Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Sep 2009 (Tuesday) 13:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 50D LENSES..PLZ!

 
-=nighthawk=-
Member
Avatar
199 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: US
     
Sep 22, 2009 16:21 |  #16

mxracer535 wrote in post #8690502 (external link)
Yes, 2.8 is good for low light. It will also help to keep your shutter speed up for sports. But, if you are consistently shooting low light then 1.8 or below is better. I still think that the 70-200 2.8 is your best bet as it will cover both candids and sports which are two of your top priorities.

i am looking into the 2.8 myself and would prefer to the the non-is (eventhough i know the IS is a huge benefit)

what is YOUR personal perspective on the 2.8 IS vs what you have?

if possible (through pm perhaps), could I also see some shots of your 2.8 in low light settings? perhaps those candids you were talking about.

do you shoot it handheld?


50D 28-135mm IS USM Kit || 50mm 1.8II | Tristar UV and CPL Filters | Lowepro CompuDayPack | G6:roll:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Sep 22, 2009 17:10 |  #17

mxracer535 wrote in post #8690502 (external link)
Yes, 2.8 is good for low light. It will also help to keep your shutter speed up for sports. But, if you are consistently shooting low light then 1.8 or below is better. I still think that the 70-200 2.8 is your best bet as it will cover both candids and sports which are two of your top priorities.

Then after you have used it for awhile you will learn what it is you want out of a lens that it isnt giving you and then you can buy what you need from there, i.e. a fast prime (or multiple ;)), wide angle, standard walk around zoom, etc, etc, etc

Sounds insanely logical. :lol:


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Sep 22, 2009 17:15 |  #18

alMout wrote in post #8690541 (external link)
I agree with Cosmo about waiting for a UWA. Your #1 priority is candid/portrait and its really too wide for that, especially if your just walking around at a party or gathering. Most of my candid shots at indoor gatherings are between 30 and 40mm. Your 28-135 should fit the bill here if you already have an external flash. If you don't have a flash, I would invest in that before an UWA. If you do have a flash, then the 10-22 is a good choice for your vista and landscapes.

Not sure if the 75-300 is compatible with a teleconvertor, you could check into extending your reach that way. All in all it's not a great lens anyway.
You may can find a used Sigma 150-500mm in the $700 range. It's gotten good reviews from birders.

I think you guys are right about the UWA; I'm jonesing for one because we're going to the Blue Ridge for a few days in a couple weeks and I know I'll wish I had one; BUT it is not the majority of my shooting. And I don't have an external flash...yet.


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jblaschke
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 27
Joined Apr 2008
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
     
Sep 22, 2009 22:22 |  #19

chellyroo wrote in post #8690304 (external link)
If I go with getting the EF-S 10-22mm and the prime 50mm, what could I do with my current EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 to make it better as my action lens? The biggest problem I have with it is not being able to get in tight enough from a distance (when I can't physically move closer)?

The EF 75-300 isn't a great lens by any means, but you can get decent shots with it. Image quality is improved by stopping down (yeah, the old f/8 fallback) and shooting well-lit scenes with low ISOs. I actually have this lens--the original, produced 20-something years ago, so if anything it's a worse lens than what you have. Here's a set of football images I shot using this lens last fall:

http://www.flickr.com …0/sets/72157608​612049825/ (external link)

Not the greatest, but that's more a reflection on the fact that I'm inexperienced as a sports shooter than on the lens. Some were good enough for newspapers to publish. I've had shots that turned out quite disappointing--the lens is prone to chromatic aberrations--but it's not a total loss. I recommend using it until you feel yourself being limited by it. Once you get to the point where you see the difference between images shot with the 28-135 and the 75-300, that's the time to start looking for a replacement. We're saving up for the 70-200 2.8L for The Wife's wedding work, but *I* really want the 100-400L. ;-)a


Canon 7D | Canon 50D IR modified | Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS L | Canon FD 500mm 8.0 Reflex | Canon EF 85mm 1.8 | Canon EF 50mm 1.8 mk I | Canon EF-S 10-22mm | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Meade 645 (762mm f/5)
Model Mayhem (external link) | DeviantArt (external link) | Lisa On Location: New Braunfels Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Sep 23, 2009 07:50 |  #20

jblaschke wrote in post #8692554 (external link)
The EF 75-300 isn't a great lens by any means, but you can get decent shots with it. Image quality is improved by stopping down (yeah, the old f/8 fallback) and shooting well-lit scenes with low ISOs. I actually have this lens--the original, produced 20-something years ago, so if anything it's a worse lens than what you have. Here's a set of football images I shot using this lens last fall:

http://www.flickr.com …0/sets/72157608​612049825/ (external link)

Not the greatest, but that's more a reflection on the fact that I'm inexperienced as a sports shooter than on the lens. Some were good enough for newspapers to publish. I've had shots that turned out quite disappointing--the lens is prone to chromatic aberrations--but it's not a total loss. I recommend using it until you feel yourself being limited by it. Once you get to the point where you see the difference between images shot with the 28-135 and the 75-300, that's the time to start looking for a replacement. We're saving up for the 70-200 2.8L for The Wife's wedding work, but *I* really want the 100-400L. ;-)a

Those are nice shots! How close were you to the action?

Marriage...it's all about compromise, huh?;)


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jblaschke
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 27
Joined Apr 2008
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
     
Sep 23, 2009 12:33 |  #21

chellyroo wrote in post #8694339 (external link)
Those are nice shots! How close were you to the action?

Marriage...it's all about compromise, huh?;)

It varied--I was along the sidelines and the back of the endzone, but on average the shots were about 20 yards away from me. When the action came my direction, I lost some good shots because 75mm wasn't wide enough for anything that close!

Yeah, marriage is indeed about compromise. She jealously guards her 50D and I let her plunder my lenses!


Canon 7D | Canon 50D IR modified | Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS L | Canon FD 500mm 8.0 Reflex | Canon EF 85mm 1.8 | Canon EF 50mm 1.8 mk I | Canon EF-S 10-22mm | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Meade 645 (762mm f/5)
Model Mayhem (external link) | DeviantArt (external link) | Lisa On Location: New Braunfels Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davem01
Member
91 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Bicester, Oxfordshire, UK
     
Sep 23, 2009 15:25 |  #22

sigma 18-135 is and canon 55-250 is are a good compromise


My Gear: 5D mk iv, EF 24-105L, 70-300L, 100L IS Macro, 17-40L, 100-400L mkii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Sep 24, 2009 07:54 as a reply to  @ davem01's post |  #23

well, I got the first lens purchase behind me--went for the 50mm f1.4 (just $90). Still jonesing for the 10-22!;)


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
Avatar
4,235 posts
Likes: 10
Joined May 2009
Location: NJ
     
Sep 24, 2009 08:05 |  #24

chellyroo wrote in post #8700699 (external link)
well, I got the first lens purchase behind me--went for the 50mm f1.4 (just $90). Still jonesing for the 10-22!;)


how did you get a 50 1.4 for $90? Do you mean the 50 1.8?


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.com (external link) - Portfolio (external link)

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Page (external link) -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Sep 24, 2009 11:41 |  #25

CosmoKid wrote in post #8700745 (external link)
how did you get a 50 1.4 for $90? Do you mean the 50 1.8?

Whoops! Yes, I meant 50 1.8.....wishful thinking, perhaps?!


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-=nighthawk=-
Member
Avatar
199 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: US
     
Sep 24, 2009 11:47 |  #26

congrats!
many of us including myself would love to see some sample photos once you get it!


50D 28-135mm IS USM Kit || 50mm 1.8II | Tristar UV and CPL Filters | Lowepro CompuDayPack | G6:roll:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headsick
Senior Member
594 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Chicago 'burbs
     
Sep 24, 2009 11:57 |  #27

I've got the 50D, and had great shots with my 28-135 (which is why I replaced the 1 I broke with the same thing). With a budget of $2000, you can get a 17-40L used, a 50 1.8, and still have enough for a used 100-400L, and you'll have the entire range covered quite nicely.

I'm kind of going the same route. I just bought the 50 1.4, the 17-40L, and a replacement for the 28-135. Now I begin saving for the 100-400L.


Head Photography (external link)
flickr (external link)
5DmkII | 50D | Canon 17-40 F4L | Canon 24-105 F4L | Canon 50 F1.4 | Canon 85 F1.8 | Canon 100-400L | Canon 100L Macro | Canon 580ex ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michelle ­ Brooks ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,192 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: SC
     
Oct 06, 2009 08:14 |  #28

-nighthawk- wrote in post #8701816 (external link)
=-=nighthawk=-;8701816]congrats!
many of us including myself would love to see some sample photos once you get it!

Couple of shots taken with the 50mm this weekend in the Blue Ridge Mtns. Not the best examples, maybe, but I haven't had time to go thru all the photos taken & resize/PP them (more pics on the Critique Corner taken with 10-22mm, 75-300mm and 50mm).


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Michelle Brooks Photography (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cccc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,017 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 172
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Oct 06, 2009 10:18 |  #29

Tokina 11-16.
Sigma 100-300 or 300f4L

Maybe a tamron 17-50 in there. I know tokina has a 16-50 too..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,715 views & 0 likes for this thread
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 50D LENSES..PLZ!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Darrelclose
1985 guests, 288 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.