CarMad Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 I don't know about anyone else who is into photography but I'm always on the lookout as to what lens I want to get next. For me its probably going to buy a pro zoom, most likely the Canon 70-200mm F/4 IS L. I've been borrowing one without IS and its sooooooo nice to take shows with at motorsport events. Got a few other lenses in mind but its not exactly a cheap hobby, but it is fun. Picked up the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 recently, that are both far exceeding my expectations, a couple of great little lenses that I'd highly recommend. Neither have given my any focus problems either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 You know my dilemma and I still haven't got any further. Chap in the shop the other day suggested a 'super' zoom, 18-200 jobbie. Found this place the other day which I thought was good, probably old news but I will post the link just in case. Pixel-Peeper -- More than 100,000 full-size sample photos from lenses, SLR cameras and digicams. I shall keep reading, and looking and probably buy nothing as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Thats pretty darn long for a zoom so will have a fair few compromises to say the least. Who makes it anyway .. Tamron I guess ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biturbo Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 I'm after the Canon 24-70 f2.8L That'll then be my walkaround lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biturbo Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Oh and the 2.8 version of the 70-200 is stunning btw. You can also add the 2x convertor without it being a problem ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Thats pretty darn long for a zoom so will have a fair few compromises to say the least. Who makes it anyway .. Tamron I guess ? Twas a Sigma with OS. Not overly wonderful at the long end apparently, f/3.5-6.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 i was looking through a 400mm 2.8 canon lens today, amazing!! £5 grands worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biturbo Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 i was looking through a 400mm 2.8 canon lens today, amazing!!£5 grands worth They are very nice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Twas a Sigma with OS. Not overly wonderful at the long end apparently, f/3.5-6.3. Remember at 6.3 it might (probably) won't auto focus at that aperture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 I'm after the Canon 24-70 f2.8LThat'll then be my walkaround lens I take it you are fitting that to a full frame camera then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Oh and the 2.8 version of the 70-200 is stunning btw. You can also add the 2x convertor without it being a problem ;-) Don't want the wait and the speed isn't necessary for what I'm going to be taking really. I've considered it but the newer 70-200 f/4 IS is meant to be even sharper and has an extra stop on the IS. Plus its way way lighter which is also an important factor. Plus the money I say can go towards other lenses, I'd rather add a 300mm f/4 IS later with some of the saving I think. But that lens next year. I'm off to Hong Kong and Singapore in Jan / Feb 09, not sure what I might get out there or even if its cheaper or not. If it is then I might add a couple of nice lenses whilst out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 I bought the Canon 55-250 f4.5/5.6 IS last week to go with my new Canon 450D body and 18-55 lens that came with it. Must say I like it a lot and the image stabilisation is great. Took it out the other night whilst walking the dog. Managed to snap a gull over-head by just leaving on auto and panning. The result is pretty good as the lens was at 250mm and the light was not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Oh and the 2.8 version of the 70-200 is stunning btw. You can also add the 2x convertor without it being a problem ;-) 2nd that. If buying outright is too spendy on a whim, or our say-so, see about renting one - you'll be stunned. Oddly enough, for a long lens, it makes a really impressive portrait-taker too! If you're going to get a 50mm, the f/1.8 is a nice bargain lens, but for really cracking portraits, consider splashing on the f/1.4, but buy a cheapo ND filter set for it as well (I got a Tiffen 0.3, 0.6 & 0.9 set fairly cheap) as it will blow out a bit on a Canon in really bright light. 24-70mm L looks like nice glass. I want a TS-E (tilt/shift) lens, but can't decide what focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 I've just got the 50mm f1.8 did look at the f1.4 but the money is going on other things, I think I'd prefer to get the 85mm f1.8 to complement the 30mm f1.4. Not going to go for the 70-200 f2.8, for what I want to take shots of the f/4 will do me. Read many reviews on both and several people who have owned both and the f/4 gets the nod over the f2.8 quite a bit. But the weight is a fairly big factor in the decision as well and the f2.8 isn't as good on a crop as a FF to take advantage of the full difference. I think a TS is way off for me, fancy a nice macro first, 100mm Canon I think or the 150mm Sigma (oh the choices) :D:grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Next lens will definitely be a macro but I may have to wait until Father Christmas arrives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biturbo Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Read many reviews on both and several people who have owned both and the f/4 gets the nod over the f2.8 quite a bit. But the weight is a fairly big factor in the decision as well and the f2.8 isn't as good on a crop as a FF to take advantage of the full difference. I had the f4 and then traded in for the 2.8. Yes it is heavier, but the focusing is so much faster and locks in really solid, especially on moving objects. My camera is the crop sensor..... as much as I'd like to change ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghibbett Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 85 f/1.8 is a great lens. I took this of the neighbours cat Also have a 70-200 F/4 L IS. Great lens, very very sharp, fast AF and the IS works very well. I've remembering shooting at 1/13 sec @ 150mm and it was sharp. I've not tried the f/2.8 version though. Oh, and all of this is based on my 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I havent got a clue what you guys are talking about but that pic looks great. makes me want to give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Chav, Give it a go and you'll soon learn a whole new language! F number and speed are reference to the depth of field (the amount of the picture in focus from front to back). You will pay more for a faster lens witha lower F number because they are a lot harder to manufacture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 The longer the distance, the lower the F(aperture) the more expensive the lens because you need more glass. Have a look at a 200mm f/2 compared to a 200mm f/4 and you will see what I mean. The lower the number the more light will hit the sensor but to get that light there the optics need to be bigger. A whole new world is indeed right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I had the f4 and then traded in for the 2.8. Yes it is heavier, but the focusing is so much faster and locks in really solid, especially on moving objects.My camera is the crop sensor..... as much as I'd like to change ;-) Focusing on the f/4 non IS i've been using is like using a riffle, extremely fast and never seems to miss, very very impressed with it thus why I'm going for the newer f/4 IS that seems aperture to aperture sharper than the f/2.8 but ultimately slower wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza_g Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I think I wanted the Canon 28-300mm L IS but then I saw the price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Yeah I've looked at that, looks nice but very heavy. You can get a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 300mm f/4 prime for the same money as just that lens, I'd prefer the latter. How are you finding yours bazza? Haven't you got the 100-400 L?... do you have any dust problems, apparently they nick named it the dyson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I think a TS is way off for me, fancy a nice macro first, 100mm Canon I think or the 150mm Sigma (oh the choices) :D:grin: 'tis only a dream for me right now too. I have got the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens though, and I really like it, but you do still have to get quite close to what you're photographing, so a 150mm or 180mm might be better if you want little critters etc. 100mm is fine for still-life though, as you can just get closer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza_g Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Yeah I've looked at that, looks nice but very heavy. You can get a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 300mm f/4 prime for the same money as just that lens, I'd prefer the latter. How are you finding yours bazza? Haven't you got the 100-400 L?... do you have any dust problems, apparently they nick named it the dyson. my 100-400 L is great, just a bit of a pain to carry around with me - I haven't noticed any major dust issues but saying that it probably needs a clean right now... I've changed my mind and I think my next lens will be.... Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Only £659.00 - Park Cameras Online Has anyone got/used one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now