Forum: Arts / Photography - Artistic

Photography - Artistic
OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By imadancer2member has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 2400, member since Wed Nov 30, 2005
On Mon Dec 27, 2010 09:57 PM
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 21:59:50
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:01:44
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:10:54
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:13:25
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:20:48 Getting rid of #2...I just hate the idea of f/4, sorry
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:21:11
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:21:34
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-27 22:49:16

Had to post an image - which is my 50 1.4 the day I got it, so it does have something to do with it I guess. :]

I'm really stuck deciding between lenses and am turning to anyone who wants to give me an opinion on here.

SO where I'm at/what lenses I'm comparing.

All Canon versions (sorry - I'm a snob and would rather spend more money for the Canon glass)

This is keeping in mind I WILL have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM one day when my dreams come true.

1. 24-70 f/2.8L ($1280)
2. 24-105 f/4L IS ($1049)
3. 17-55 f/2.8 IS ($1040)

The good, the bad, the confusing.

#1. Good: f/2.8. GREAT actually. I shoot far too much in crappy lighting conditions that I don't have control over. It's also "L" series so basically it's going to live forever.
BAD: No IS, which I originally thought was a ploy from Canon to get you to spend more, but as it turs out it actually makes a difference.
I'm a hand-held kind of person, but I love my tripod as well. Primarily I think I am more hand-held though, so I could use the IS.
It's also really heavy at just over 2lbs, so not the most user-friendly "walk around" lens/bring with me everywhere lens.

#2: Good: has IS. "L" series. MUCH lighter. Extra focal length compared to #1
Bad: f/4. :(
Since I have the 50 1.4 now, I really realize how wonderful it is to be able to stop down. Also, since I'll eventually have my dream 70-200, there would be some focal length overlap, although not completely because of the aperture would be different. I don't want to find myself not using it as a 24-70 instead of 24-105 because the 70-200 would be able to stop down to 2.8 (I hope that makes sense, that's one of my main issues with it).


#3. Good: Read WONDERFUL things about the sharpness. At corresponding focal lengths and apertures, to be even better to #1 on a crop-body. Also from what I've read the image quality is of a "L" series lens, it's simply missing the metal body of durability and weight and the famous red ring.
Bad news, #3 isn't compatible with full-frame bodies. Which means if I ever go full-frame, there goes $1000. It's specifically made for the crop-bodies, which I obviously have, but on a full frame, there is MAJOR vignetting. It also isn't an "L" and has some bad reviews in terms of dust getting in very easily.


I know I may sound really ahead of myself in a lot of way, but I really do want to cover all of my bases.

On top of this, I could just obviously go for the crazy dream 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM at the good 'ol price of $2000. (Seriously I am going to have more money in camera stuff than anything else. I could have had a car by now - my priorities are pretty awesome). But who I am to have that lens? One very enthused hobbyist. That's seriously crazy, and I know it.

The main thing that really doesn't make sense about getting that now though is the fact that even using my 50mm I feel like I have to back up a lot of shoot. I guess I'm often reflecting shooting styles that require me to just be present. If I'm sitting with a group of people, I want to be able to shoot them and not have to get up and back away 30 feet.

SO. I want to stop down. CHECK.
I want wide angle. CHECK.
I want it to be worth it. Ehhhhh...
#3 would be so wonderfully perfect if it was an L so I wouldn't have the dust problem. But I guess if I never took it off my camera, it would be fine, haha

One last edit, please ignore that I keep saying "stopping down" when I really mean the opposite. I mean lowering the f/stop #, not narrowing the opening. I'm wrong, sorry!

8 Replies to OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!

re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By pondflyPremium member Comments: 1099, member since Thu Dec 24, 2009
On Tue Dec 28, 2010 01:18 AM
I had #3 until yesterday when I sold it off. I did some great pics with it. I agree with your dream lens, but I never had the money for that either.
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By Kathymember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 10713, member since Wed Mar 05, 2003
On Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:21 AM
I have the 70-200mm from Sigma. I know, I know, you said you´re a snob and want the Canon, but all I can tell you that a PROFESSIONELL photographer told me he himself uses Sigma instead of Canon. He recommended exactly that lense for me. I bought it and I´m 100% happy with it.

So maybe you should rethink your "it must be a Canon" strategy, because you can save such a HUGE amount of money...
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By Chaconnemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 6359, member since Thu Jul 12, 2007
On Tue Dec 28, 2010 08:13 PM
For my digital SLR, the Nikon D-80, I still have only the lenses which came with it...18-55mm and 55-200 and f3.5 is about the max. I do have a small arsenal of Nikon lenses which can fit and work on the camera in a totally manual mode. Not even the metering works with those and they don't autofocus either. But then I'm used to Hasselblads which the one I have didn't have ANY metering. I still have a super-duper Minolta Flash Meter III (which does non flash metering as well and I also have a Luna Pro. So I CAN use my digital the same way I used my film Nikons. I have a couple of 50mm f1.4s several 50mm f1.8s (which are fine, that extra half stop of the 1.4 isn't worth the price differental), 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8,
85mm f2.8 135mm f2.8 and another f4. I used other brands such as Vivitar, Sigma at al for the specialized lenses I have such as a 300mm f5.6 and a 2.8 70-200 zoom (bought used for $100.) I doubt anyone could tell the difference between those and their Nikon equivalents. The Japanese actually have rather strict industry-wide quality programs and most Japanese lenses are optically pretty equal. Some of the 3rd party brands might not be mechanically as rugged, but this was never a problem to me. Drop a Sigma lens on concrete and you will get about the same result as droping a Nikon lens on concrete. (Fortunately I've never done that.)

With my Hasselblad, I never had a lens with more than a f3.5 max...they don't make them, most were smaller. And Hasselblad lenses are $1500 lenses, non-zoom...in the 1970's.

I'm with Pondfly on his "It doesn't have to be "name brand" philosophy...not at those prices.

The other thing to think about is weight. A do-everything lens adds a lot of weight if you are carrying it all day. My solution to this when I was a pro was to hire an assistant to carry my cameras for me, particularly the medium formats cameras I used for weddings ...the 'Blad and I also had a complete Mamaya outfit...2 bodies, five lenses and a huge Metz 60 series flash.
When I was 35, I could carry two Nikon F2's with different lenses around my neck. If I did that now, I'd be in the chiropractors office the next day. Hiring an assistant, of course, isn't practical for most situations.

I cautioned my students about being too lens-happy. The advantage of a low number f-stop lens is NOT so much in the shooting as in the focusing UNLESS you had a really specific need. A sports photographer shooting a night game acutally might need an f2.8 400mm telephoto, but I sure didn't. I couldn't justify the cost. Photography for me became a money making enterprise. Fortunately I got a lot of my equipment when I was an amateur, but when I bought a new lens (and I usually bought them used) the question I always asked was "How much money will this lens make for me?" How many shots would I have to sell to pay it off. This was when I was making close to $2000 pure profit every weekend and closer to $5000 a weekend when I was shooting little league sports stuff. I could justify a $500 flash (in 1980 dollars) because I could pay that off in a few hours of shooting.

Jon
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By pondflyPremium member Comments: 1099, member since Thu Dec 24, 2009
On Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:51 AM
Jon, I'm jealous of the Hasselblad, I have the Calumet 4x6 at my parents house collecting dust.
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By Chaconnemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 6359, member since Thu Jul 12, 2007
On Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:02 AM
LOL I had a view camera for only a brief while...a throw-in with a used package of stuff I once bought. I just couldn't get used to standing on my head to take the photos :P.
Betcha that Calumet was a 4 x 5 though cuz that's the way film and film holder came.

If I were really flush with $$$$, I'd get a digital back for the H-blad.

Jon
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help! (karma: 1)
By imadancer2member has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 2400, member since Wed Nov 30, 2005
On Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:05 PM
Edited by imadancer2 (146568) on 2010-12-29 21:20:24
Okay. So I know I'm quite ridiculous for only wanting Canon glass. I've heard wonderful things about Sigma really, but I still have a problem still spending the crazy amounts of money and then knowing I could possibly regret it way down the road, especially if it's a $500 difference, which I explain a little further down. At this point, I have a completely open opportunity to spend my money while I still can (meaning I'm 17 and live and home and don't have to support myself yet). I know, I know, I'm sorry for coming across that way because I really do sound really spoiled...but I work hard and long to get the money I have so I just really want it to be worth it.

I'm trying to be more conscious of what I shoot, and that being said at this point I think the wider angle side would definitely be a better way to go. I find myself in a lot of close-quarters. Any 70-200 right now would be slightly-to-completely impractical right now.

Also - about the two Sigmas vs the two Canons:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM is $1699
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM being $2,200 (about, I've found a lot of varying prices)
$500 difference

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF is $800.
From what I understand about the main difference, "OS" version above is basically image-stabilization like on the Canon So this one would be more like:
Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 USM without IS, which is $1289, with about a difference $500 difference.
I might be completely wrong there, but that's just what I thought was comparable between the two. And if that's true, I would rather wait and spend the extra $500 for the Canon with IS. But the 70-200 is WAY off in the distance so I'll have plenty of time to really decide what is worth it or not. If I did go with Sigma for that, I would still want the one with "OS" (IS) especially at those long focal lengths. And I think that would be a possibility. But again, I don't think that's a needed at all for me currently.

...

Back to the point:
I think I'm between the 24-70mm 2.8L and the
16-35mm f/2.8L II.
Both don't have IS, but after reading a bunch I realize it's less necessary, especially on the 16-35, because of the shorter focal lengths.
Sigma doesn't make a 16-35 f/2.8 (weird) but they do make two a 24-70 f/2.8 with about a $380 price difference (but lots of focusing issues).

The 16-35:
Although more expensive @ $1420 on BH right now I'm thinking may be the best bet, especially considering I have the 50 1.4. I can get a 24-70 "range" with my 50 by moving, haha, and I do that's for sure. I like moving around a lot and having a prime really showed me to not just stand there. This is also keeping in mind I shoot not thinking I'll crop later to get the extra "reach." That's what feet are for!

It's also not as heavy and slightly shorter in length than the 24-70.
On the negative side, huge filter size of 82mm and the sad high price. And on my crop body, it obviously wouldn't be as wide, which is fine really.

And thank you for helping me work out all of this everyone!

Edit: also having 16-35, 50, and 70-200 would cover a huge range which would be awesome.
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By pondflyPremium member Comments: 1099, member since Thu Dec 24, 2009
On Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:13 PM
I've only had Canon glass with my most recent camera, but I've had the other brands over the years on different bodies.

My one and only suggestion to everyone is spend the money on good glass not a good body. Good body and bad glass still equals bad pics.

Sigma and some of the major players are good for what you need. Take a look in B&H Photo or Calumet Photo for some ideas. I'm a Calumet person as I only live 2 miles from the main office and been going there for over 20 years.
re: OH dear! I'm in need of lens help!
By imadancer2member has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 2400, member since Wed Nov 30, 2005
On Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:18 PM
pondfly wrote:

I've only had Canon glass with my most recent camera, but I've had the other brands over the years on different bodies.

My one and only suggestion to everyone is spend the money on good glass not a good body. Good body and bad glass still equals bad pics.

Sigma and some of the major players are good for what you need. Take a look in B&H Photo or Calumet Photo for some ideas. I'm a Calumet person as I only live 2 miles from the main office and been going there for over 20 years.


I definitely agree with you on the good glass thing. I've heard that a lot :)
And I definitely spend hours on B&H, haha. So much stuff to look at!

ReplySendWatch