Recommended Lenses

[Phil Hall]

I think it would be usefull if we had some tables recommending lenses for verious projects. I know there are a lot of sites with info on lenses but it takes a while to find them and many of them do not report how the lenses work on Cannon DSLR's.

I wasted about $2500 on unsuitable lenses and think this would prevent others from doing the same.

I think Pekka should coordinate this, if he has time.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Phil,

1. I think it's pretty unfair to volunteer Pekka like this.

2. I think you should provide a more detailed framework of what it is you hope to achieve - "tables recommending lenses for various projects" is a bit high level. How should we organise something on the CDPF that would be any more helpful that photodo, photonet, etc., etc., etc?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is a bad idea, but ???

Regards,

[Phil Hall]

[1] Pekkas name appears to pop up a lot, if someone else wants to volunteer, that is fine.I am willing to help but do not have enough expertise.

[2] When I bought my D30 I bought some Tamron and Sigma zoom lenses. I had used similar lenses before on a Maxxum 7. However I chose slightly different lenses because of the 1.6x factor. I later learned these lenses had lower optical scores. Other sites list quality and handling problems.

For someone buying a new camera it would be good to have a list of basic lenses to cover different focal lengths, different subjects.

What would a good basic group of lenses be?
28-70, 28-105,28-135, Canon? Tamron?Sigma?Tokina

50 mm 1.4..often overlooked but it is really good and very usefull.

70-200 mm IS or non IS

100-400
other large zooms.

Should you include key prime lenses in this group?

How does the 70-200 with a 2x MkII compare to 100-400 plus a 1.4X extender.

I personally could not believe the difference between the Canon 70-200 IS with other lenses. It was a lot more expensive than other lenses but gives much better results.

One possibilty would be to produce a "Best bang-for-the-buck" chart as per PC evaluations. We could have 1 axis for cost, another for sharpnes/distortion score.

[3] Roger, your name crops up a lot, would you be willing to coordinate or work on this?

Thanks

Phil Hall
Santa Ynez, CA

[Rudi]

Phil,

I really don't think that it's that much of a "science" to figure out which lenses are good and which are not. There are plenty of past posts here and on other forums, from which you can pick out the winners and the losers, as far as Canon lenses are concerned.

The situation gets a bit more complicated with the third-party manufacturers, but most people who are looking to buy a lens will still post a question before buying (with the possible exception of Chris :D), so I think it's a bit of a moot point...

[Pekka]

Well it's almost 4am here, but I'll write here some thoughts.... feel free to interrupt me at any time :)

People have so different needs and wallets. Basically, if you need quality, get primes. You can also save some money there. If you need flexibility and you know you will shoot in places where you can not use foot-zoom get zooms. Cheap zooms are the worst of all. To make a good zoom costs money and there is no way around it. If you know you will shoot mainly indoors you need 2.8 both ends.

1.4 MkII extender and 500D macro lens can get you plenty of variety - I have both for my 70-200. 2X will affect quality a lot - you'll have plety of time to get it later. And believe me in 10-15 years you have bought most stuff you dream to have now. Lenses can be addictive.

Canon and Sigma 28-70 are both fine for general shooting - but when you change to a 1.0X camera in couple fo years they could feel too wide. So don't get too many wide lenses now even if D30 or 60 "wants" one. Focus on best quality and sensitivity in 50-400 area.

To this day my favourite lens of all times is 70-200 f/2.8L. The second favourite is 50 f/1.4. That 50mm makes me want more really sensitive lenses, but unfortunately they cost a LOT. But there are relatively affordable ones like 35/2, 80/1.8 and perhaps 135/2 (more expensive, but excellent).

I would like to get 100-400 some day.

On other thing: for me it is important how a lens feels in your have and how it balances with camera. Also, the brightness of viewfinder, sound and touch makes a difference. These issues should not be underestimated nonchalantly (is there such a word) as they _will_ affect your "experience" on the field. If your tools feel, look and sound capable and do what they are supposed to do without effort, you can focus better to the real issues like to grabbing a moment and to composition. Same thing when I play - when I have a lesser instrument I have less time to concentrate on music and more effort has to be given to get the desired sound out it. When I have an excellent instrument (like I have now thank God), I may put all my attention to music and not worry about fighting with the instrument.

[oops]

Rudi wrote:
Phil,

-but most people who are looking to buy a lens will still post a question before buying (with the possible exception of Chris :D), so I think it's a bit of a moot point...

You are on an absolute ROLL here!!! You need a t-shirt! 09-11-01 just gets in the blood and makes you homo-sapien again. No BS, tell it like it is, BALLS.

Like the milk ad; "Got Balls?"

By the way Folks, Balls=Guts. This is a non-gender distinction. ALL of the females in my life put me to shame in this category. Today I just celebrate it with those of us still living.

Today, Rudi, go for it! The Dp thing will probably run far into the night. You started it; finish it.


:D Love Ya' Rudi.

Chris

[Rudi]

Thanks Chris! :D

Some things you just have to stand up for...

BTW, I think it's contageous. See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3366234

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=11337&page=0

[Transfix]

I stick to my simple rule.

Canon Body + Canon Lenses + Canon Accessories = no problems. 8)

[adamsmith]

Same rule works for me. You know a Canon lens is going to work properly, even when you upgrade your body. Not true with Sigma! Tokina has some nice sharp lenses, but also some compatibility issues with certain Canon bodies, enough so that you have to check each body+lens combination carefully before buying anything from them. Tamron seems to be the only 3rd party lens manufacturer without significant compatibility problems, but their optics generally leave a lot to be desired.

If you shoot for a living, you pretty much owe it to yourself to use Canon's lenses. I can't think of a single focal length range where Canon's quality is bested by a cheaper lens. Hobbiests looking to skimp a few dollars might be fine with a slow-focusing Sigma lens or two, particularly on focal lengths that they don't use often. But you are giving up something to save that money. With any Sigma lens, there is no quick USM, and more significantly no guarantee it's going to work with your next camera body.

-Adam

[trsqr]

> skimp a few dollars might be fine with a slow-focusing Sigma
> lens or two, particularly on focal lengths that they don't use
> often. But you are giving up something to save that money.

But then again, I'm giving up something, when I buy a slow-focusing D60 and not the D1s. The relative price difference between these two is often about the same as the difference with 3rd party lenses and Canon L-series lenses...

In this world, there's almost always something better, but it comes with a price. It's a world of compromises.

Because of the smaller sensor in D60, the differences seem to be a little smaller than with 35mm film cameras, for example, as it's hard to make a lens that is sharp on the edges too.

If it would be only a matter of few dollars, I would buy the 16-35L lens, but unfortunately one thousand dollars is not something I consider to be "few". =)

[Thomas]

Your dilemmas are nicely put into perspective by Michael Reichmann in his latest article "The Digital Revolution and Equipment Angst".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-class.shtml

Thomas

[henkbos]

Hear, hear.

Fully agree with the content of the article, but then again I already drive Mercedes (lol). I'm an amateur, happy with D60, but I need to stop reading about bigger and better, whilst there will be no benefit for me. Recently I bought a 'cheap' Sigma 170-500. For the price and the number of pics that I choot with it, it's a reasonable cost. In the end I just want good clear, crisp pics with a great color. The end result should not be a picture that was made using the latest-of-the-latest.

IMHO of course!