but that seems to be changing for the better as much
as their new 35mm appears to be changing their lens quality.
Yes, I'm not much for that fisheye look either; just threw that out for another option. Probably
have too many now.
I think 14mm would be a good option, no fisheye though some distortion from what I've read
but nothing odd that can't be easily fixed, and it's fairly fast if you need the extra light. The only
cravat is manual focus only. That has been why I've hesitated. I still have issues getting focus
on AF lenses sometimes.
Don't forget, you've already mentioned the fov was something you didn't care for at 18mm as
it is, so the tele end of those 10-20/22 lens aren't something you may use much. Of course that's
situational and with a tripod to help out you may find that it isn't as bad as you had thought.
Zeiss are good, new or old. But the first ones I heard about were the (Super)Takumar/SMC from
Pentax. http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=super+takumar&_sacat=0&_odkw=m42+50mm&_sop=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40
I keep lurking on ebay for one of the 28mm f/3.5 SMC.
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/index.html#Pentax
Since there are 2 out of 3 types shown in the list are "green". I really want the radioactive 50 1.4...
just because.
As an aside... wow https://store.canon-europe.com/ really sucks. Hard to navigate, not much
stock and no refurbs that I could find.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
