Lens advice wanted

[WhiteD3]

Hiya,

I'll be purchasing a 450D or 500D in the next few weeks. Having read many reviews and comments I gather the lens' that can come packaged with the camera are of average quality, so the search is on for better lens' which don't cost the earth.

I would appreciate some advice on what features/quality to look at when comparing different priced lens'.

FYI I'll be looking for a wide angle for landscapes and an allrounder zoom to start with.

Thanks.

[dmdigital]

You should be buying a Nikon:p

OK got that off my chest...

As for the lenses, kit lenses with any entry DSLR are OK but slow and not built to last. In Canon L-series are the ones to get but cost lots of $'s.

It really depends on what you want to shoot. For example I tend to use a 24-70 most of the time. If image quality isn't high priority then an 18-250 range zoom lens is a good general purpose one.

What to look for in a lens:
Good wide aperture for suitable DOF.
Fast and smooth focusing that doesn't hunt.
Robust zoom that doesn't creep.
Not to heavy for the camera mount. Some of the pro-glass is just to heavy for the entry level camera bodies.

There's another way to look at this. All the EXIF data of pictures you take includes the lens and focal length information. From this you can build up a count of the most common focal lengths you use and buy accordingly. Hence my next lens will most likely be an 85mm prime - here's hoping Nikon updates the 85 f/1.4 soon.

[Bushie]

There's another way to look at this. All the EXIF data of pictures you take includes the lens and focal length information. From this you can build up a count of the most common focal lengths you use and buy accordingly. Hence my next lens will most likely be an 85mm prime - here's hoping Nikon updates the 85 f/1.4 soon.

Somewhere on the net you will find a utility that you can point at a folder and it will export all the exif data into an excel spreadsheet, I used to have it on my old PC but I haven't been able to relocate it yet :(. It was good because with very little work you could see what focal length etc most of your pics were taken.


Martyn

[dmdigital]

Somewhere on the net you will find a utility that you can point at a folder and it will export all the exif data into an excel spreadsheet, I used to have it on my old PC but I haven't been able to relocate it yet :(. It was good because with very little work you could see what focal length etc most of your pics were taken.


Martyn
I just set up several smart albums in aperture to group by focal length and noted down the number of shots in each category.

[clean32]

Len's not home man :D:D

[WhiteD3]

Len's not home man :D:D

Shouldn't you be off somewhere else upsetting christians?:wasntme:

[dmdigital]

Shouldn't you be off somewhere else upsetting christians?:wasntme:
Don't think Christian's home either:wasntme:



Now can we go back to talking about Cameras and Lenses - PLEASE!

[inside]

FYI I'll be looking for a wide angle for landscapes and an allrounder zoom to start with.
As with most things it comes down to $. I don't know Canon but I assume they have a professional range of lenses and if you want great shots then buy these. It really is a case of spend the most amount of money you can on the lens as it almost always equals better quality.

I'm with Pentax and started off with a 16-50mm zoom which is f2.8 throughout the zoom range and weather proof so shooting in the rain isn't an issue. 16mm is just considered wide angle so OK for landscapes and the rest is great for catching an active toddler. Off course you then get LBA (Lens Buyers Addiction) which can lead to an empty pocket and many arguments with the other half while you try and explain that you really need that 60-250 zoom.

Maybe Canon has something similar to PENTAX Photo Gallery (http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home) so you can see shots taken with the various lenses.

[clean32]

Shouldn't you be off somewhere else upsetting christians?:wasntme:

i thought i was upsetting the creationists.


sorry on my and Whites behalf for the mini hijack, we will go back to battle in the correct thread.
:)

[olemandave]

Hi,
Take a look here you will find everything you want to know.

Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php)

[loanrangie]

I have a sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 on my Eos 30D , good range and with F2.8 at 17mm is handy in low light, i was going to buy a canon 17-85 but all reviews i read said it was average and the packaged 18-55 isnt worth the plastic its made from. The IS 18-55 has good reviews but the siggy won it for me and didnt break the bank.

[slug_burner]

If you buy L series glass you will never go back to anything else. I ended up buying a couple of L series lenses, on one occassion my wife needed to use one of them so I went back to the packaged lense than came with the second camera body, it was not a pinch on the L.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

You should be buying a Nikon:p

OK got that off my chest...


As someone who owns a Nikon FM, Nikon F100 (both now worthless), and a Nikon D80, why do you say that? I thought the Nikon/Canon stuff was like the Mazda/Honda debate?

Canon have some nice cameras at the moment with much higher resolution than the Nikons.

This question is not intended as a stir - just asking :)

[dmdigital]

As someone who owns a Nikon FM, Nikon F100 (both now worthless), and a Nikon D80, why do you say that? I thought the Nikon/Canon stuff was like the Mazda/Honda debate?

Canon have some nice cameras at the moment with much higher resolution than the Nikons.

This question is not intended as a stir - just asking :)
Firstly resolution isn't everything. More pixels is not the entire solution with present sensor technology. Secondly - and this is personal - I hate Canon ergonomics on their DSLR's. The Nikon's just feel right in my hands, the Canon's do not.

Also Canon are like Toyota in marketing and market presence so everyone thinks they are great and they created the DSLR revolution. When in fact it was Nikon released the first commercial DSLR - D1. Canon's EOS300D was the first low end consumer unit.

Another point is it's always fun to stir up Canon owners, their usually as sensitive about their cameras as Land Cruiser owners about their 4WD:twisted:

Finally though I must admit Canon makes some good gear. The EOS 450D/500D is on par with the Nikon D60. Both makes have very ordinary kit lenses, although from what I've seen I think the Nikon may be slightly better quality. Pro-series lenses though are excellent and each manufacturer has a few models that the other doesn't unfortunately.

At the end of the day it comes down to what's affordable and what you are comfortable using. Once you start buying expensive glass you are usually staying with that brand.

[loanrangie]

:D:Dnikon is like a landcruiser, everyone thinks they are the best but we know better

[loanrangie]

L glass is nice but for a low spec body is unconomical and not many can justify the expense.

[PSi]

Finally though I must admit Canon makes some good gear. The EOS 450D/500D is on par with the Nikon D60. Both makes have very ordinary kit lenses, although from what I've seen I think the Nikon may be slightly better quality. Pro-series lenses though are excellent and each manufacturer has a few models that the other doesn't unfortunately.



Just to add to this, I've been on both sides. Mainly lower end Nikon in the days of film but the 300D made me cross over, and immediately got two of the cheap lenses.
But the moment the D70 came out, I sold all my Canon stuff and switched back.
The Nikon body and kit lens (18-70) felt like real cameras/lenses, unlike the dinky Canon.
Since then, I have moved up the Nikon food chain to a D700, and I agree that both sides have excellent mid to high end bodies and pro lenses, but I still believe that Canon kit stuff are kid stuff.
I still use and prefer Canon P&S.

[WhiteD3]

Here's an example of what I mean: To my untrained eye these three are basically equivalent but the prices vary greatly.

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3:5-5:6 IS = $639
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS Lens Lenses (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2214)

Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS = $485
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS Lenses (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2391)

Tamron AF 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) = $395
Tamron AF 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lenses (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2390)

As an aside, I found that on this site buying a 450D and the lens separately is $150 cheaper than the identical kit!

[Slunnie]

I think the biggest difference they hack user will find is by changing to a quality lens, not to a more expensive body.

My opinion is to go to L glass (with the red ring) and go cheaper on the body. The other non L glass that is excellent is the EF-S 10-22 but this cant be used on full frame.

This is what I did:

EOS-350D
EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 (recommended by one of the journos from Overlander)
24-70 f2.8L
70-200 f2.8L

Very happy.

[dmdigital]

The three lenses you mention are very similar, only significant differences are the Tamron isn't optically stabilised and the Canon is slightly faster at the maximum zoom. Quality wise I suspect the Canon is the better made.

I have the Nikon 18-200 and it is a good general purpose lens and if you want one lens on the camera and don't want to be swapping it, aren't worried about the speed of focus or looking for the sharpest image then any of the 18-200+ lenses will do the trick. If you want a bit more though you need to look at the internal focus Sigma or Canon L-series zooms or a prime lens.

Have a look here it may help: Lens Reviews: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/#type)

[Slunnie]

True, for verstility my Tamron 18-200 and 28-300's are excellent. Its just that the pic quality isn't there, especially with a lot of zoom being used. The L glass is miles faster, especially at max zoom. I'm not sure what the Nikon gear is like, but it sounds better than at least the Tamron gear that I have. For starting out gear, these Tamrons are good and flexible.

[dmdigital]

On my D200 I usually shoot with the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 G lens. The equivalent in Canon is (I believe) the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.

If it's even half as good as the Nikon equivalent then this is a great general purpose lens. Not good for wildlife but great for landscapes and portrait. But it is around $2,000. The only real downside is a lens like this isn't really made for the lightweight body of a EOS 450D/500D.

Have you considered the EOS 50D? This is a slightly better build than the 450/500 bodies.

[clean32]

ok on a serial note what lens should i get??

Minime has gotten quite good with our cannon P&S, but i think i need a different sort of lens.

for example we went swimming today but all the pics are misted over and i cant see any thing. now although it took not to much to teach minime to use the camera it would be nice to be able to see the results.
now that he understands to wait until mum is in the shower before he grabs the camera and runs around the women's changing rooms taking pics.

[Timj]

Hi Mark,

I have the EOS350D and when I bought it I got an 18-55 EFS (kit lens) and 55-200 f4.5-5.6. The 18-55 started giving errors after a couple of years but it did take ok photos while I used it. Since then I have bought a 90mm f2.8 Tamron Macro Lens, a Canon 50mm f1.8, a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (similar to the L quality lenses), a 2x Sigma teleconverter and then most recently a Canon 24-105 F4 L.

Most of the time now the 24-105 stays on the camera and I carry them around in a small bag with a spare battery. Carrying everything I have requires a backpack and is not light. Also the 70-200 Sigma lens is very good but is too heavy for a general carry around. The quality of the photos from any of the good lenses is far above anything the kit lens is capable of and to me the 24-105 lens is not too big for the body. The only thing I am now looking for is something for the wide end as this lens does miss out slightly there so something like the Canon 10-22. We have other cameras in the family that take good photos (point and shoot types) but we have taken quite a few photos where both cameras took an almost identical shot and when you put them side by side you can really see why the good lens is worth it. The other problem with these lenses and cameras is that while they are comfortable in my hand my wife finds them too heavy and prefers the point and shoot.

I think it would be a good lens with the 500D as it would provide enough optical data for the sensor. I have not needed a faster lens for a while but I do have the others if I need them. Only problem is that the value of the lenses I have far exceeds the value of the body. I am trying to find some really convincing reason to upgrade to the 500D but this one keeps taking good photos with the L lens.

So my advice would be to buy the best quality of lens that you can afford, go and talk to someone like Photo Continental and tell them the price you can buy things for online and they may bring their price down near it. CR Kennedy who import the Sigma gear used to have a promise on their web site that they would match the prices of any grey importer if you could produce proof of the price and they came very close for me on the 70-200 through Photo Continental.

Also if you want to have a play with the big lenses give me a call and come and try them out.

TimJ.

[Bushie]

CR Kennedy who import the Sigma gear used to have a promise on their web site that they would match the prices of any grey importer if you could produce proof of the price and they came very close for me on the 70-200 through Photo Continental.

TimJ.

Price match is still there.

Price match (http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465&pageRef=179&CFID=75998&CFTOKEN=67855260)


Martyn

[300+]

I recently upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which is a good improvement over my Sony kit lens. It is a little larger & heavier, but what do you expect for a 2.8? It is still fine for carrying around all day.

I don't have a good answer for the longer end. I am thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but as TimJ notes they are a bit heavy to carry around. My existing 75-300 is a decent quality lens (as kit lenses go), but a little slow.

I need another wildlife holiday to justify an upgrade :)

Cheers, Steve

[Yorkshire_Jon]

Not much more to say on this really...

I would agree that its better to invest in Good Lenses. Canon L series lenses just makes everything else look ordinary. I now have the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS. Prior to that Ive have various other non 'L' glass and now I wouldnt consider anything else if theres an L equivelant.

Im currently looking for something wide that will fit on a full frame and also a 350D, so the EF-S are out, otherwise Id be going for the 10-22 mentioned earlier. I am seriously considering the 16-35 L, though not the f2.8 as I dont think I can justify the extra $$.

To try and put it in perspective... Id rather buy a used 350D and perhaps the 24-105 L glass rather than a new 500D with an average lens. For the most part the older body and L glass will give better pictures.

Derek was right with the comment he made about the lens / body weight though... For example I know that the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is too heavy for a 350D body to be nicely balanced - still works with excellent results though.

Hope that helps.
Jon

[dmdigital]

Derek was right with the comment he made about the lens / body weight though... For example I know that the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is too heavy for a 350D body to be nicely balanced - still works with excellent results though.
It's not the balance, rather the weight of the lens and the forces it places on the mounting ring and the body of the camera. The higher end SLR's have always had much stronger mounts and now days the low end DSLR's are a very light weight body and so you need to be careful. Best thing is if you use a heavy lens on a low end body is to only pick everything up by the lens.

[Taz]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the new Canon EF-S 15-85. Nice focal range. Image quality kinda sits between the kit lens and an L series. No good for a full frame body thou if your thinking an upgrade may be on the cards down the track. For info: I tested a 500D with 18-55 kit lens versus a 20D against a professional USAF resolution chart. The 20D (8MP) resolved down to the 4 line pairs per mm element, the 500D (18MP) down to 4.49. ie about 10% better. That suggests to me that the 500D is crying out for better glass.Then again you might be pushing the friendship with diffraction limitations.

[Yorkshire_Jon]

It's not the balance, rather the weight of the lens and the forces it places on the mounting ring and the body of the camera. The higher end SLR's have always had much stronger mounts and now days the low end DSLR's are a very light weight body and so you need to be careful. Best thing is if you use a heavy lens on a low end body is to only pick everything up by the lens.

The mounting issue is very true and its wise advice to pick up with the lens. However, forewarned is forearmed and whilst not great I still maintain its better to go for the better lenses and cheaper body. If your careful the mount isnt too much of an issue - the out of balance though is a more noticable - perhaps not so much because of the weight, perhaps because the lower end bodies tend to be physically smaller than the high end's and the better lenses bigger!?!? Maybe its just me!

24-70 f2.8L on a 5D MkII - thats the way to go... Just expect a month's silent treatment from the boss for spending the $$$$!!

[dmdigital]

24-70 f2.8L on a 5D MkII - thats the way to go... Just expect a month's silent treatment from the boss for spending the $$$$!!
Just spend enough on the DSLR body... trust me all I keep hearing now is: "You are not buying another lenses":( I'd love to get a 200-400 Nikkor next, but I'm not letting that one out of the back for at least 6 months.

[slug_burner]

Not much more to say on this really...

I would agree that its better to invest in Good Lenses. Canon L series lenses just makes everything else look ordinary. I now have the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS. Prior to that Ive have various other non 'L' glass and now I wouldnt consider anything else if theres an L equivelant.

Im currently looking for something wide that will fit on a full frame and also a 350D, so the EF-S are out, otherwise Id be going for the 10-22 mentioned earlier. I am seriously considering the 16-35 L, though not the f2.8 as I dont think I can justify the extra $$.

To try and put it in perspective... Id rather buy a used 350D and perhaps the 24-105 L glass rather than a new 500D with an average lens. For the most part the older body and L glass will give better pictures.

Derek was right with the comment he made about the lens / body weight though... For example I know that the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is too heavy for a 350D body to be nicely balanced - still works with excellent results though.

Hope that helps.
Jon

Jon,

I run those three L lenses on a Rebel XTi and a 400D (I got one O/S) both the same camera body. The camera itself is very popular with lady photographers as the smaller body suits the smaller hands. I use a battery grip which provides extra battery capacity as well a something a little extra to get my hands around on. I have not felt any balance issues.


It's not the balance, rather the weight of the lens and the forces it places on the mounting ring and the body of the camera. The higher end SLR's have always had much stronger mounts and now days the low end DSLR's are a very light weight body and so you need to be careful. Best thing is if you use a heavy lens on a low end body is to only pick everything up by the lens.

Derek,

The mounting ring and its attachment to the camera does not really present a problem. The 70-200/f2.8 has its own tripod mounting ring and when used free hand you have to use one hand under the lens anyway. You would need very strong wrists to work against the leveraging of any long lens if you solely wanted to hold the setup by the camera body only, the mount is not an issue.

[dmdigital]

You would need very strong wrists to work against the leveraging of any long lens if you solely wanted to hold the setup by the camera body only, the mount is not an issue.
You mean like when you forget and pick it up by the body as you move it aside. All I'm saying is it can cause problems. It's something both Nikon and Canon lower end DSLR's suffer from.

I shoot my 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor more often than not off tripod. I don't always carry it by the lens barrel, but I hold it there when shooting.