Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

canon lens questions

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 18, 2005 11:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Hi there,

i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
to get.
I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a
pretty good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon is too
expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle range
on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these Tele
Lenses:

The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.

Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can
only go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was
wondering if the L Glass is really that good and worth to go for or if I
should go for the IS 75-300mm.
Let me know your opinions and maybe if you have either of the lenses (or
maybe even both) I would appreciate a short review about what you think
about that specific Lens.

Thanks

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com

More about : canon lens questions

March 18, 2005 11:27:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre if you can afford it get the Canon 17-40L f/4 it is one of the best
wide angle lens out there.
Also I would take the 70-200L f/4 over the 75-300 IS any day of the year.
You could put a teleconverter to the 70-200 and beat the 75-300 in
quality/sharpness.
I strongly suggest stick with Canon after all the lens is worth more and can
last longer then the body. So if you trust Canon for the body why not trust
them for the lens which is usually cheaper then the body.
good luck with your choice.

"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Rhw_d.24171$OU1.19857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi there,
>
> i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
> to get.
> I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a
> pretty good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon is too
> expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle range
> on a 1.6 crop factor camera.
>
> To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these Tele
> Lenses:
>
> The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
> or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.
>
> Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can
> only go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was
> wondering if the L Glass is really that good and worth to go for or if I
> should go for the IS 75-300mm.
> Let me know your opinions and maybe if you have either of the lenses (or
> maybe even both) I would appreciate a short review about what you think
> about that specific Lens.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andre
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:27:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

YoYo wrote:
> andre if you can afford it get the Canon 17-40L f/4 it is one of the
best
> wide angle lens out there.
> Also I would take the 70-200L f/4 over the 75-300 IS any day of the
year.
> You could put a teleconverter to the 70-200 and beat the 75-300 in
> quality/sharpness.
> I strongly suggest stick with Canon after all the lens is worth more
and can
> last longer then the body. So if you trust Canon for the body why
not trust
> them for the lens which is usually cheaper then the body.
> good luck with your choice.
>
> "andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Rhw_d.24171$OU1.19857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what
lenses
> > to get.
> > I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a
> > pretty good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon
is too
> > expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle
range
> > on a 1.6 crop factor camera.
> >
> > To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these
Tele
> > Lenses:

I have the 70-200mm f4 L and the 17-40mm f4 L and they are both great
glass. I wouldn't get too hung up on the need for really fast glass IE
f2.8 as the Canon 20D is almost noise free at ISO 800 and even great at
ISO 1600. Therefore you can increase the ISO speed when you need the
extra speed and save the money you would spend on the f2.8 glass.

IS also works great on moving objects in normal light as I shoot birds
flying with the 300mm f4 IS L and it gives excellent results. Just set
the camera to A1 Servo so the camera will track the moving subject.

Art Salmons
Related resources
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:36:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Rhw_d.24171$OU1.19857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi there,
>
> i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
> to get.
> I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a pretty
> good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon is too
> expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle range
> on a 1.6 crop factor camera.
>
> To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these Tele
> Lenses:
>
> The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
> or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.
>
> Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can only
> go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was wondering if
> the L Glass is really that good and worth to go for or if I should go for
> the IS 75-300mm.
> Let me know your opinions and maybe if you have either of the lenses (or
> maybe even both) I would appreciate a short review about what you think
> about that specific Lens.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andre
>
>

My experience with L glass and IS lenses is that IS is a great feature to
have but if your subject doesn't stand still, you'll get a nice blur.

Personally, I'd go with the 70-200 F4 because it's just a faster lens not to
mention it's built with L glass. I've heard good things about the 75-300 IS
and I own the 28-135 IS and I love it. It's a great all purpose lens. I
also own a 17-35 2.8L and a 80-200 2.8L and having a fast lens really beats
having a lens that can hold itself still for long periods of time though
being able to handhold a 1/4 second shot is fantastic.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not shooting people or in real low light,
the IS feature isn't all that great. I shoot a Canon 1D with a 1.3 crop
factor so it's a little different but before I got the 1D, I shot with the
D60 so I understand you wanting more on the wide angle side.

-Bruce
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 2:28:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Maybe if you told us what your photographic lens needs are, we could
provide much better suggestions.

Since an SLR is a system camera, then the choice of a lens should be
made with consideration of the planed system and with knowledge of what uses
the camera will but used for.

The only hint I can see is you want a wider angle capability than 28mm
offers.

Do you need low light capability. long lens, close focus, IS etc?

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"andre" <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Rhw_d.24171$OU1.19857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi there,
>
> i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
> to get.
> I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a pretty
> good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon is too
> expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle range
> on a 1.6 crop factor camera.
>
> To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these Tele
> Lenses:
>
> The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
> or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.
>
> Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can only
> go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was wondering if
> the L Glass is really that good and worth to go for or if I should go for
> the IS 75-300mm.
> Let me know your opinions and maybe if you have either of the lenses (or
> maybe even both) I would appreciate a short review about what you think
> about that specific Lens.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andre
>
> --
> ----------------------------------
> http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:04:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

What does the Lens have to do with color saturation? This is new to me.
Can you explain this?
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre.gunther@gmail.com wrote:
> What does the Lens have to do with color saturation? This is new to
me.
> Can you explain this?

New to you? It's been known for decades. Where the hell have you been?
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

>The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
>or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.

You'll find that the L-lens has MUCH better optics. But even so, I'm
not sure it's worth it.

If you end up shooting in the range where IS help (basically, below
1/focal-lenth, so, less than 1/75 for the short end, 1/200 or 1/300
for the long end), the IS lens will give you much better images.

If you don't mind editing your images, you can fix the (minor) color
aberration on the IS lens digitally.

I don't know if the 20D has fine enough resolution to distinguish
between the two lenses at f/8.

I have the IS lens and I love it.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:47:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
> to get.
> I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a
> pretty good lens and it offers a good Range. The 17-85mm IS Canon is too
> expensive for that range and the 28-135 mm will miss the wideangle range
> on a 1.6 crop factor camera.
>
> To complement my setup I was looking into buying either of these Tele
> Lenses:
>
> The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
> or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.
>
> Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can
> only go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was
> wondering if the L Glass is really that good and worth to go for or if I
> should go for the IS 75-300mm.

Tough choice. A colleague at work just got the 75-300 IS, and the IS is
pretty cool. But if you're going to be using a tripod all the time at
the long end, then maybe the IS isn't needed, and the L glass will give
better results.

The wide-angle end is too small on a 18-124mm or 17-85mm. I'd advise the
Canon EF-S 10-22mm.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:26:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Yeah, I am not shooting people. Usually you need written permission for
publications. So with a few exeptions I only have people in my images
for sense of scale. Then they are usually tiny compared to some hughe
Tree/Rock/whatever.
Its not impossible though, as long as you take care that the moving
subject is not on any borderline ;-)
March 18, 2005 10:25:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

I've done lot of research on the three versions of 70-200mm L lenses.

1/ 70-200mm f/4.0
2/ 70-200mm f/2.8
3/ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

www.betastudio.com has lot of info you can use....

Based on my research, my choice will be the cheaper 70-200mm f/4.0.
Main reason for this is due to its price and its excellent optical
quality that is equivalent to the other two models. If you're using
Digitla SLR, especially, you can increase the ISO to 400 before seeing
any noticeable noise, so f/4.0 can be adequate in most situations.

With the money saved, I recommend getting 17-40 f/4.0 L lens along with
it. When I bought my Digital Rebel, my contention was to use the kit
lens as a wide lens, but when I got my hands on the 17-40 L, I could
not stop thinking about this lens...... Optical quality is excellent,
it's very fast and the size is pretty good. If you had lots of money,
you may want to consider 16-35mm f/2.8 L, but 17-40 is just as good in
my mind.

Good luck
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:36:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Kibo informs me that andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> stated that:

>The 75-300mm IS USM Lens (I believe f/3.5-5.6)
>or the 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens.
>
>Even though the second lens does not have Image Stabilization and can
>only go out to 200mm it is still slightly more expensive. I was
>wondering if the L Glass is really that good

Yes, it really is. :) 
My 'L' lenses are miles better than my standard zooms.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:14:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

UC wrote:
> andre.gunther@gmail.com wrote:
>> What does the Lens have to do with color saturation? This is new to
>> me. Can you explain this?
>
> New to you? It's been known for decades. Where the hell have you been?

Lenses can change color. I suspect (that means I really don't know)
that those who perceive a increase or decrease of color saturation are
really seeing the net results of flare or the lack of it.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:41:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

<andre.gunther@gmail.com> wrote:
>What does the Lens have to do with color saturation? This is new to me.
>Can you explain this?

Cheaply made lenses are likely to skimp on anti-reflection coatings
and may even have less-than-optimal polish. Internal reflections will
reduce contrast and color saturation by mixing up light entering the
front. Lack of a fine polish would similarly increase light
scattering.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:50:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>i am currently looking into buying a 20D and I was wondering what lenses
>to get.
>I was going to buy the 18-125mm Sigma DC Lens since I read it is a
>pretty good lens and it offers a good Range.

What do you currently use? I looked at your website. You have some nice
images. So I'm assuming you have some experience shooting already.

I'd question spending $1500 on a body only to try to save a few hundred on a
lens, especially since the lens will be useful far longer than the body.
Quality zoom lenses with more than a 2x to 3x range are hard to create.
They cost lots of money. If you want to save money, I'd go for primes
rather than cheap zooms.

Have you looked through the 20D viewfinder with this lens attached? I hate
dark viewfinders. Several years ago, I tried to save money with a
35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom. I ended up selling the lens at a loss shortly
thereafter.

Non-canon lenses sometimes exhibit problems working with bodies that come
out later. I'd keep this in mind.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/
March 19, 2005 9:46:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

>
> What do you currently use? I looked at your website. You have some nice
> images. So I'm assuming you have some experience shooting already.
>
DRebel with some rather cheap glass. I need to upgrade.

> I'd question spending $1500 on a body only to try to save a few hundred on a
> lens, especially since the lens will be useful far longer than the body.
> Quality zoom lenses with more than a 2x to 3x range are hard to create.
> They cost lots of money. If you want to save money, I'd go for primes
> rather than cheap zooms.

Sounds logical.
>
> Have you looked through the 20D viewfinder with this lens attached? I hate
> dark viewfinders.

I don't mind that.

> Several years ago, I tried to save money with a
> 35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom. I ended up selling the lens at a loss shortly
> thereafter.
>
> Non-canon lenses sometimes exhibit problems working with bodies that come
> out later. I'd keep this in mind.


Hm. Well I don't wan't to carry around more than two lenses. What would
you recommend? I would like 18-200mm range if possible more.
What do you think about the 35-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Hm. Well I don't wan't to carry around more than two lenses. What would
>you recommend? I would like 18-200mm range if possible more.
>What do you think about the 35-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens

I have no experience with the 35-350. It's not for me. Too big, bulky, and
way too slow.

I'd go for the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L IS if I were only buying two
lenses *and* wanting zooms to cover the range.

I'd hauled around big, heavy lenses. And I discovered that the bigger and
heavier they are, the more likely I am to leave them at home.

I'd be more inclined to get the 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/2, and 200/2.8 lenses
for approximately the same amount of money to cover the same range. To me,
that would be the more versatile kit because I could travel lighter when I
chose to and I'd have low light options covered. I sold my 70-200/2.8 zoom,
and I currently don't own any zooms.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/
March 19, 2005 9:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:51:03 -0600, ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:

>andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Hm. Well I don't wan't to carry around more than two lenses. What would
>>you recommend? I would like 18-200mm range if possible more.
>>What do you think about the 35-350mm 3.5-5.6 L USM Lens
>
>I have no experience with the 35-350. It's not for me. Too big, bulky, and
>way too slow.
>

I agree completely.

>I'd go for the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L IS if I were only buying two
>lenses *and* wanting zooms to cover the range.
>

Although he can save money by substituting that first lens with
Tamron's 28-75 2.8. Tamrons don't seem to have the rechipping problems
Sigmas do, so they're a bit more future-proof.


--
Alex
atheist #2007
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:13:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

andre wrote:
> > I'd question spending $1500 on a body only to try to save a few
hundred on a
> > lens, especially since the lens will be useful far longer than the
body.
> > Quality zoom lenses with more than a 2x to 3x range are hard to
create.
> > They cost lots of money. If you want to save money, I'd go for
primes
> > rather than cheap zooms.
>
> Sounds logical.
>
> Hm. Well I don't wan't to carry around more than two lenses. What
would
> you recommend? I would like 18-200mm range if possible more.

50/1.8 ($60) for portrait.
200/2.8 ($600) for medium tele.
2x ($260) for long tele.
20/2.8 ($380) for wide.

If you don't need medium tele but only long tele, then 400/5.6 ($1000),
to replace 200/2.8 + 2x.

If you must have zoom, then:
24-70/2.8 ($1100) for portrait.
70-200/2.8 ($1600) for medium tele.
100-400/4.5-5.6 ($1400) for long tele.
16-35/2.8 ($1300) for wide.
!