badboy

I have seen some really good adivce on this board regarding lenses. They are scattered in multiple threads and are hard to find. For future lens conversations we can use this thread.

Some things this thread can be used for:

Lens reviews (needed, or sharing)
Lens recommendations
Lens Q&A
Lens purchasing Q&A
Lens deals/rebates
Lens news



Not sure if this is a good idea. Only replies will tell.

badboy

I'll start with the following pic.



Considering the above two lenses:
Canon 17-40L
Canon 70-400 f4L

In my quest of keeping post processing to a minumum, I want to get a lens that provides accurate color/good contrast/is very sharp. Hence, the L lenes which, from the many reviews I have read, provide all those things. Having L lenses for the price above is not bad either.

I know some members who have these lenses in their kits, or had them once. It would be great if I can see real life pictures taken from the above lenses.

fdl

Seems like a good idea to me

So .. anyone care to offer reviews on the lenses they have, or have owned in the past?

Bdog

3 lens recommendations if you own a Canon or Nikon.

I'll be the first to say the Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens is the best "walk around" lens for the money, espically if you have a kit lens also. $349.00

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

If you have no lenses, the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] would be a good choice also. $ 449.00

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation


Then if not going with Canon or Nikon for a 70-200mm f/2.8, I'd get a Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus. $749.95

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;j...200F28DCA%3D29

fdl

Thanks. Whats strange is that up here the Tamron 17-50 is considerably cheaper than the 28-75

dom

Good idea badboy. And great timing. I spent alot of time last week searching for lens info.

wackjum

Your pic said canon 70-200 but you said 70-400. I'm sure you meant 200 as there is no L 70-400 to the best of my knowledge.

I used to shoot Canon before I sold my equipment off. I had a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8. Both were excellent lenses. I did not have the 70-200 IS. I would recommend that although it will be a bit more. On a cropped body, the 70-200 becomes even more useful. It was my most used lens. It was very sharp wide open throughout the range.

I just realized now that you posted looking for reviews on a 70-200 f4. I haven't had any direct experience with that lens, but I would think most of what I said remains true. F4 is a little slow though. When I was shooting at 200 handheld, I would tend to use 2.8 to keep shutter speeds high. F4 might not be fast enough to have handholdable speeds at 200. Although this would only be an issue depending on what you photograph.


I second Bdog's recommendation of the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8. That is a very good lens for less money. It does tend to emphasize yellowish hues in pictures. You might want to try it out to see if this is true on Canon bodies. Sigma will be coming out with an OS version of that lens very soon so you might want to wait a little.

moeronn

I just purchased the 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f4/L and have been pretty happy with them so far. These are the only two lenses I own at the moment and I think I may need to add something for a general walk-around. If you know you're going to be shooting landscapes, then having the 17-40 is great. If you know you'll be shooting wildlife, then the 70-200 is great (if you don't have something longer). But when traveling and walking around just shooting, I find myself wanting to switch lenses way too frequently. I'm considering just adding a 1.4 converter to the 17-40 to see if that covers it.

Dan Martin

You can't phyiscally use a 1.4x converter on the 17-40, it will interfere with the rear element.

badboy

wackjum, you're right, it was a typo. I meant to type 70-200.

The canon rebates also help with these two lenses. The total would be reduced by 160 more if I get both.

Dan Martin

I used to own the 17-40 f4L and I still own the 70-200 f4L. Both are excellent optics that will serve you well for many years. They're sharp, extremely well built, and focus quickly.

I wasn't blown away by the sharpness of the 17-40, but it's still sharper than most wide angles. The EF-S 10-22 I replaced it with is a little sharper in the 17-22 range than the 17-40.

If you'd like samples of the 17-40, all of the wide-angle shots in this set were taken with that lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/acurazinedan/sets/1801412/
I can send you crops of originals if necessary.

My 70-200 gets a lot of use at races and it's a gem of a lens. It's lightweight, very robust, and focuses very quickly. If you ask me, Canon is charging too little for this lens. It really should be up in the $800US range, with the IS version a couple hundred more. It's an absolute steal at $570.

For recent samples, check out this set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/acurazi...7594267531891/

srika

exactly what I was thinking

Stapler

It's also durable, I dropped my 70-200 running accross a 2 lane highway (wow two stupid things in one action). It still works fine.

srika

ouch. nice to hear it still works!

Bdog

I've never seen the 17-50 f/2.8 for under $400, while the 28-75 f2.8 is pushing $300. How much are you seeing it for in CA?

moeronn

That's a bummer, but better to find out now.

Not sure what the reason is, but it seems the 17-40 jumped $50 in price over the last couple of weeks.

fdl

17-50 is around $479 CDN, while the 28-75 is about $100 more. Strange.

fdl

is the IS option worth the usual couple hundred more?

Dan Martin

If you're talking about the EF-S 17-55 vs the Tamron 17-50, then there are quite a few differences between them:
- Optically, the EF-S is sharper and has less CA ("purple fringing").
- It has a USM focusing motor so it's very fast and virtually silent.
- The IS feature lets you shoot 2 to 3 stops slower than you normally would be able to hand hold.
- Lastly, since Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron all reverse-engineer the signals sent from the body to the lens, there's no guarantee they'll work on future bodies. Some people have had to send in older Sigma lenses to be reflashed to work with their newer bodies.

Overall, I'd say the difference is justified, but I could still easily live with the Tamron.

dom

What about the 70-200 f4L?

moeronn

The IS version ($1250) is actually more than twice the price in the non-IS f4 ($580). That's a HUGE difference and I couldn't justify it. At that point, I'd probably just go for the f2.8 IS, though it would be heavier.

*Prices above are from B&H

Dan Martin

^^ This is why I say the 70-200 f4 non-IS is underpriced.

If it was $800 and the IS version was ~$1100, the difference would easily be justified. Right now the IS price is a little high because it was just released, but it will drop to $1100 mark quickly in the new year.

As it is, the non-IS version is such a bargain that I would have a hard time recommending the IS version. You can get a nice tripod setup for the difference and use it for all your lenses.

moeronn

The f4 non-IS is well priced. All of the other lenses are priced too high

LacViet

This website reviews most of the Canon, Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma lens. It's very helpful for deciding which lens should get even it's a little more technical/scientific data.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

jon_g

Anyone have any comments or reviews on the cheap Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II? I have found myself taking a lot of indoor pictures and would love the speed of this 1.8. I also love the bokeh (think that's the correct word) I have seen in sample pics.
Currently I just have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I figure if I get the 50mm, I would use the 18-55mm outdoors.

BTW, great thread, perfect for us beginners.

Stapler

It looks like that site linked above has a review of it.

I remember on the canon forums it was the first lense people would reccomend when asked though It's like 70-80 bucks has danged good performance. I think in another thread I mentioned that now a days it is the lense that stays on my camera the most, even outdoors or any time that doesn't require a wide angle really.

The build quality is what you would expect for that cheap of a lense. It's all plastic, even the mount. The focus on it is whatever non usm is. In low light without my flash on to bling the a focusing light it will hunt around a bit, but if there is enough light to take a picture at 1/40th of a seccond shutter at around f2 with the iso at 800 It usually works well enough.

I think in many ocasions a fast lense allone won't help you out too much indoors. Namely when there are multipul people and different distances from the camera. Drunk people don't take direction too well, and f1.8 gives quite a narrow depth of field. I do prefer a good flash and a low white ceiling.

srika

how is the DOF on that 50 1.8?

srika

found the answer on Amazon... damn.

Stapler

mmm measurebating.

Osamu

i just bought the 50mm 1.8 too

I bought it used for $60 shipped including a hoya UV(0) filter.
I haven't really gotten a chance to use it much yet, but so far it'd seem to be a good portraits lens. I ususally like to use wider angle lens', so i'll probably be saving for the tamron 17-50 next, since i hate my current walk-around lens. But for indoor portrait it seems good and pretty sharp, although I haven't really uploaded any of the pictures i've taken yet. The AF is pretty loud, but that really doesn't bother me, and focuses faster than my really old kit lens (28-90). I haven't found the DOF to be of a problem yet, but again, i haven't used it in many situations yet. I'd say it's easily worth the money, and so far i don't feel any need to upgrade to the 1.4, but I have no money, for a very expensive hobby.

Bdog

Here's 21,435 pics taken with a 50mm f1.8 II http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_50_18ii for everyones review. I think pbase is one of the best photography sites out there. Not many comments on lenses, but lots of pictures taken from the average photographer to the pro on just about every camera and lens made.

www.pbase.com

List of all camera's and lenses
http://www.pbase.com/cameras

Dan Martin

Lenses
This guy owns (or has owned) practically every lens in the Canon lineup: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
This one gives funky interactive 3-D charts to play with: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
Very thorough comparisons of portrait lenses: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm
Mentioned earlier, but I'll add it to my list too: http://www.photozone.de

Not a review site, but useful for figuring out the field of view of a lens: http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm


General Gear Reviews
Digital Photography Review: http://www.dpreview.com
Steve's Digicams: http://www.steves-digicams.com
Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Dan Martin

This is the first mistake most newbies make when they look at the first shots out of their new DSLR. When you get the shot on your computer and zoom in 100%, don't freak out when you see a little blur. Most people take a shot with the kit lens and when they see what their shots look like at 100%, they immediately start looking for a replacement.

No lens, regardless of price, is perfectly sharp at 100% zoom on your screen.

Your screen displays photos at much larger size than you would normally print. At 100% zoom, an 8MP photo will be displayed at the equivalent size of a 32"x48" print. Most people don't print bigger than letter size, so don't get concerned when your screen is showing you the equivalent of a print that is four feet long. Any of the image defects at this enormous size will not be visible in prints 12x18 or smaller. I printed a 12x18 frame from my old Digital Rebel last weekend and people I've shown it to so far could not tell that it came from a digital camera. I can see defects on the screen at 100%, but they simply aren't visible in the print, even with a loupe.

So if you're looking to test a lens or a body, go out there and shoot what you normally shoot. When you get back, print some of your shots at the largest you're likely to print and take note of what you see. If you see something you don't like in the print, then make a change. Don't change things just because it looks a little fuzzy in photoshop.

fdl

Dan, does the same hold true for noise? I.E. The bigger the resolution, the more noise to be expected?

Dan Martin

Adorama has the 70-200 f4L IS for $1038 with free shipping: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm...&s=electronics

It didn't take long for that price to drop.

Dan Martin

The larger you print, the more noise you'll see. However, today's DSLR's are less noisy than the equivalent speed in film, so if you're used to printing an ISO 400 film frame at a certain size, a print from a digital ISO 400 frame will be cleaner.

I'm not sure if that answers your question though.

Bdog

As Dan answered, noise is basically made by what ISO setting your using (higher ISO,usually more noise) , but viewing a pic at full resolution you may see the noise more compared to a smaller view.

The pic here was taken yesterday at the 2006 Billboard Awards with a EOS1DMkII. A pro took it and I'd assume the best lens you can buy. View it at a normal size on your desktop it looks pretty good, view full screen you can see a lot of noise and how soft the pic actually is. I don't have EXIF data, but the author did liste the camera used.

http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_428lo.jpg

waTSX

I'll cast a vote for the EF-S 17-55 as an excellent walk around lens option (on crop bodies). I had the chance to test mine out extensively for the first time Sunday at the Seattle Motorcycle Show, and I came away impressed.

-Excellent sharpness
-Excellent background blur (bokeh)
-The IS on this lens works very well
-The AF is very fast and accurate
-Color and contrast are very good also
-Good sharpness at f2.8. Stop down to f4 and beyond and sharpness is outstanding for a zoom lens
-Constant aperture

Check here for some of the shots I took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/27273803@N00/
All shots taken handheld @ f4, ISO 800, in RAW mode, with shutter speeds ranging from 1/10 to 1/125, with most of the shutter speeds on the slower side due to lighting. Minor exposure tweaking in ACR, some minor levels and USM in PSE, with zero noise reduction done. They really didn't need much at all.

The lens isn't cheap, but paired with the EF-S 10-22, I think you end up with a very good everyday combo that is both compact and light compared to other options.

Highly recommended.

fdl

Ya, I was just wondering if grain or noise seen at a full resolution (10 MP shot) would be much less noticeable in a print, say 8x10 or smaller.

badboy

I would prefer to get the ef-s 17-55 over the ef 17-40 L, but it might be out of my budget.