Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums > TrekEarth Forum Home > General

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:20 PM
jinju jinju is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,064
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

thanx for the info on the Sigma. I want just that, something great for low light. But I think I will still go for the 17-40 and buy the f/1.8 50mm which is something Ive seen used by Francis I believe for some low light photography. Btw, how much is the Sigma?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:04 PM
mlopes mlopes is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,070
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Here in Portugal, you can get the sigma for +/- 500 (600$). The Canon f1.8 50mm really rocks, i'm having lots of fun, and it's wonderfull for close portraits also.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-13-2005, 05:14 PM
gringofil gringofil is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 288
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

If you're going to save money on lenses you might as well get a 350D and call it a day. Lenses are the backbone of every system...stick to Canon and not third party (Tamron, Tokina and Sigma are cheaper but not as good as the real deal). The lenses you will keep for ages...your 20D will be obsolete the minute you walk out of the photo shop (think of it like a computer).

Also, stay away from the "all-in-one" lenses. I don't see a point to shooting with an 18-300mm lens (or whatever) as the picture quality, AF speed and overall contrast/sharpness are below par. Get your self some good "L" glass (like the 17-40) and trust me...you'll be happy. Sure it costs more, but at the end of the day you'll end up saving money when the cheaper lens will not work as you would want it to. I've used third party before (Tokina)...I've used long zooms (28-135mm from Canon), but ended up with a 2 lens set-up that suits my needs (and I should have done that in the first place...wasted some major cash along the way).

Get a 20D and a 17-40...later the 50...that's all you really need.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-13-2005, 05:22 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

HI rafal

welcome to the force
we are getting stronger and stronger adn we welcome you

the 50mm/1.8 is a MUST!
I purchased it by 70USD and it rocks!
the bokeh is so nice for 70usd, it is "the third world budget bokeh", AS SEEN ON TREKEARTH

please check the results here

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/South_America/Paraguay/photo265335.htm

this is part of an advertizing, AS SEEN ON TE!

(TREKEARTH)

:D

And you will need a telephoto too, maybe a 200mm will do well
You wille easily have to spend uhmmm maybe 650USD as minimum, but as Filip mentioned, your 20D will be at the trash bin and your lenses will remain...as long as you treat them well

enjoy the experience and welcome to the force!

K.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-13-2005, 05:34 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

ahhh I forgot to mention you, theres is a 85mm/1.8 which is a MONSTER!

That is the one Furachan (francis) and Luko use, and they said to me very nice words regarding it,

But the price is a Bit higher, more than 400USD.

K.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-13-2005, 08:31 PM
kinginexile kinginexile is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,537
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

totally agree with you, Filip. if it's to save 4 or 500 $/e, yes, but only 200, better go for the top of the line which has proven its worth, like the 17-40 (should be 600$ more or less, with hood).

The 50 1.8 is good quality/price ratio, no doubt, but I find it too telephoto (80mm on 1.6X factor 20D) for interior, and portrait+context street shots. Plus, it hunts in low light.

17-85 IS has good reviews, but IMO, the 17-40L(pretty much a 28-70 on 1x6) for the same price basically, will have you work better on your compo, and certainly delivers quality you want for prints. I just used primed (fixed) lenses lately, zooming with my feet, much improvement in all manners, contact with subject ("going for the shot", whereas zoom seems always an excuse for not getting closer 90% of the time), compo handling, and of course low light shot possibility, as my primes are MUCH faster than my zoom.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-13-2005, 10:18 PM
Yamada Yamada is offline
TE Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 59
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Hi Rafal,

I got a 350D/RebelXT and I mainly use two lenses. The first is the Canon EF-S 17-85 USM IS. Awesome sharpness and the image stabaliser works very well. A bit expensive (aound euro 600) but definatly worth it imo. My other lens is just new (bought it yesterday) and is the Canon EF 70-300 USM IS. Today I tried to get a shot of the moon and I can actually see the craters in it. So i'm very pleased with both lenses. A friend got a Sigma 80-200, but wasn't that pleased. at 300mm his shots tend to get unsharp. So depending on what you're looking for (knowing your style you don't need a zoom) you might wanna consider the 17-85.
Anyway, that about all I know on lenses :)
Hope you have an easy pick.
Regards, Frank
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-13-2005, 10:28 PM
MKING MKING is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 376
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Check out the Canon 85mm f/1.2L-- that makes the monster 1.8 seem like a midget. An 85 + wide-normal zoom makes for a good twin lens set. That's what I'm using on film (20-35mm + 105mm)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-14-2005, 03:05 AM
gravatar gravatar is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

You could always add that 10-22mm or a 20mm prime for wide shots.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-14-2005, 03:15 AM
gravatar gravatar is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Well, the 17-85mm, though not fast has IS on it. However, you will also pay almost as much as the 17-40L. I use the special Silver version of the 24-85mm lens. That particular lens was made separately from the regular 24-85mm lenses. It is reputed to have better glass. As I only have used the silver, I can't say for sure, but I have been pleased with the results. Max aperature is only 3.5 though. Still, not bad for $200 in almost mint used condition. That would a good zoom lens which could be supplimented with either a 50mm or 35mm prime which are both fast. I love my 50mm, but as it functions more like an 85mm, you may find the 35mm prime more useful. Perhaps the 10-22mm for when you need to do wide angle. Hope that helps.

Grav

Grav
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 AM.



explore TREKEARTH