|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
What Lens would you recoment?
Well I finally scaped up enough to buy my first digital SLR (Canon 350D). Now I am just trying to decide what kind of lenses to get for it. I got a Canon 18-55 mm EF-S lens with it. I was also thinking of getting a canon EF 75-300 mm IS Telephoto lens, for shooting sports. So what lens would you get for, sports, glamour and landscapes? Jul 01 05 01:02 am Link I like BIG lenzes.. EF 75-300 mm works good almost all my stuff is shot with it! Lanscape is harder with the 1.6 x factor on most digital slrs.. EF 75-300 mm=140-460mm Jul 01 05 01:30 am Link Rent. I had the exact same dilema when I got my dSLR. Had NO CLUE what lenses to buy. So, I rented a lot of different kinds first. That helped me narrow down my decisions. Also, go here: www.the-digital-picture.com www.fredmiranda.com Those are two of the best sites for Canon lens reviews. Jul 01 05 01:55 am Link I'd stay away from the 75-300 , they're aimed at novices, cheap build and such. If you are shooting sports the 75-300 doesnt really fit the bill (its slow by comparism of the good lens around its range). The first two I see a beginner grabbing is usually the Canon 50mm f/1.8 (great cheap lens, great for low light situations too ), the Canon 28-135 USM IS (better build). A lens that would be much nicer than the 75-300 would be the 70-200 f/4L. Jul 01 05 07:05 am Link Agree with Karl about the 75-300. I got it when I first started my sports photography business. Sold it after 2 months. If you can afford it go with the L series f2.8's or better: 70-200L F2.8 is my most used lens with the youth sports. I also have the 24-70L F2.8 and use the 300L or 400L for older kids and football. Jul 01 05 07:37 am Link In general the top three I noticed 70-200 f/4L (mainly outdoors, possibly one of the cheapest 'L' glass) 70-200 f/2.8L ( an upgrade to the previous, making it suitable for indoor sports as well ) 100-400 IS USM ( not sure about specifically for sports, but I did recomend this to a wildlife photog and he loves it ). Oh and a fourth one, the 24-70 f/2.8L you mentioned, either the 24-70 or 70-200 is going to be a heck of alot sharper than then the cheap 75-300. Jul 01 05 08:27 am Link Get the 70-200 f4L. It's a great lens for a good price. The 2.8L is much more expensive and heavy. Before digital, 2.8 was often critical, but with the noise-free, high ISO settings that the Canon DSLRs allow, you can just ratchet up the ISO to gain that extra stop. Veel geluk... Jul 01 05 09:02 am Link I've been using Canon's 28-135 IS for a number of years. It's basically my only lens. I do have a 20-35 but it's only been on the camera a few times. Paul Jul 01 05 09:56 am Link Get a lensbaby (www.lensbabies.com) -- That way you won't have to worry about it being fragile, or expensive, or sharp, or fast, or any of that!  (OK, just kidding... they are fun, though...) GWC! Jul 01 05 10:13 am Link I agree with all the folks who are saying "rent" - reading people's opinions on the web is useless. Reading people's tests on the web is useless too because a lot of the "testers" have preferences and aren't willing to admit they have biases just like the rest of us. And the things they test for may or may not make any sense with how YOU photograph. I use a different approach than renting, though. I decide how much I am willing to spend on a lens. Then I decide how much I am willing to carry. Then I realize that since I don't want to carry much I need a zoom general-purpose lens with vibration reduction. So I go buy whatever is the closest to what I'm willing to pay for the spec I want. Truth to tell, if I spent a lot of time testing lenses, my time would cost more than just buying a few lenses would cost. And I can't tell the difference, anyhow. Did you catch that last sentence? Heresy, huh? But seriously - it ALL depends on your understanding of what you want to do. Asking "what lens to get" is useless unless you say what you plan to do with it. Since most of what I do with my DSLR is create 'web quality' images I could probably get the job done with a lensbaby, actually. I sure don't need the fancy optics I have on my 8x10 or my hasselblad. So - my advice to you: - start by defining your purpose (you've done that, already) - then decide what you're willing to spend - then buy the most expensive name brand lens in your "willing to spend" range that is suited to your purpose - and get shooting Lastly: always remember that your optics in your camera are a system. The performance of your system depends on the end-to-end performance of all the components. Putting a 600hp engine in a lawnmower won't go fast in the quarter mile. Putting a lawnmower engine in a dragster won't, either. Buying $4000 Zeiss glass and putting a plastic gel filter on the front gives you an optical system that's about on par with a lensbaby. So unless you want to stress yourself out totally about end-to-end system performance, just buy any old lens (see above) and you'll be happy with it. Sports is something you want a big fast zoom for. Oops. "big, fast, zoom, cheap, lightweight" pick any 3 from that list.  mjr. Jul 01 05 10:17 am Link For Portaiture, I love my 70-200L. (I've got the f2.8 and the f4 and actually prefer the 4) The focus is laser sharp, the colors are vivid and you can't beat it for low light situations. For PJ work, I LOOOOOVE my Sigma 18-50 which can also make a fine lens for more commercial work. Some people steer away from the Sigma because it's not a "Canon" lens, but so far I've been very happy with all my Sigma lenses and the gold series is about a third of the price of the L series. But for portrait work, I can't see ever trading in that 70-200. It's a pretty great overall lens. Jul 01 05 10:47 am Link If you don't mind spending a little, the Sigma 120-300 2.8 EX is a phenom lens. I'ld pit it against any Canon or Nikkor tele glass ever made. Jul 01 05 11:11 pm Link This old timer is going to throw in a rusty monkey wrench into this. Just like I wear loafers for one thing, boots for another, tennis shoes or flip flops for this and dress shoes for that I like to mount a particular lens into my camera for a particular type of look or situation. The lens sort of puts me into that lens's mode. I don't believe that the perfect portrait is at 87.72mm. I also believe that zoom lenses make me lazy and I end up staying put. I also believe that in 35mm the 35mm wide angle is (when used carefully) one of the best portrait lenses around. With my Mamiya RB I have a preference for the 50mm wide angle which is equivalent to about a 28mm. Jul 01 05 11:52 pm Link Posted by Karl Blessing: Yes all Novices should go out and by "L" lenses.. Jul 02 05 12:04 am Link The 70-200 F/4L is possibly the cheapest L glass out there, its certainly a bargin. Even the 75-300 is cheap by even standard of other lens in it's price range. The person did not say "recomend me a lens under 600" , simply ask to recomend a lens. I didnt say something like you HAD to have the f/2.8 version. besides the 75-300 is *cheap* even by novices standards. Theres are a few lens cheaper that *might work* but in order to recomend a good one people have to fess up on exactly what they need and what they might be able to live with. Also if one could afford a 400-500 lens, is it that hard to just save up an additional 150 and get the recomended lens, as opposed to paying 400 now, then paying the higher price later. He/She asked what we "would get" , Don't bash me for making recomendation, especially when there is a lack of desired result stated. Jul 02 05 12:23 am Link I have used/been let down/and sold: 50mm F1.8/75-300F4-5.6/28-135IS Now I use 17-40 F4L/70-200 f4L/ 100-300F5.6L and Sigma 150mm DG Apo. all of the these offer more resolution that my 10d sensor can capture. Jul 04 05 04:44 am Link I have the following lenses and love them. 85mm 1.8 70-200L 2.8 100-400L 4.5-5.6 IS Would love to have the 24-70L 2.8. Jul 04 05 10:54 am Link Get some L glass!! Thats if you have a high budget pick up a 50mm 1.8 for kicks also! heck $60 bucks for prime lens at 1.8 is gotta be the best deal on some glass.Jul 04 05 12:57 pm Link I'VE SHOT PRO SPORTS FOR 25 + YEARS. NFL, NBA, MLB, NASL MINOR LEAGE HOCKEY AND BASEBALL. THE LONGER AND FASTER THE BETTER. BEEN SHOOTING CANON FROM THE BEGINNING. NOW WITH AUTO-FOCUS DIGITAL, CANON I D I SHOOT 400.28 AND 200 1.8 PLUS 1.4 AND 2X COUPLERS. AT ANYGAME I ALSO CARRY THE 17-35 2.8 AND THE 70-200 2.8. IT AIN'T CHEAP. PHOTOGRAPHY IS EITHER A HOBBY OR A PROFESSION. IF IT'S THE LATTER, THEN YOU NEED THE EQUIPMENT TO BE COMPETITIVE TOU CAN VIEW MY SPORTS WORK AT www.akayephoto.com CLICK ON THE SPORTS GALLERY GOOD LUCK TO YOU. Jul 04 05 01:54 pm Link Posted by Randy55: i suprised it took that long for that recommendation... i had a 50 f1.8 and it was a great lens to have especially for the price. i have since traded it in for a f1.4 version... Jul 05 05 02:40 pm Link Posted by Abel Longoria: Posted by Randy55: i suprised it took that long for that recommendation... i had a 50 f1.8 and it was a great lens to have especially for the price. i have since traded it in for a f1.4 version... I'm not surprised. The 1.8 is cheap, feels cheap, and gives you cheap images. Save up and buy "L" or "SLD" glass Jul 05 05 03:01 pm Link Posted by tony1989tony: Posted by Abel Longoria: Posted by Randy55: i suprised it took that long for that recommendation... i had a 50 f1.8 and it was a great lens to have especially for the price. i have since traded it in for a f1.4 version... I'm not surprised. The 1.8 is cheap, feels cheap, and gives you cheap images. Save up and buy "L" or "SLD" glass the main reason i mentioned it was that the original poster said he "finally scraped up enough to buy my first digital SLR (Canon 350D)" Jul 05 05 04:50 pm Link That's a load of crap. Your skill as a photographer isn't determined by the equipment you own. Optically, the 50mm f:1.8 is quite excellent. It is cheaply made and inexpensive though. Jul 05 05 04:55 pm Link don't always think zoom lenses here, especially for landscapes... a wide angle (24mm or 28mm) is what i'd recommend, having done lots of landscapes, although you wouldn't know it from my book here... also a short telephoto... fixed focal length (say 85mm or 105mm) is best for most portraiture fixed focus lenses tend to be sharper and better optically than zoom lenses, but lack the obvious versatility, but for portrature... there's no law that says you can't move in or out, right? David Jul 05 05 05:00 pm Link Posted by Karl Blessing: Yes all Novices should go out and by "L" lenses.. Posted by Abel Longoria: Posted by tony1989tony: Posted by Abel Longoria: Posted by Randy55: i suprised it took that long for that recommendation... i had a 50 f1.8 and it was a great lens to have especially for the price. i have since traded it in for a f1.4 version... I'm not surprised. The 1.8 is cheap, feels cheap, and gives you cheap images. Save up and buy "L" or "SLD" glass the main reason i mentioned it was that the original poster said he "finally scraped up enough to buy my first digital SLR (Canon 350D)" Wasnt Bashing!! Jul 05 05 05:11 pm Link On a serious note, personally, as a pocket sized lens, I like to keep the 24-70mm f2.8 on the body. It used to be the 28-70, but I recently traded up for the new lens. Love the extra 4mm. Make a considerable difference. As an aside, you guys are glass snobs. There are many non "L" lenses that still give you excellent results. They may not be as sturdy as your L's. They may not be as fast. You meter for your equipment and make it work for you. I had a debate with another shooter about old school Zeiss vs Schneider glass. Sure, everyone would like to have the Zeiss glass, but you can get great results with Schneider optics as well, at half the price. Jul 05 05 05:14 pm Link |
