-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleLens on ebucks - wide angle choice?
- Thread starter Dolby
- Start date
Dolby
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 32,628
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works :/
EF-S 18mm-55mm F3.5-F5.6 IS R2,119.00
Of the 3 mentioned earlier, I quite like the EF 28mm F2.8
The zoom lens is slower - but more versatile.
Doe sanyone have any experience on the sharpness of the two?
EF-S 18mm-55mm F3.5-F5.6 IS R2,119.00
Of the 3 mentioned earlier, I quite like the EF 28mm F2.8
The zoom lens is slower - but more versatile.
Doe sanyone have any experience on the sharpness of the two?
That 18-55 is a bog standard kit lens and can be bought 2nd hand for next to nothing. I don;t erccomend it to be honest. I've had the IS and non IS versions and while they are good for what you pay they certainly aren't special.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 89,378
I would get that but not new. You can pick up a second hand for half the price. It may not be the best lens but it will give you an indication of what focal length(s) you could be looking for in the future.
I'm not a huge fan of primes, though I do carry two (but only out of necessity).
RanzB
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2007
- Messages
- 29,562
Dolby
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 32,628
Some lens - no matter the cost - have a reputation for being sharp and need to be owned. You've all been in the game longer than I have, so of these three :
Canon EF 35mm F2.0 (R2,899.00)
Canon EF 50mm F2.5 Compact Macro (R2739.00)
Canon EF 28mm F2.8 (R1,999.00)
I get can each with my ebucks at Kalahari - but the Canon 50mm 1.8mm is not there
My take, after lots of research a while back -
Canon EF 35mm F2.0 - good IQ, large aperture, AF noisy as hell - but I bought it and I like this lens for it's focal length.
Canon EF 50mm F2.5 - don't know this lens at all, but 50mm on crop is practically useless indoors (is for me in any event, hence why I bought a wider lens)
Canon EF 28mm F2.8 - I debated between this and the 35mm. In the end I was swayed by 1) reviews deemed the IQ to be on par, even slightly worse than the 35 f2, 2) the smaller maximum aperture and 3) I worried that 28mm may introduce some perspective distortion for portrait usage.
I was very interested in the Sigma 30mm f1.4, Orms had a 2nd hand one for R3k. They have a reputation for severe back/front focusing and it was borne out my in shop testing. I wasn't in the mood to buy and send to Sigma for calibration. If I had MA like you I may have considered buying it and trying to do the adjustment myself. New they are a bit expensive though.
All-in-all I'm really happy with the 35 f2 - IQ is decent, price was good and 35mm works well indoors on crop.
EDIT/ for the price you can just as well pick up the 50 1.8 as well. AF limitations and crappy built notwithstanding it has good IQ (and did I mention very cheap
). But again, with indoor pics you may find the focal length very long and limiting on crop.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 89,378
Don't forget this thread - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/322981-5-Lenses-You-Must-Have-for-Canon-EOS-7D - and aim for the "money is no object" category.
BigAl-sa
Executive Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
image degradation?
weight?
Canon 70-200 f/2.8: 1.47kg
Canon TC 2x II: 0.265kg
Total: 1.735kg
Canon 100-400: 1.38kg
btw, the lenses mentioned in your first post aren't wide-angle, they fall into the standard range. From my PoV
D), I'd definitely look at zooms in the 24-70 or the 24-105 ranges. I have a Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4 (discontinued product) and that's the one I use most for "normal" photography. Anything wider than 24mm gives perspective distortion if the lens is not parallel to the ground, which is often not wanted when you're taking "people" pics. (One of the major advantages of the so-called "full-frame cameras" is that 24mm gives a pretty wide field of view without the perspective distortion.)[edit] if anything happened to my 24-135, I'd replace it with the 24-105 without even thinking about it.[/edit]
Last edited:
Do you use a full frame camera BigAl?
BigAl-sa
Executive Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
I'm on crop, but my BiL has a 5d2 with a 24-105, and I've used that combo several times. 24mm on the 5d has a wider FoV than 18mm on a crop camera, without the perspective distortion.
Agreed, the 24-105 is really an ideal full frame focal length - too wide for me on crop though. Which is why I think the 15-85 is a good crop range, effectively 24-136 FF equivalent. I used to be zoom crazy, but I've come to appreciate the value of good width on your "everyday lens".
hilton
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,807
SiriS said:
I'm not understanding this SiRiS, what do you mean by 'zoom crazy'? Do you prefer the better range of the 15-85 with the downside of the smaller maximum aperture coupled with a good fast prime over the 17-55 which has less of a focal range but is 2/3 faster on the wide end and 2 stops faster on the long end but still not as fast as a prime?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 89,378
Sure you didn't get that bass ackwards?
Personally I can't imagine life without my sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM.
It's obviously personal preference (and I'm not a pro, not close), but I prefer using primes when light/situation/DOF requirement really dictates a very large aperture. For the rest I prefer a flexible focal range for everyday use and 55mm is too short for me. I've also started using flash a bit more (upgraded from 270EX to 430 EX II recently), which further decreases my need for big or constant apertures (when needed for weak lighting).
As an aside, flash is a complete subject on its own. It's quite a challenge to use properly and I have lots to learn. But you can get remarkable results with it. It's fun!
With regards to the "zoom" thing, what I meant was that initially I wanted to zoom in on everything, and the longer zoom available the better. These days I hardly use my zoom lenses and find 85mm sufficient for the majority of situations - especially with the ability to crop on a 18megapixel sensor, probably giving you an effective 35mm equivalent zoom of at least 85 x 1.6 x 2 = 272mm. I've started to appreciate the wide side more - I would never sacrifice the 15mm for 24mm for instance. And the difference between 15mm and 17/18mm is more than you'd expect.
So in short, the focal length is the more important variable for me when choosing a everyday lens, with the wide side more important than the long side.