What lens to get for my 350D

[Guest]

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

As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?

I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but that's
for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with a
half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few in
number. Sigma offer digital specific lenses. Are they any good?

Does anyone have recent experience of a good 70 to 200mm on a DSLR?

Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
DSLR? Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
prime.

John

 

[Guest]

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

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net...
> As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?
>
> I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but that's
> for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with
> a
> half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few in
> number. Sigma offer digital specific lenses. Are they any good?
>
> Does anyone have recent experience of a good 70 to 200mm on a DSLR?
>
> Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
> DSLR? Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
> prime.
>
> John
>
>
Well, my 50mm f1.8 works just fine on my 20D, as do my 100 f2, 15 f2.8
fisheye, 28-135 IS, 100-400 IS, etc. Should do the same for your 350D. By
the way, my friend's 70-200 f2.8 IS works fine on his 1D mkII...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Charles]

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

In article <3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net>, Eatmorepies
<stopthere@lineone.net> wrote:

> Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
> prime.

I have one. That lens works great on the Canon DSLR's.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

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

Get the kit 18-50mm or whatever they are pretty good, I find that the
70-200mm is not quite big enough look at something bigger, the Sigma lenses
are pretty good for the price also look at the Tamron Xr Di range, not too
bad. Any of the Canon IS zoom lenses will be good.

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net...
> As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?
>
> I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but that's
> for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with
> a
> half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few in
> number. Sigma offer digital specific lenses. Are they any good?
>
> Does anyone have recent experience of a good 70 to 200mm on a DSLR?
>
> Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
> DSLR? Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
> prime.
>
> John
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:WGE1e.14402$C7.14278@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Get the kit 18-50mm or whatever they are pretty good, I find that the
> 70-200mm is not quite big enough look at something bigger, the Sigma
> lenses are pretty good for the price also look at the Tamron Xr Di range,
> not too bad. Any of the Canon IS zoom lenses will be good.
>
> "Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net...
>> As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?
>>
>> I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but
>> that's
>> for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with
>> a
>> half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few in
>> number. Sigma offer digital specific lenses. Are they any good?
>>
>> Does anyone have recent experience of a good 70 to 200mm on a DSLR?
>>
>> Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
>> DSLR? Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
>> prime.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
>
"70-200 not quite big enough look at something bigger." Huh? That lens is
one of the finest lenses made, whether zoom or fixed focal length. With the
crop factor of the 350D, that takes the place of a 112-360mm lens, certainly
enough to get what he wants, especially since he said that was the focal
length he was considering. Give him enough credit to know what his needs
are. Besides, anything "bigger" will be either slower or horrendously more
expensive than either the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 IS, the latter is already
over $1000.
He also said the kit lens was too slow, so recommending he get the "kit
18-50," actually -55, isn't what he needs. And Sigma lenses, while cheap,
aren't exactly top drawer. Some are, most aren't. The Tamron XR range has
been reviewed has being pretty dire, not up to the standards of the ATX Pro
line.
Would have to agree with the statement about Canon IS lenses, except that
you "dis-recommended" one of them in your second sentence

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

It will = a 56 to 112 and should be fine even better than on your film
camera because with the 1.6 crop more of the centre part of the lens is used
..eos fit is eos .your 50 f1.8 will = 80mm a great portrait lens ,oh and dont
forget to take into account camera shake your 50mm is not 50mm but 80mm

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net...
> As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?
>
> I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but that's
> for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with
a
> half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few in
> number. Sigma offer digital specific lenses. Are they any good?
>
> Does anyone have recent experience of a good 70 to 200mm on a DSLR?
>
> Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
> DSLR? Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
> prime.
>
> John
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

> I have a 35 to 70 mm from my film EOS which is a little faster, but that's
> for a full frame sensor and I have read that lenses designed to work with
> a half frame sensor do a better job. At the moment these lenses seem few
> in number.

You've got a few replies on the issues of specific lenses, but no one has
picked up on the confusion quoted above.

Lenses that are designed to work with a half frame sensor are optically
pretty much the same as full frame sensor lenses. Some good, some not so
good, you pays yer money, etc., etc. The difference is that they take
advantage of the fact that they only have to put their image on a smaller
area, so they can be smaller, lighter, maybe made from different materials
and so on. In the Canon world these types of lenses are named "EF-S", and
they only work with smaller sensor DSLR cameras - you can't put one of your
film EOS. The majority of current Canon lenses are still full frame, and
will work on either type of camera AFAIK.

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

 

[Guest]

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

> The Tamron XR range
> has been reviewed has being pretty dire, not up to the standards of the
> ATX Pro line.

The Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di looks OK, according to Bob:

http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html

Any reason to believe that one's not as good as the review makes it out to
be? (Say he, seriously thinking about getting one!)

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

 

[Guest]

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

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:42475631$0$31361$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> The Tamron XR range
>> has been reviewed has being pretty dire, not up to the standards of the
>> ATX Pro line.
>
> The Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di looks OK, according to Bob:
>
> http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html
>
> Any reason to believe that one's not as good as the review makes it out to
> be? (Say he, seriously thinking about getting one!)
>
> --
> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
> http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
> href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

No, no reason at all. I was speaking of an entire line, not an individual
lens, as was Pete. That lens intrigues me, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GtK1e.1326$k57.904@fed1read07...
> "Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
> news:42475631$0$31361$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> The Tamron XR range
>>> has been reviewed has being pretty dire, not up to the standards of the
>>> ATX Pro line.
>>
>> The Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di looks OK, according to Bob:
>>
>> http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html
>>
>> Any reason to believe that one's not as good as the review makes it out
>> to
>> be? (Say he, seriously thinking about getting one!)
>>
>> --
>> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
>> http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
>> href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
>
> No, no reason at all. I was speaking of an entire line, not an individual
> lens, as was Pete. That lens intrigues me, too.


Skip, you assume far too much, not what I was thinking at all. I said the
70-200 is probably not big enough, get a ??-300 or 400, buy once rather than
many times, fine if you have lots of cash but I "assume" because he is
getting a 350D he cannot afford a 20D or a 1D and therefore would be better
served with a larger size range rather than having to buy a complete of
other lenses later. Look at the Sigma 80-400mm APO HSM optically stabilised.

 

[Guest]

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:aNK1e.15003$C7.13142@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:GtK1e.1326$k57.904@fed1read07...
>> "Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:42475631$0$31361$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> The Tamron XR range
>>>> has been reviewed has being pretty dire, not up to the standards of the
>>>> ATX Pro line.
>>>
>>> The Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di looks OK, according to Bob:
>>>
>>> http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html
>>>
>>> Any reason to believe that one's not as good as the review makes it out
>>> to
>>> be? (Say he, seriously thinking about getting one!)
>>>
>>> --
>>> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
>>> http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
>>> href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
>>
>> No, no reason at all. I was speaking of an entire line, not an
>> individual lens, as was Pete. That lens intrigues me, too.
>
>
> Skip, you assume far too much, not what I was thinking at all. I said the
> 70-200 is probably not big enough, get a ??-300 or 400, buy once rather
> than many times, fine if you have lots of cash but I "assume" because he
> is getting a 350D he cannot afford a 20D or a 1D and therefore would be
> better served with a larger size range rather than having to buy a
> complete of other lenses later. Look at the Sigma 80-400mm APO HSM
> optically stabilised.
>
>
But that Sigma is a 4.5-5.6, he already said the kit lens wasn't fast
enough. The Canon 70-200 lenses are either f4 or f2.8. And he can add a
teleconverter for the difference in price between the 70-200 lenses and an
80- or 100-400, and still have a very fast lens up to 200mm.
I was going to add that the Sigma isn't significantly less expensive than
the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS USM, but much poorer in image quality, but
they've dropped the price of the Sigma significantly, down to $999 at B&H,
against the Canon's $1410, it used to be only $200 less. Sigma's 70-200
f2.8 is similarly less expensive than the Canon version, at $799.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

Eatmorepies <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote:
> As I wrote in my previous post - the kit lens is very slow. What to buy?

Tokina 12-24/4

Canon 24-70/2.8 L

Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS

All take 77 filters and are among the best in class.
The Minolta 70-210/2.8 SSM outscores the Canon in most tests,
and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di outpoints the Canon in some tests
but not in others (but it doesn't take 77 filters).

 

[Guest]

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

In article <3aobebF6bsch6U1@individual.net>,
Eatmorepies <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>Does anyone have views on the unsuitability of film SLR lenses used on a
>DSLR?

There's nothing particularly unsuitable about them.

>Because what I would like to stick on the 350D is a 50mm f1.8 Canon
>prime.

Go for it - makes a nice low-cost portrait lens. However, if you're willing
to spend the extra, the 50mm f/1.4 is really superb.