Lens/speed dilemmas

[Geert]

Even though my Canon G1 serves me well, and has allowed me to make photos I enjoy a lot, I am considering a possible upgrade to a digital SLR. As a result I have some questions about possible lenses to use, and my search through the forums databases (as recommended by Gandini :)) has not answered all of them. The thread with same subject as this one, gave some food for thought though.

My main reasons for considering a SLR is the wish to have a better viewfinder, more usable manual focusing, and more control over depth of field. The main reason for staying digital is that I mostly prefer colour over black and white and want to have control over the entire process from picture taking to making the print, and buying a film-SLR with a good scanner for slides is not much cheaper.

The things I like most about the G1 are the fast 2.0 - 2.5 lens, good hand-holdability (is this a word?) due to the absense of a mirror, compact size and (sometimes) good depth of field and close focussing.

Since I shoot using available light photography a lot, I am looking for lenses that would allow improvement over low light shooting with the G1. In low light, I mostly have to use the wide end of the lens (7mm, or 38mm equiv.) as that allows wider aperture and slower shutter speeds. For portraits, this doesn't leave much subject distance as in this case (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=697673), or requires violations of the 1/focal length rule as in http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=706555 with less than ideal sharpness as result. With a DSLR, I probably gain two to three stops in sensitivity and loose one due to extra camera shake, so I'm guessing I'd need at least a f/2.8 24mm lens for better low-light ability than the G1 at f/2.0 and 7mm.

Since the large fast zooms such as the 16-35/2.8L are too expensive and too big, and the 3.5-4.5 variable aperture zooms seem too slow, I am looking at getting one or two primes to start with with an option of buying an extra lens in the future.

I'm considering the following lenses:
Sigma 20/1.8 $360 82mm filter/530gr min.dist 20cm
Canon 20/2.8 $420 72mm filter/410gr min.dist 24cm USM
Sigma 24/1.8 $300 77mm filter/490gr min.dist 18cm
Canon 24/2.8 $280 58mm filter/275gr min.dist 24cm
Canon 35/2 $250 52mm filter/210gr min.dist 24cm
Canon 50/1.4 $325 58mm filter/295gr min.dist 45cm USM
Sigma 20-40/2.8 $600 82mm filter/600gr

For a lens budget of approx. $600, I could get the Canon 24/2.8 and 50/1.4, or the Sigma 20/1.8 and Canon 35/2 or the Sigma 20-40 zoom.

What do you think would be the best choice, given my objectives?
Thanks in advance for any response!

-Geert

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Geert,

Can't comment on all your lens choices, but here's my tuppenceworth:

- the 82mm filter size on the Sigma will mean a big chunk of money for the corresponding filters. You should include this cost in your budgeting (assuming you will use filters to protect the lenses).

- I also decided that the 16-35L would be too expensive. Senior management would not approve after several other recent purchases. :) So I have the Canon 20 f/2.8 on order. I spent a lot of time trawling forums and review sites. This lens seem to offer a good quality option with high user satisfaction at a reasonable cost.

I assume you're considering the D30 or D60, I would think about a longer lens as well. One prime I do have and _strongly_ recommend is the EF135L f/2. Image quality is faaantastic. It is more expensive than those you have listed, but still way cheaper the the L zooms.

Regards,

Roger
www.rogercavanagh.com

[BobbyC]

I think all the lenses you listed will give you good results. On the long end you might also check the Canon 135/2.8 soft focus lense. Even if you don't need the soft focus, it focuses (when not using the soft focus) very fast and is tack sharp. The D30 crops it to equivalent 200/2.8.

Sorry, I know you weren't even asking about the long end, but I just used it all weekend for some racing shots and am very excited about it. AI servo tracking 300+ mph cars, it was great.

Cheers,
Bobby

[oops]

Geert,

Your respondents are "top drawer" with their advice; hope it helps.

I am still in a lens dilemma with my D30, even after following the best advice. I have a G1 and purchased the D30 for exactly the same reasons you listed.

My advice (Much of which was unsolicited)8):

1. Do the best you can for now and put the "gotta haves" on a loooong list. Pay off the initial investment to zero before moving on. You'll be happier in the long run. You will ALWAYS be in a lens dilemma with a SLR camera; learn to accept it as a fact of life.

2. The D60 is the hot number right now. By the time you buy it and get "vested", there will be much better on the market. Close your eyes and get very, very good with what you bought before you upgrade. A "better" camera seldom equals a "better" photographer until you become a "better" photographer.

3. Never, never, never sell your G1. It offers portability with which the SLR can't compare. You need both cameras if you really love this stuff and the price you may get for the G1 would be peanuts compared to it's utility value. It (and the G2) produces a fantastic image for a "compact" camera and it will follow in history with Star Trek, Lord of The Rings, and Star Wars in cult appreciation.

4. Phillip G. is a very good photographer and, I suspect, a World Class educator. You may have made his day by listening to and following his advice.:)

[Geert]

oops wrote:
1. Do the best you can for now and put the "gotta haves" on a loooong list. Pay off the initial investment to zero before moving on. You'll be happier in the long run. You will ALWAYS be in a lens dilemma with a SLR camera; learn to accept it as a fact of life.

I completely agree, and I think that two lenses should be enough for a long while. The reason I'd like to get the 50/1.4 is that I'd really like to have one very fast lens and on a DSLR this lens becomes a very nice short portrait lens.

2. The D60 is the hot number right now. By the time you buy it and get "vested", there will be much better on the market. Close your eyes and get very, very good with what you bought before you upgrade. A "better" camera seldom equals a "better" photographer until you become a "better" photographer.

Hey, I didn't mention any particular camera body! I was just trying to figure out what lenses I might want to get for a digital SLR, but I'll admit I did think about the D-60... ;)

3. Never, never, never sell your G1. It offers portability with which the SLR can't compare. You need both cameras if you really love this stuff and the price you may get for the G1 would be peanuts compared to it's utility value. It (and the G2) produces a fantastic image for a "compact" camera and it will follow in history with Star Trek, Lord of The Rings, and Star Wars in cult appreciation.

I don't intend to, for all the reasons I described. BTW, it is very nice that the Canon DSLR's use the same memory cards, batteries and flashes and even the same 58mm filters as the 50/1.4 and 24/2.8.

4. Phillip G. is a very good photographer and, I suspect, a World Class educator. You may have made his day by listening to and following his advice.:)
You seem to be a good mind reader... How do you know I have read his advice?

Anyway, thanks for your advice. I'll do a bit more pondering, but I think that the 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 lenses do make a good combination with a D30 or D60 body.

[BobbyC]

One note, I just pulled out my Sigma 17-35 2.8/4 and used it at a reunion for some class picks and I am sooo disappointed in it. The pics are very soft, even after quite a bit of sharpening. They are in focus, just soft even at f8.

I haven't really used it that much on my D30 and my film shots with it don't seem as soft (although after closer inspections of those, they aren't super sharp).

I don't think any customers will have a problem with them, but they are not up to my standards. The portraits I did with my 28-135 IS are as sharp and beautiful as always, I guess I didn't realize how spoiled I was getting. I've learned that the sharpening on the preview can fool you sometimes, but this time it really fooled me.

Time to order the 17-35 L or 16-35 L, I needed a good excuse anyway. ;o)

[Rudi]

Geert,

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens and can't say enough good things about it! IMO, everyone who owns the D30/D60, should also own this lens. :)

Your idea about getting the 24mm f/2.8 is also sound, as it will give you a wider angle prime, but not too wide (about 38mm equivalent). One lens that I am considering buying for my D30 is the 28mm Canon prime, but this would give me a 45mm equivalent, maybe your idea is better! :)

[Geert]

Rudi, you have beautiful photos on your site! Could you tell me what lens you used for "Contemplation"?

[Rudi]

Geert,

I can tell you, but it will make you want to spend tons of money! :)

That photo was taken with my friend's Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens on the same day that he brought it home. He hasn't got a digital SLR, so when I came over, we had to play with it.

I borrowed both his lens and his daughter for that shot... :)

Many thanks for the compliments! It's good to know that some people follow the link in my signature... and have a good time!

[BobbyC]

Rudi,

I am very close to getting an L Lense, the only thing I have left to do is go to the store and see if they will let me put one on my d30 and take some identical tests with it and my non L lenses before I make the final leap. Photography is finally producing enough income to justify it, I just need the quality justification for myself now. The shot you referenced is very nice.

That being said, is the quality really that much better? I know it should be, but I want to hear it from someone who has used both.

Thanks,
Bobby

I'm using mostly primes 2.8, 1.8 etc... and the 28-135 IS.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Bobby,

I want to hear it from someone who has used both.

When I bought my D30, part of my "rationale" was that I already had a couple of EF lenses: the 750-300 IS and 28-105. My first two added lenses were a wide-angle Vivitar and a 28-70 Sigma. Don't have any of them any more. In my early days as a D30 user, I was getting very frustrated that my images were not as good as ones I could see in Pekka's, or Fred Miranda's or Michael Reichmann's galleries, or a whole bunch of other people's.

Part of the problem was learning to process the images properly, and now we have LinearSharpen 342. :D My first L lens was the 100-400 LIS. I traded the two EF lenses and a couple of film bodies to get it. First picture out of the camera was "wow". The difference in crispness, clarity of colour and contrast was amazing. I made a decision to upgrade to L glass whenever I could, and pay much more attention to optical ratings that I had done before. Then I got the 135L f/2. Image quality from this lens is awesome(http://www.rogercavanagh.com/EF135/index.htm has some if the first images I took with this lens, there's not a lot of variety, but I think the image quality shows). I've just added the 70-200LIS. :D Yesterday, I part-exchanged the Vivitar and Sigma for the EF20 f/2.8. Not an L (couldn't afford any more right now), but very good optical ratings and user satisfaction.

Now, is this a sensible, economic decision for a hack, amateur photographer? No. Is the quality of an "L-image" 3 or 4 times better than a non-L one, that being the price differential sometimes? Probably not, but how do you measure these things? Am I taking better pictures? Of course not, but the 1% of OK shots are, in terms of image quality, much better. I am happy? Well, not really because I lusting after a D60, but that's a different story. :)

I don't know why, but there is something about the characteristics of the D30 that highlights the added benefit of L lenses. I haven't compared the difference when using film, but I do know that my "cheap" EF lenses gave much poorer results on the D30 than my previous film SLR.

You will see the difference. If you are making money from your photographer, this is a no-brainer, I think.

Cheers,

Roger

[Dale]

BobbyC wrote:

Time to order the 17-35 L or 16-35 L, I needed a good excuse anyway. ;o)


If you haven't checked out the Sigma 15-30mm I suggest you do. The price is right. It is the lens that I have mounted my D30 most of the time.:)

I took a few picture yesterday that dan be viewed at:

http://www.pbase.com/dkaechler/fire

Dale

[Rudi]

BobbyC wrote:
Rudi,

That being said, is the quality really that much better? I know it should be, but I want to hear it from someone who has used both.

Thanks,
Bobby

I'm using mostly primes 2.8, 1.8 etc... and the 28-135 IS.


Bobby,

IMO, if you're mainly using primes, you will not see much improvement in quality. Yes, the L lenses will definitely perform better than non-L lenses, but the improvement in quality will be small. That's the way of life, you pay 90% more money to get that last 10% improvement in optical quality (I know, I own an APO refractor telescope for astronomy, and I paid through the nose to get that sort of optical quality).

The thing you will notice more easily will be the ease-of-use, and the fact that you won't have to work as hard to get a shot that might still be achievable with a cheaper lens, but with a workaround of some sort.

It's easier to throw the background out of focus with an f/2.8 L zoom, because of the wider aperture, for example (although the 100-400mm L zoom is no wider than commonly available consumer zoom lenses). The L lenses should also last you a longer time, as they are built to withstand every day use, and life's bumps and scrapes a little better than consumer lenses. Then again, you could replave several consumer lenses for the price of one L lens...

What I'm trying to say, is that I make an individual decision on each lens I buy. I bought the Sigma 135-400mm APO lens instead of the Canon 100-400mm L lens because it's a third of the price, and optically not that different to the Canon. It's slower-focusing, but I can work around that most of the time. With the money I saved, I can almost buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L zoom, which I love, and which is a great lens that would be on my D30 at least a part of every day.

Having said that, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO is supposed to be pretty much equal to the Canon optically, but is only 2/3 of the price, so I have to decide if the slight improvement in ergonomics is worth the extra money for the Canon...

If you mainly use primes, the good news is that you can usually buy a consumer lens that will be very nearly as good as an L lens, if you do your reseach first. The bad news is, with the primes you are used to getting great images, so an L lens, especially if you're looking for a zoom, will probably be the only thing that wil make you really happy! :)

If you're getting a reasonable income from photography, by all means, go for it! For that matter, if you are a serious amateur, do the same thing... but make a decision on each and every lens, don't just go out and buy a bunch of L lenses because they are "professional" lenses...

BTW, have a look at my web site again, and check out "who's the pretty boy" (the parrot picture). Can you tell which lens I used for that? There's quite a story to go with that photo...

[BobbyC]

Thanks Guys,

I have been getting what I consider to be great quality out of most of my lenses. The Canon 135/2.8 soft focus, Tamron 90mm Macro, Canon 50 1.8 (Yeah the cheap one) and even the old 75-300 4/5.6 gets very good shots in good light most of the time. The 28-135 IS is really great when I get it to nail focus or in the studio.

After my very marginal results I got from my Sigma 17-35 last week I decided at least at that focal range it's time to look at somethng different and frankly I'm somewhat put off with Sigma right now but I'll give the 15-30 a look.

I don't want to just spend money to spend money, even if I can afford it because I can put the money to good use elsewhere. You have all given me much to consider and I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Bobby