Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Advice on lens choices  (Read 1866 times)
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« on: August 16, 2005, 06:57:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Bad luck on getting your equipment stolen, but, you now have cash to replace. Thing is with lenses, everyone needs a slightly different set to suit their photography style.

If you are getting the camera with a lens, my advice would be to go with the 17-85 EFS. Its a good all round lens, and will allow you to get to grips with the camera. Once you know the camera, and what it can and cannot do, I think you will be in a better decision to make your choice of lenses.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2005, 01:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't suppose your money would stretch to a 5D with a 24-105 f4L lens would it? (~$4500?) Then again we don't know if it exists yet.
That together with a 70-200f4L and the ability to crop from the full frame and still maintain enough megapixels may be the answer you're looking for.

Then again you would have to wait for October.
Logged

Christian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2005, 10:34:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have the 10-22, 17-85, and the 17-40. I won't part with the 17-40, because I like it on the 20 more than the 17-85 which I reserve for walk-around use only. I recently sold my 28-135 because the 17-85 performed that role and I also have a 70-200 and a 300

The end of this confusing diatribe is that I am a victim of having to by a selection of lenses one at a time, making compromizes to fit in my kit.

With as 20D, having to do it all over again, my choices would be 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 IS, 100 macro

With a full frame, my choices would be 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS, 180 macro

But wait - there's is a new 24-nn L IS full frame coming out at the end of this month! Sounds like that is right up your alley!
What's this about a new 24-105? f/4L??

Thanks for the comments. I think I love the 17-40mm too much to replace it, even though it might make more sense. At this stage I'm thinking:
17-40mm
10-22mm
70-300mm DO
100mm Macro
50mm f/1.8

And I'll consider the 17-85mm longer term: it's likely not as sharp as the 17-40mm and I'll need the 10-22mm anyway. Perhaps I might get the 17-85mm for Christmas... :-)
Logged
Christian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2005, 03:28:21 AM »
ReplyReply

On the afternoon of 29 July someone broke into my house and took, amongst many other things, virtually my entire collection of photographic equipment.  This included a 10D, 17-40 mm, 100 mm Macro, a (brand-new) 70-300 mm DO, 28-135 mm and my trusty 50 mm f/1.8. Fortunately now the insurance company has got themselves into gear, and I now have quite a bit of money to spend at my local camera shop!

However, because the 10D is not available any more, I will be getting a 20D and so suddenly my lens requirements and options change a little as I can now use EF-S lenses. So I am after some opinions!

The first question is, should I consider the 17-85 mm IS in preference to the 28-135 mm? The extra length on the old lens was always useful but the extra wide angle on the newer option is tempting.

I've long thought about the limitations of the 10D in terms of wide-angle and always been interested in the EF-S 10-22mm lens but this would probably mean giving up the 17-40 mm lens which was always my favourite -- I'm sure I would miss this lens, even if the 10-22 mm is as good as it seems.  Of course, another option might need to give up the standard zoom (28-135 or 17-85) and get the 10-22 mm instead.  For a "walk around" option I can always look at getting a digicam sometime in the future...

I also have question marks about the 70-300 mm DO, which as I said was brand-new having just arrived the week before.  I hadn't had much time to shoot with it but the image quality hadn't exactly blown me away, although admittedly this is probably too short a time to tell.  Longer term I'd like to get a 70-200 mm f/4 for more critical landscape work, although the extra reach and flexibility of the 70-300 mm DO means it's probably a keeper for now.

Anyway, thanks for reading my stream of consciousness ramblings and any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

Christian.
Logged
jd1566
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2005, 07:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I second that opinion - as an all-round lens the 17-85 gives you an IS lens which covers your 17-40mm range as well.  I personally like wide angle shots, and am discarding my 17-40 for a 10-22mm, which gives me an effective 16-35mm focal range and will be most welcome.  As for the 70-300 vs 70-200.. Your weight to shot limitation will have to dictate which lens you go for.  I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS which is BIG and HEAVY... The lens quality however makes me want to take it more often than not. However if you want to take people shots and be unobtrusive the 70-300 DO lens may be a better choice.  AS far as image quality, talk on the net points to a lack of contrast due to the DO design, but this is fixed with a curves or levels adjustment in photoshop....
Good luck with your choices.
Logged

B&W photographer - Still lifes, Portraits, Urban scenes, Landscapes, Abstract images.
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2005, 07:47:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the 10-22, 17-85, and the 17-40. I won't part with the 17-40, because I like it on the 20 more than the 17-85 which I reserve for walk-around use only. I recently sold my 28-135 because the 17-85 performed that role and I also have a 70-200 and a 300

The end of this confusing diatribe is that I am a victim of having to by a selection of lenses one at a time, making compromizes to fit in my kit.

With as 20D, having to do it all over again, my choices would be 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 IS, 100 macro

With a full frame, my choices would be 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS, 180 macro

But wait - there's is a new 24-nn L IS full frame coming out at the end of this month! Sounds like that is right up your alley!
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2005, 07:33:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And I'll consider the 17-85mm longer term: it's likely not as sharp as the 17-40mm
The 17-40 is a better lens in many departments for sure.

But sharpness is not generally a problem with the 17-85.

Check out the MTF charts for a big surprise...

17-40 chart:

http://www.canon.com.hk/En....d=10161

17-85 chart:

http://www.canon.com.hk/En....d=10515
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad