Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums > TrekEarth Forum Home > General

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-14-2005, 04:20 AM
gravatar gravatar is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

When you wear out the amazing plastic wonder, try to get one of the old 50mm metal mounts. I love mine and I don't have to worry about plastic shavings getting on the sensor.

Grav
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-14-2005, 04:30 AM
gravatar gravatar is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
Default 28mm or 35mm

While we are on the subject, I am trying to decide what my next prime lens is going to be for my 20d. I am torn between the 35mm and the 28mm. Who has used both and what kind of clarity did you get? Both would behave like normal lenses as far as composition would go with the 1.6 (45mm and 56mm.) I have seen a few reviews, but nothing definitive enough to push me one way or the other and would like to hear y'all's experiances.

Grav
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-14-2005, 07:50 AM
jinju jinju is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,064
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Im not gonna save money on lenses Fil. Not my intention at all. the 17-40 is the one I really want, I was just curious.

I dont agree about the 20D being obsolete. Its a wonderful camera and even if a much better camera comes out within 6 months it wont be obsoloete because it will still be a good camera. I dont want the 350D as I dont want to comromise on the body either. Im planning to keep the 20D body for 3-4 years after this, slowly gather lenses (17-40 next, then the 50mm prime, and then who knows) and after that maybe get a new body.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:06 AM
gringofil gringofil is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 288
Default Re: 28mm or 35mm

I don't have it, but the 35 seems to be quite the lens. 28 on a digital body is a bit awkward...not really a focal lenght one can use. The 35 on the other hand becomes a nice 50 with the field of crop. If you have the cash, though, the 35 "L" would be the ultimate choice.

My next lens will also be the 35...I want to get to my magical focal lenght of 50 on a digital body as soon as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:09 AM
kinginexile kinginexile is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,537
Default Re: 28mm or 35mm

Do you mean Canon lenses? Of course, the 35 f/1.4 is quoted as one of the best C lenses, I am sure it deserves its praise (1200$ though), the 35 f/2 is not far behind, but I rarely see much comment about the 28mm. You may want to consider the new 30mm Sigma, also 1.4, but only 450$ new, and very good reviews too, from pro reviewers as well (and me too, acquired not long ago from E-bay). In terms of view angle, I think the 8mm gained from 35 do count (still talking about cameras with a 1.6 crop factor). Only one drawback, will not fit full frame cameras, but hey, just because we might buy one of those may not mean we never want to use the 300, 350, 20 Ds anymore, as a second/back up camera.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:09 AM
gringofil gringofil is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 288
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Sorry, Rafal, but in the world of digital things and toys when the technology moves as fast as it does (and now it seems to be picking up speed...especially with Canon cameras), your 20D will become obsolete in a few months (probably by Feb 2006) when the new xxD comes out. That's just the way it is. Maybe for you the camera will be OK for the next 3-4 years, but for many it won't. That's technology...like computers...you buy the best today and a better will pop-up a few months later.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:17 AM
Furachan Furachan is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,293
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

Congratualations on your decision. Look, this is a GREAT camera with PHENOMENAL high ISO performance and color, well...look at some of the colors I managed to squeeze out of some of my shots!
The 17-40mm is a kind of magic lens in the following ways:
1. Feel
2. Speed of response
3. Close focusing (extraordinary, almost macro in a way
4. Contrast
But..the next best thing (but not THAT MUCH cheaper, is obviously the SIgma 18-50mm f2.8. The advantage there is, slightly smaller size and that constant f2.8 which gives you more bokeh options and allows for better nighttime shooting.
My 2 cents, Rafal!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:19 AM
kinginexile kinginexile is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,537
Default Re: 28mm or 35mm

The 35 on the other hand becomes a nice 50 with the field of crop.
-----------------

Hi, Filip. More like 56mm. May fit his/your purpose, of course, but we must remember that some of the members comments on FredM forum (others too), mentionned here, relate to full frame (not 1.6 crop) cameras. they really mean 35mm.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:19 AM
Furachan Furachan is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,293
Default Re: Lenses for Canon

This is very sound advice, FIlip, I must say. You are absolutely right, with the 17-40 and the 50 (either version will do), you're all set. Anything else is dessert (though that 85mm is SWEET, man!)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:22 AM
Furachan Furachan is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,293
Default Re: 28mm or 35mm

I bought a Canon EF 28mm f1.8 which on a 20D is more like a 45mm. It is a superb lens, much underrated in my opinion.
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 11:34 AM.



explore TREKEARTH