Canon Lens Questiion

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
My 10-22 + 24-105 F4L combo ain't bad. You should just get a really WA zoom like the Tokina 12-24 to compliment your 28-135.

I have the 24-105L. It's a great walkaround lens. Pretty darn sharp too. I just wish it was f/2.8 sometimes.

Why didn't you get the 24-70L f/2.8 lens? It's about the same price and a full stop faster.

I had one and I didn't like it. I may try one again someday. My lenses:

50mm f/1.8
17-40 f/4L
24-105 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS
100mm Macro (great portrait lens)

I'm pretty well covered. I want an 85mm f/1.2L though, but don't want to pay for it

Would also like the 135mm f/2L

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
My 10-22 + 24-105 F4L combo ain't bad. You should just get a really WA zoom like the Tokina 12-24 to compliment your 28-135.

I have the 24-105L. It's a great walkaround lens. Pretty darn sharp too. I just wish it was f/2.8 sometimes.

I have an okay copy...not the sharpest I've seen. My Tamron 28-75 is sharper.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
My 10-22 + 24-105 F4L combo ain't bad. You should just get a really WA zoom like the Tokina 12-24 to compliment your 28-135.

I have the 24-105L. It's a great walkaround lens. Pretty darn sharp too. I just wish it was f/2.8 sometimes.

I have an okay copy...not the sharpest I've seen. My Tamron 28-75 is sharper.

Send it in for calibration.

 

[GTaudiophile]

If I could have an ultimate setup on a FF camera, it would be...

EF 17-40 F4L
EF 24-70 F2.8L IS (doesn't exist)
EF 70-200 F4L IS
EF 35 F1.4L

 

[FilmCamera]

Why not F/2.8L IS on a 70-200??

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera
Why not F/2.8L IS on a 70-200??

The F4 with IS is good enough for $400 less...and much lighter! Very important!

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: FilmCamera
Why not F/2.8L IS on a 70-200??

The F4 with IS is good enough for $200 less...and much lighter! Very important!

It does depend on what you're shooting.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS saved me when I was shooting a wedding and the power went out, along with most of the light.

Of course the 580EX helped but still.

 

[unsped]

if canon sold a 49-51mm 2.0 L lense, im sure they would sell many more than there 1.4 50's.

don't get me wrong im sure the 24-70 is a good lense, just very sepcialized and i wouldnt recommend for someone with few lense choices. as restricted as the 24-105 sounds, it has twice the zoom range a 70 would have. canon's handle high iso's well so 2.8 isnt as neccessary as it sounds.

and remember IS doesnt stop your subject from moving, just because you can handhold 1/15-1/30 its still situational dependant, although it certainly doesnt hurt

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You know, I never understand why people complain about the noise of the lens... if you're afraid of annoying people or something, the mirror slap when you take a picture is definitely louder than any kind of lens motor...

For something in the 70-200mm end, get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. They go for $500 used, which is the same price as the darker Canon 70-200mm f/4L

USM/HSM/equiv is just so sexy tho As for $500... I've seen the sigma's used mostly in the $600ish range. The 70-200 f/4L is very... very nice though. I had to sell it because I barely used the range. If I go back to it, not sure if I would opt for the sigma or not.. an extra stop is nice, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to hand hold it worth crap.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
My 10-22 + 24-105 F4L combo ain't bad. You should just get a really WA zoom like the Tokina 12-24 to compliment your 28-135.

Nice combo, I wanted to do the same. I currently pretty much use my Sigma 18-50 DC EX. Seems fairly sharp for what it is, just has some trouble focusing in lower light on my rebel. I somewhat want to switch and try the Tamron, but not sure if it's worth the effort. The build quality on the EX is very very nice.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: keeleysam

The reason I bought the 28-135 is because it is small(ish), has a nice zoom, IS, and it's good glass.

Don't listen to everyone bashing this lens. I use it as well. If I don't feel like carrying a bag full of lenses this one lens gives me great flexibility. The only other lens I have right now is a 70-300. Once I buy a sigma 10-20mm lens I will have everything covered for the time being.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: unsped
the 18-200 sigma is generally considered optically better, same with sigma 70-300 line, but they have autofocus issues on canon bodies so i don't reccomend them. same with the 18-125, but youll find these lenses have no real problems on non canon bodies.

as far as the sigma 18-50 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 120-300 2.8, they are a step above any tamron.

Anyone buying an 18-200 lens deserves what he gets.

Regarding the 70-300, that depends. Tamron introduced a new 70-300 lens (the "Di" version) in early 2006. This version has consistantly rated better than the Sigma 70-300 APO. The previous Tamron 70-300 was not as good as the Sigma APO, however.

The Tamron SP line has some damn fine lenses as well, easily as good as, if not better than, the Sigma EX line.

ZV