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 26 Sep 2008 (Friday) 06:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

fast 16-70 range lens research

 
webrunner5gt
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 26, 2008 06:50 |  #1

Dear fellow members of POTN, excuse me for bringing up a more or less deeply covered issue about this range of lenses, but after going through all those stickies and topics on the subject I feel a bit reluctant on taking the final step. Funny thing is that the more I read, the more "hard to decide" I become

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'


The whole research started when I decided to upgrade my gear, with faster and "better" (in means of sharpness and optical quality) lenses. I currently own a 400D with a 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DC. In fact I purchased the 400D with the Sigma and then the nifty fifty, an incident which made me pursue more and more shallow DOF's and fast lenses... I am an amateur photographer, feeling like a child in the candy store, who is trying to shoot a great variety of subjects, from liquid macro to automotive races and also landscapes to people's portraits and live concerts. An example of my addiction is my latest summer vacations, where I shot around 2000 images in 30 days time...
During this period I noticed that after 18.00 the only lens mounted on my camera was the nifty fifty, mostly because I shoot handheld, in low light conditions without flash of course.

But lets just cut to the gist...
Here is a list comprised of Canon and Sigma lenses, in the focal length range of 16-70, including "value for money" and also professional and expensive lenses.

CANON
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

SIGMA
17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO
18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO
20-40mm F2.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL
24-60mm F2.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL
24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM
24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
28-70mm F2.8 EX DG

What I have in mind is that I should get rid of the Sigma and replace it with 2 lenses, one from the above list and a 70-200 or 70-300 one.

Not really sure on whether one should skip a walkaround lens, providing a variety of focal lenghts, without the need to exchange lenses outdoors, in a windy, cycladitic greek island for example... but this is based on budget I guess...

Talking about budget, I am willing to spend around 800-1000 euro ($1000-$1500), for both lenses, new or used.

Q1: The all classic debate between Canon and Sigma lenses... Are the Sigma's fully compatible with a Canon body? I have read that some have some IQ problems during autofocus, HSM is not supported for Canon mount lenses (at least in this range) and some state that they are not sharp as the Canon equivalents...

Q2: Is it best to purchase a used expensive lens than a cheaper but new one?

Q3: Are there other options that could serve decently this range, letting aside L lenses which are expensive? I always try to maintain a balance in terms of skill vs equipment, where according to my philosophy one should upgrade his equipment only when he has managed to make the best of the previous used. I don't get excited simply with a red ring around Canon's and I am surely not a brand whore, as many have correctly stated on such debates. Wanting a ferrari and not being able to drive fast is a lost case scenario.

Q4: I haven't included IS and non USM versions of lenses, because I think USM is a handy asset and IS is not needed on such focal lengths. Am I right?

Q5: I noticed in Sigma's range that some lenses are named macro and some not... and I mean the same lens (eg the 24-70). Does this affect the quality or build of the lens? What are their differences?

Q6: What is the effect of an Aspherical featured lens?

Thank you for reading this topic and excuse me if I got carried away...
Also please excuse any amateur mistakes on statements or evaluations I may have made.
Comments like "you are asking too much" or "a solution based on these facts is impossible to answer" or even "you are a moron, stick with your current gear" will be also appreciated.

I really thank all of you who have contributed so much in this great forum, with patience, knowledge and experience, providing all that help to amateurs like me.

best regards

gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bjyoder
Goldmember
Avatar
1,664 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Central Ohio
     
Sep 26, 2008 08:29 |  #2

These are (mostly) my opinion, so go ahead and take this with a grain of salt. I have basically been in this position (when I first bought my gear), and have been through a lot of this.

A1: Sigma is compatible with Canon bodies. Depending on the lens, the 3rd Party lens (i.e. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.) you can get lenses that are as sharp or sharper than the Canon equivalent. However, you pay more for Canon lenses, and there are reasons (quality control, sharpness, build quality [In some cases], etc.).

A2: I have never bought used, but keep in mind that, especially with digital, lenses will be around longer than bodies. Buy good glass and take care of it, and you will have it for a while. That said, as long as you can find a good quality lens, you should be ok. Also, look at stores that sell used, as they often include some sort of short warranty in case the lens isn't in as good shape as they may think it is.

A3: Don't be afraid of jumping to an L lens if you find a great deal on one. Good glass is (more often than not) more important than a good body. Otherwise, except for going to another manufacturer, you've got a pretty comprehensive list.

A4: There is no reason to not buy a lens just because it has IS. You don't particularly "need" it at such short focal lengths, but it can definitely be a help as the light diminishes. USM is also something nice to have, but not a "must have," as a lot of the AF motors that are not USM have gotten very good and very quiet.

A5: The Macro in the Sigma names are sort of there to separate them from some of the older versions of the lenses (you can classify a lens as "Macro" if it's maximum magnification is better than 1:4 life size). Taking into consideration the 24-70 Sigmas, the HSM is the newest version (just released IIRC). It's sort of like the Canon 16-35 v. 16-35 II, just a newer, updated version. Typically, you will only find the most recent lens new.

A6: Aspherical lenses are lenses where at least one element of glass is - big surprise - not based on a perfect spherical design. This lets lens designers achieve less distortion, and is fairly commonly used anymore.

I might suggest the Sigma 18-50mm/Canon 17-55mm for your wide angle, and a Canon 70-200 f/4 (IS or not, your call) to replace your 18-200 if you are truly looking to upgrade. The Sigma short/Canon (non-IS) long combo should be able to be gotten for your price range new. Otherwise, finding good used copies is probably going to have to be something to look into.

Hope that helped a bit. Good luck. :)


Ben

500px (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,954 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Sep 26, 2008 09:04 |  #3

webrunner5gt wrote in post #6383948 (external link)
Dear fellow members of POTN, excuse me for bringing up a more or less deeply covered issue about this range of lenses, but after going through all those stickies and topics on the subject I feel a bit reluctant on taking the final step. Funny thing is that the more I read, the more "hard to decide" I become
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'


The whole research started when I decided to upgrade my gear, with faster and "better" (in means of sharpness and optical quality) lenses. I currently own a 400D with a 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DC. In fact I purchased the 400D with the Sigma and then the nifty fifty, an incident which made me pursue more and more shallow DOF's and fast lenses... I am an amateur photographer, feeling like a child in the candy store, who is trying to shoot a great variety of subjects, from liquid macro to automotive races and also landscapes to people's portraits and live concerts. An example of my addiction is my latest summer vacations, where I shot around 2000 images in 30 days time...
During this period I noticed that after 18.00 the only lens mounted on my camera was the nifty fifty, mostly because I shoot handheld, in low light conditions without flash of course.

But lets just cut to the gist...
Here is a list comprised of Canon and Sigma lenses, in the focal length range of 16-70, including "value for money" and also professional and expensive lenses.

CANON
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

SIGMA
17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO
18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO
20-40mm F2.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL
24-60mm F2.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL
24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM
24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
28-70mm F2.8 EX DG

What I have in mind is that I should get rid of the Sigma and replace it with 2 lenses, one from the above list and a 70-200 or 70-300 one.

Not really sure on whether one should skip a walkaround lens, providing a variety of focal lenghts, without the need to exchange lenses outdoors, in a windy, cycladitic greek island for example... but this is based on budget I guess...

Talking about budget, I am willing to spend around 800-1000 euro ($1000-$1500), for both lenses, new or used.

Q1: The all classic debate between Canon and Sigma lenses... Are the Sigma's fully compatible with a Canon body? I have read that some have some IQ problems during autofocus, HSM is not supported for Canon mount lenses (at least in this range) and some state that they are not sharp as the Canon equivalents...

Any new Sigma lens should be compatible with all current and older Canon bodies, so that generally is only an issue, potentially, with older Sigma lenses, or when you have a camera that is newer than the production date of the lens.

Regarding HSM; if it doesn't have it, you'll have to decide how important you find it. From what I hear, there are no problems generally with the AF motors on Sigmas, just that they are relatively slow, compared to USM motors.

Regarding sharpness: you have to compare like with like. Generally, what you will find, is that Sigma lenses have highly optimized centre performance, and are therefore, generally, sharper in the centre, and less sharp at the corners, while Canon lenses have a more even performance over the whole field. Sigmas may even be sharper in the centre than Canon lenses.

Q2: Is it best to purchase a used expensive lens than a cheaper but new one?

Provided you are looking for the best quality at a similar price, the answer generally is: yes.

Q3: Are there other options that could serve decently this range, letting aside L lenses which are expensive? I always try to maintain a balance in terms of skill vs equipment, where according to my philosophy one should upgrade his equipment only when he has managed to make the best of the previous used. I don't get excited simply with a red ring around Canon's and I am surely not a brand whore, as many have correctly stated on such debates. Wanting a ferrari and not being able to drive fast is a lost case scenario.

There are plenty of other options. First of all there are some good prosumer/advanced amateur Canon lenses, essentially all the ring USM ones with better build than the cheaper plastic mount lenses etc. Then there also is Tamron and Tokina, and potentially, a bunch of MF lenses that can be used with an adapter (Leitz R, Nikon, Pentax, Contax Zeiss, M42 lenses, Olympus, etc.).

Q4: I haven't included IS and non USM versions of lenses, because I think USM is a handy asset and IS is not needed on such focal lengths. Am I right?

That is a matter of debate and personal preference. AFD motors are generally very noisy (the 35 F/2 isn't nicknamed Angry Bee for nothing), the micromotor USM lenses are relatively noisy too, but the main thing is that USM motors are the most accurate ones when it comes to AF, plus they all have FTM, which, IMO, is a great plus.

Once you have experienced IS, you don't generally want to be without it anymore: it gives you a large advantage getting sharp pictures of (relatively) static subjects.

Q5: I noticed in Sigma's range that some lenses are named macro and some not... and I mean the same lens (eg the 24-70). Does this affect the quality or build of the lens? What are their differences?

If you consider macro to be 1:1 image magnification or better, it is just a marketing gimmick. It just means that these lenses can focus closer than others, or have a special mode where some of the lens groups in a zoom move differently from normal in order to generate larger magnifications. They are often designed "macro"when they reach magnifications of 1:6.3 or better, and this, IMO, is close-up at best, if that, not true macro.

It is useful to have, but doesn't replace a true macrolens, neither for magnification, nor for IQ in macro mode.

Since this is an add-on to the standard possibilities of the lens, it generally does not affect the quality or build of a lens.

Q6: What is the effect of an Aspherical featured lens?

Aspheric lenses are designed to correct optical aberrations better than is possible with spherical lenses, or rather lens elements, for large aperture and large AoV lenses. IOW, an aspherical element generally increases the IQ of a lens, and makes lenses possible that weren't with "traditional" technology.

There are several varieties of aspherical lens elements, namely ground, moulded, copied, or a combination, but what they do have in common is that they make a lens more expensive to manufacture, generally, because of all the extra work that is required to create such a lens. It may be obvious that lenses with aspherical elements are more expensive than similar lenses with only spherical elements.

Thank you for reading this topic and excuse me if I got carried away...
Also please excuse any amateur mistakes on statements or evaluations I may have made.
Comments like "you are asking too much" or "a solution based on these facts is impossible to answer" or even "you are a moron, stick with your current gear" will be also appreciated.

I really thank all of you who have contributed so much in this great forum, with patience, knowledge and experience, providing all that help to amateurs like me.

best regards

To come back to your original question regarding fast lenses for low light work, IMO, F/2.8 is too slow to do low light, quite often. This is probably why you end up using the 50 F/1.8 so often.

I'd suggest you'd invest in a few fast primes, F/1.8 or better, for this purpose. When I started doing more low light stuff myself, I invested in a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8, and 85 F/1.8, which is quite a nice trio for this kind of stuff. You could also consider a Sigma 30 F/1.4, Sigma 50 F/1.4, and a Sigma 20 F/1.8 if you want something shorter. Other alternatives are the 35 F/2 and 100 F/2.

Of course, low light photography is quite addictive, so if you do like it, I predict that you will replace your lenses with fast L primes eventually. These are faster than most of the lenses mentioned above, in the 24-135 range (24L, 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L), and generally have better IQ at very large apertures than their cheaper brethren.

HTH, kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
webrunner5gt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 27, 2008 11:09 |  #4

A1: Sigma is compatible with Canon bodies. Depending on the lens, the 3rd Party lens (i.e. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.) you can get lenses that are as sharp or sharper than the Canon equivalent. However, you pay more for Canon lenses, and there are reasons (quality control, sharpness, build quality [In some cases], etc.).

I know most Sigma's are compatible but some have stated that there may be some mishaps produced by iQ performance, in contrary to Canon equivalents. Mine works ok, compared to the nifty fifty, producing more or less the same quality. Some have noticed problems, like a malfunction during focus, where there is a slight variation to what you focus and what is focused eventually. Anyway, I guess this is one in a million to happen.

A3: Don't be afraid of jumping to an L lens if you find a great deal on one. Good glass is (more often than not) more important than a good body. Otherwise, except for going to another manufacturer, you've got a pretty comprehensive list.

A friend of mine who is a photographer told my once... if you spend X amount for a body, your lenses should cost 2*X... I have seen some results with L lenses and the 100% crops made me miserable! Under the same lighting conditions, a L lens compared to a standard one, at the same aperture is "brighter" or the same?

A4: There is no reason to not buy a lens just because it has IS. You don't particularly "need" it at such short focal lengths, but it can definitely be a help as the light diminishes. USM is also something nice to have, but not a "must have," as a lot of the AF motors that are not USM have gotten very good and very quiet.

Yes, I suppose IS (or OS for S's) could be an asset, but is it true that when you use IS you "lose" steps in aperture? Not that this is a drawback...
About USM motors... my nifty fifty, when its really dark, is mostly incapable of AF, especially when there are no high contrast details in the frame. Let aside the fact that you only have a minor DOF to focus correct. USM feature only contributes in speed and sound of the mechanism or also performs better at low light scenes?

A5: The Macro in the Sigma names are sort of there to separate them from some of the older versions of the lenses (you can classify a lens as "Macro" if it's maximum magnification is better than 1:4 life size). Taking into consideration the 24-70 Sigmas, the HSM is the newest version (just released IIRC). It's sort of like the Canon 16-35 v. 16-35 II, just a newer, updated version. Typically, you will only find the most recent lens new.

A6: Aspherical lenses are lenses where at least one element of glass is - big surprise - not based on a perfect spherical design. This lets lens designers achieve less distortion, and is fairly commonly used anymore

So Macro and ASP features are welcome...

I might suggest the Sigma 18-50mm/Canon 17-55mm for your wide angle, and a Canon 70-200 f/4 (IS or not, your call) to replace your 18-200 if you are truly looking to upgrade. The Sigma short/Canon (non-IS) long combo should be able to be gotten for your price range new. Otherwise, finding good used copies is probably going to have to be something to look into.

More or less the lenses you proposed are the ones that I already been searching... the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS USM is a little expensive but you can find many 70-200 f/4 at around 400 euro. Hoping that 2.8 will perform ok at the dark...

Hope that helped a bit. Good luck.

That was a great help! Thank you very much for your input and time


gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
webrunner5gt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 27, 2008 11:44 |  #5

There are plenty of other options. First of all there are some good prosumer/advanced amateur Canon lenses, essentially all the ring USM ones with better build than the cheaper plastic mount lenses etc. Then there also is Tamron and Tokina, and potentially, a bunch of MF lenses that can be used with an adapter (Leitz R, Nikon, Pentax, Contax Zeiss, M42 lenses, Olympus, etc.).

This prosumer series sounds good. Could you give me an example? MF and FD lenses are the same? Manual focus was my primary need when I upgraded to the 400D after a Powershot G3 and I really like using it on certain occasions!

That is a matter of debate and personal preference. AFD motors are generally very noisy (the 35 F/2 isn't nicknamed Angry Bee for nothing), the micromotor USM lenses are relatively noisy too, but the main thing is that USM motors are the most accurate ones when it comes to AF, plus they all have FTM, which, IMO, is a great plus.

Once you have experienced IS, you don't generally want to be without it anymore: it gives you a large advantage getting sharp pictures of (relatively) static subjects.

Angry Bee... it is really funny when I bump into such nicknames... creativity at its best! I guess the noise of the motor isn't something to prevent you from using a lens, but FTM is a real asset. Is it the feature that you can override the AF setting and make adjustments manually without pressing any button first to disengage the AF?
About IS I am already convinced... is it true though that until 200mm and outdoor shooting you can do without it? Is it still operational when you use extenders?

To come back to your original question regarding fast lenses for low light work, IMO, F/2.8 is too slow to do low light, quite often. This is probably why you end up using the 50 F/1.8 so often.

I agree but below 2.8 the costs get serious... Wish my 400D didn't produce all that noise at 1600...

I'd suggest you'd invest in a few fast primes, F/1.8 or better, for this purpose. When I started doing more low light stuff myself, I invested in a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8, and 85 F/1.8, which is quite a nice trio for this kind of stuff. You could also consider a Sigma 30 F/1.4, Sigma 50 F/1.4, and a Sigma 20 F/1.8 if you want something shorter. Other alternatives are the 35 F/2 and 100 F/2.

Of course... there is always the scenario to buy a wider fixed prime now, for low light, and retain my Sigma for the time being... I suppose this set up enables the "zoom on feet" method which sometimes is kind of embarrassing

Of course, low light photography is quite addictive, so if you do like it, I predict that you will replace your lenses with fast L primes eventually. These are faster than most of the lenses mentioned above, in the 24-135 range (24L, 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L), and generally have better IQ at very large apertures than their cheaper brethren.

I hope that I won't be addicted that much, because then I will have to be addicted to work also so I can gather the needed funds for this spendthrift. It is nice to dream though... :)

Thank you Wim


gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,954 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Sep 28, 2008 18:06 |  #6

webrunner5gt wrote in post #6391519 (external link)
This prosumer series sounds good. Could you give me an example?

That would be lenses like the 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 100 F/2.

MF and FD lenses are the same?

Although FD lenses are MF, those are not the ones I mean. The lens mount (flange) to image plane distance with FD is even shorter than with EOS, so generally there is no easy way to create an adapter that keeps the FL the same and allows infinity focus.

However, this is possible with, e.g., Contax Zeiss, Leitz-R, Pentax, Olympus Zuiko and M42-mount lenses, and there are a few gems out there for the brave who don't mind MF and using adapters.
You can get good adapters from FotoDiox, Haoda, and a few others:
http://optix.happypage​.com/ (external link)
http://www.fotodiox.co​m …2f33bef576b0fd0​d2fd871b48 (external link)
http://haodascreen.com​/default.aspx (external link)

Manual focus was my primary need when I upgraded to the 400D after a Powershot G3 and I really like using it on certain occasions!

You are aware you could even change your focusing screen to a focusing screen with a split prism, if you think that helps with MF?

Have a look at Haoda and/or Katz Eye:
http://haodascreen.com​/default.aspx (external link)
http://www.katzeyeopti​cs.com/ (external link)

Angry Bee... it is really funny when I bump into such nicknames... creativity at its best! I guess the noise of the motor isn't something to prevent you from using a lens, but FTM is a real asset. Is it the feature that you can override the AF setting and make adjustments manually without pressing any button first to disengage the AF?

Yes, ring USM allows FTM, the only exception being the 50 F/1.4 which has micro-motor AF, but still has FTM.

Those noisy lenses, like the 35 F/2, have AFD drives for AF.

About IS I am already convinced... is it true though that until 200mm and outdoor shooting you can do without it?

Well, you can always do without IS; the question is more like do you want to do without IS? Once you're used to it, and realize how it gives you another 2-5 stops (depending on the lens and version of IS) of handholdability, you don't really want to be without it anymore....

However, generally, with longer lenses IS is more effective for the plain and simple reason that it allows you to handhold those longer lenses at much slower shutter speeds than you could normally, where with shorter lenses this is a possibility already, to some degree at least.

Is it still operational when you use extenders?

Yes. As it is a lens feature, it will always work, even with extenders, or any teleconverters with electrical pass-through connections.

I agree but below 2.8 the costs get serious... Wish my 400D didn't produce all that noise at 1600...

:D. It is not too bad, and you can always shoot in B&W mode at 1600 iso. Looks really good. The 40D is a little bit better in this regard, but only a little.

Of course... there is always the scenario to buy a wider fixed prime now, for low light, and retain my Sigma for the time being... I suppose this set up enables the "zoom on feet" method which sometimes is kind of embarrassing

I don't think so. I use primes a lot, and footzoom all the time :D.

I hope that I won't be addicted that much, because then I will have to be addicted to work also so I can gather the needed funds for this spendthrift. It is nice to dream though... :)

:D Isn't it just :D.

Thank you Wim

The pleasure is mine!

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
webrunner5gt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 29, 2008 07:17 |  #7

Although FD lenses are MF, those are not the ones I mean. The lens mount (flange) to image plane distance with FD is even shorter than with EOS, so generally there is no easy way to create an adapter that keeps the FL the same and allows infinity focus.

However, this is possible with, e.g., Contax Zeiss, Leitz-R, Pentax, Olympus Zuiko and M42-mount lenses, and there are a few gems out there for the brave who don't mind MF and using adapters.
You can get good adapters from FotoDiox, Haoda, and a few others:
http://optix.happypage​.com/ (external link)
http://www.fotodiox.co​m/shop/index.p...d0d2 (external link) fd871b48
http://haodascreen.com​/default.aspx (external link)

So, you mean there is a way to attach most brands of lenses, using the appropriate adapter with the only cost of MF? This surely makes any decision even harder...

You are aware you could even change your focusing screen to a focusing screen with a split prism, if you think that helps with MF?

Have a look at Haoda and/or Katz Eye:
http://haodascreen.com​/default.aspx (external link)
http://www.katzeyeopti​cs.com/ (external link)

Focusing screen with a split prism? Now I am really confused...

Yes, ring USM allows FTM, the only exception being the 50 F/1.4 which has micro-motor AF, but still has FTM.

You mean that all USM lenses allow FTM? This feature makes Canon lenses even more attractive then...

Well, you can always do without IS; the question is more like do you want to do without IS? Once you're used to it, and realize how it gives you another 2-5 stops (depending on the lens and version of IS) of handholdability, you don't really want to be without it anymore....

However, generally, with longer lenses IS is more effective for the plain and simple reason that it allows you to handhold those longer lenses at much slower shutter speeds than you could normally, where with shorter lenses this is a possibility already, to some degree at least.

I have recently followed the "rule" on (focal length)*(crop factor) for my handheld efforts which more or less provide decent photographs... given I have appropriate light in the scene. I suppose as the focal length increases, even tiny movements result into blurred photos, like when you watch through binoculars... A frequent bad case scenario though, is when you shoot above 2.0 and the DOF is so narrow, that you can't tell by the camera's lcd if you managed to focus right, or even you stayed stable enough, until you transfer and view the photos on a PC...
When you enable IS on a lens do you have also to adjust again shutter speed or aperture to get the same exposure?

. It is not too bad, and you can always shoot in B&W mode at 1600 iso. Looks really good. The 40D is a little bit better in this regard, but only a little.

You are absolutely right... a great percentage of my "beloved" photos are shot in B&W through my 50mm... and noise isn't that... noisy

I don't think so. I use primes a lot, and footzoom all the time .

I have no problem footzooming in most occasions, even lying on the floor or climbing on rocks so as I can shoot the angle I want, but I can't do that while shooting portraits. Mainly because I prefer shooting people that they haven't got a clue that they are being photographed, let aside the "being shy" factor, because such portraits are most likely to come out more realistic and "live" than pre-composed shots. Maybe I should find an alternative way for approaching my subjects...

Thanks once more for your help Wim... and excuse my constant questions into mediocre english...


gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlosDaJackal
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Dublin, Ireland
     
Sep 29, 2008 07:33 |  #8

Sigma 12-24mm as wide angle
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro as walk around.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX reach lens.

Well thats what i'm going for. Only got the 24-70 and a sigma 70-300 APO at the moment.

The 24-70 is sharper in the centre than the canon 24-70L but weaker at the borders, obviously it does no have HSM or weather seals, but it matches the Image quality of the canon for 1/3 of the price. It reports itself as a canon 28-70, so it should be supported as long as the canon 28-70 is still supported, it fools canons dpp software, enough to let you use the software lens correction from the canon 28-70. A canon compatible HSM version of it should be available soon, but will probalby cost more.

The macro just means it can focus really close. I often have to look over the top of the camera to make sure i'm not about to knock the lens into something.

I agree that you don't need OS/IS below 200mm if you learn how to hold a camera properly, after 200 it gets harder to handle.


My Website (external link) - Flick (external link)r (external link) - Model Mayhem (external link) - Folio32 (external link)
Gimp Tutorials by me on POTN
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
webrunner5gt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 29, 2008 08:31 |  #9

Sigma 12-24mm as wide angle
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro as walk around.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX reach lens.

Well thats what i'm going for. Only got the 24-70 and a sigma 70-300 APO at the moment.

The 24-70 is sharper in the centre than the canon 24-70L but weaker at the borders, obviously it does no have HSM or weather seals, but it matches the Image quality of the canon for 1/3 of the price. It reports itself as a canon 28-70, so it should be supported as long as the canon 28-70 is still supported, it fools canons dpp software, enough to let you use the software lens correction from the canon 28-70. A canon compatible HSM version of it should be available soon, but will probalby cost more.

The macro just means it can focus really close. I often have to look over the top of the camera to make sure i'm not about to knock the lens into something.

I agree that you don't need OS/IS below 200mm if you learn how to hold a camera properly, after 200 it gets harder to handle.

Aha! At last a representative of Sigma lovers...
What do you mean by "24-70 is reported as 28-70"?
I have already had experience from bumping my lens into the subject I am afraid... lol... it was when I used the raynox dcr250 conversion lens (this can focus at a 5cm range!) on my 50mm... at least I wasn't shooting liqiuid macro then...
At my best I can shoot around 1/30 to 1/50 with not much trouble or errors... after this it becomes very hard...

thanks karlos


gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlosDaJackal
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Dublin, Ireland
     
Sep 29, 2008 09:28 |  #10

webrunner5gt wrote in post #6401998 (external link)
Aha! At last a representative of Sigma lovers...
What do you mean by "24-70 is reported as 28-70"?
I have already had experience from bumping my lens into the subject I am afraid... lol... it was when I used the raynox dcr250 conversion lens (this can focus at a 5cm range!) on my 50mm... at least I wasn't shooting liqiuid macro then...
At my best I can shoot around 1/30 to 1/50 with not much trouble or errors... after this it becomes very hard...

thanks karlos

I mean, that when you open up a raw file in canons dpp software, it has lens tuning options. No lens is perfect. So DPP provides tools to tune up images for certain canon lenses. You can use these tools to correct distortions/vignetting​/aberrations and anything else you'd hope the lens does not do much. We all know every lens does this bad things to some extent.

Usually these tools are disabled for images taken with non-canon lenses. For instance an image taken with my 70-300 APO does not get these options, the button is greyed out. However it appears that the DPP software thinks that the Sigma 24-70 EX is a Canon 28-70 L, and gives the tuning options applicable to the Canon 28-70 L.

You probably don't want or need the tuning options, but the point is that if the canon camera and software think that its a canon lens, you should have no compatibility issue with it at any time. Compatibilty issues seem to be a problem of the past anyway, but having the Sigma report as a Canon 28-70L means that as long as the Canon lens is supported by Canon cameras then the Sigma is supported.

So basically the Sigma has a really good Fake ID and won't have issues getting into clubs until its too old and gray to want to go into a club anyway :cool:


My Website (external link) - Flick (external link)r (external link) - Model Mayhem (external link) - Folio32 (external link)
Gimp Tutorials by me on POTN
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
webrunner5gt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Athens - Greece
     
Sep 30, 2008 10:59 |  #11

I mean, that when you open up a raw file in canons dpp software, it has lens tuning options. No lens is perfect. So DPP provides tools to tune up images for certain canon lenses. You can use these tools to correct distortions/vignetting​/aberrations and anything else you'd hope the lens does not do much. We all know every lens does this bad things to some extent.

Usually these tools are disabled for images taken with non-canon lenses. For instance an image taken with my 70-300 APO does not get these options, the button is greyed out. However it appears that the DPP software thinks that the Sigma 24-70 EX is a Canon 28-70 L, and gives the tuning options applicable to the Canon 28-70 L.

You probably don't want or need the tuning options, but the point is that if the canon camera and software think that its a canon lens, you should have no compatibility issue with it at any time. Compatibilty issues seem to be a problem of the past anyway, but having the Sigma report as a Canon 28-70L means that as long as the Canon lens is supported by Canon cameras then the Sigma is supported.

So basically the Sigma has a really good Fake ID and won't have issues getting into clubs until its too old and gray to want to go into a club anyway

So, the only slight miscompatibility one may experience with Sigma lenses is during dpp process via canon's s/w. This is not such of a drawback, considering that I almost never use Canon's s/w for this purposes. In fact on most occasions I refuse to enhance or correct photographs I have shot, just because photo manipulation is a completely different subject. Maybe its because photo manipulation is in my daily work schedule, for business purposes, and I wouldn't like to apply those techniques on photographs I shoot, with the scope to force myself learn how to shoot decent photo first.


...and a slight update to this thread...
I couldn't resist the temptation to purchase a used 70-200 f/4L lens... and so I did.
I might also buy an extender (1.4x or 2x) and that will conclude my extra reach needs.
I decided to spend more on the spoken range, rather than investing on IS or the faster 2.8L, just because my needs on the 16-70 range, as it seems, are more expensive.

A brief summary on the 16-70 range candidates is:

Canon f/1.4:
EF 24mm L -> 680pounds
EF 35mm L -> 720pounds

Sigma f/1.4:
EF 30mm EX DC HSM -> 220pounds

Canon f/1.8:
28mm f/1.8 USM -> 220pounds

Sigma f/1.8:
20mm EX DG -> 215pounds
24mm EX DG ASP -> 215pounds
28mm EX DG ASP -> 160pounds

Canon f/2.8:
EF 16-35mm L -> 780pounds
EF-S 17-55 IS -> 510pounds
EF 24-70mm L -> 670pounds
EF 28-70mm L USM -> 300pounds (used)

Sigma f/2.8:
20-70mm EX AF DG Macro -> 195pounds
24-60mm EX DG ASP -> 110pounds
24-70mm EX DG MACRO -> 210pounds
28-70mm EX DG -> 180pounds
18-50mm EX DC MACRO ->215pounds

Tamron f/2.8:
17-50mm XR Di II -> 190pounds
28-75mm XR Di -> 195pounds

Canon f/4:
EF 17-40mm L USM ->390pounds
EF 24-105 L IS -> 520pounds

prices are for NEW lenses only, from eBay (cheapest BuyItNow option available)

Sadly, I will have to exclude costs exceeding 500pounds and then figure out which (or which combo) is the best choice among this list.

Thanks once more for your input and I am looking forward to read any additional remarks.

Have a nice day!


gallery (external link) - gear (current, WTS and WTB)
---------------
dreamlucidandalwaysremember

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,954 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Sep 30, 2008 11:41 |  #12

webrunner5gt wrote in post #6401707 (external link)
So, you mean there is a way to attach most brands of lenses, using the appropriate adapter with the only cost of MF? This surely makes any decision even harder...

Yes, this is possible. I don't know if it makes it harder. It depends on what you're trying to achieve, or whether you find AF important or not, etc. :D.

Focusing screen with a split prism? Now I am really confused...

A split prism focusing screen, or focusing screen with a wedge, makes it easier to focus manually, although not necessarily more accurate in this digital age :D. Hmmm, thinking about it, I always preferred a matte anyway, a fine matte that is, in my analog days, similar to the EF-S and EE-S focusing screens :D.

You mean that all USM lenses allow FTM? This feature makes Canon lenses even more attractive then...

Yes, they do. I like the fact that most ring USM lenses focus very fast, and with no noise, although those that do make a little noise are are a little slow (like the 85L), are brilliant lenses regardless.

I have recently followed the "rule" on (focal length)*(crop factor) for my handheld efforts which more or less provide decent photographs... given I have appropriate light in the scene.

The operative word here is "light", whether appropriate or not :D. In low light shooting, you often don't have enough of it. 1/15s - 1/80s at 3200 iso and F/1.4 are fairly common settings for me ... :D

I suppose as the focal length increases, even tiny movements result into blurred photos, like when you watch through binoculars...

Yes, and especially with subjects that don't keep still, like kids, it becomes an even more pronounced problem.

A frequent bad case scenario though, is when you shoot above 2.0 and the DOF is so narrow, that you can't tell by the camera's lcd if you managed to focus right, or even you stayed stable enough, until you transfer and view the photos on a PC...

You get used to it. I find that if it looks just a little unsharp on my LCD at 10X magnification, it will be fine on the PC or laptop.

When you enable IS on a lens do you have also to adjust again shutter speed or aperture to get the same exposure?

What do you mean by this? You don't have to adjust anything, IS will just work. It just helps with handholding at much slower shutter speeds than you would normally be able to do. E.g., with the 1/(FL*crop_factor) rule you'd need 1/320s as a minimum shutter speed for a sharp picture with a 200 mm lens. 4 stops of IS will allow you to handhold that same lens at 1/20s ... Of course, this doesn't stop motion and motion blur to occur, but if you choose your moments carefully, you can avoid motion blur too. As I mentioned, with kids, and generally with jittery people, that is hard, but doable.

You are absolutely right... a great percentage of my "beloved" photos are shot in B&W through my 50mm... and noise isn't that... noisy

:D.

I have no problem footzooming in most occasions, even lying on the floor or climbing on rocks so as I can shoot the angle I want, but I can't do that while shooting portraits. Mainly because I prefer shooting people that they haven't got a clue that they are being photographed, let aside the "being shy" factor, because such portraits are most likely to come out more realistic and "live" than pre-composed shots. Maybe I should find an alternative way for approaching my subjects...

Why not footzooming? I tend to scout around, and find good positions to shoot from. Once people get used to you walking around and shooting all the time, they don't notice you anymore and don't pay attention anymore. Just try to blend into the background a little, take an observer's type position ... :D.

Thanks once more for your help Wim... and excuse my constant questions into mediocre english...

As I mentioned, it is a pleasure, and personally, I hadn't noticed you're not a native speaker. But then, neither am I :D.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

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

3,057 views & 0 likes for this thread
fast 16-70 range lens research
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 BLHdd
626 guests, 235 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.