Lenses thread

So, which lenses are the best to get? Which ones do you have?

I am looking for a bit of inspiration.

I really, REALLY want to try out TS as I just love architecture.

What's the best possible alround prime for Canon?

Tele?

Makro??

I am drooling a bit over the 180mm makro since you obviously get a fair distance to the object. Being close usually scare the object away.

I am of course also drooling over the 70-200mm f/2.8 from Canon.

They are pricey here though.

It does not have to be Canon. Could also be Sigma, Tamron or Tokina for that matter.

Nikon users are welcome to give input about their cameras and lenses as well.

 

I think one of the most underrated lenses I've ever owned was the Canon 100mm f2. That single $350 lens is my biggest disappointment in switching to Nikon. It's by far the sharpest lens I've ever owned and is tack sharp wide open, I miss it so much.

Damnit, now I'm looking at 5DIIs when I really can't afford to.

 

I shoot Nikon, but have done a lot of lens research, have owned quite a few lenses and have some friends who shoot Canon, so here is a little of what I have found out.

Super Wide Angle: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is exceptional, it is fast and wide but it doesn't have much zoom, so if you need more range, you will have to look elsewhere.

Macro: The Canon 100mm F/2.8 L is an amazing piece of glass. It also doubles as a great portrait lens as well. Fairly pricey though. I hear the non L version is still a very nice lens for half the price.

The best Canon prime is the 85mm F/1.2, though it focuses slowly. I also hear the 135mm F/2 L is a beast of a lens. Non Canon primes, the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.4 are very good. I also enjoy shooting with the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens, I don't think its image quality is as good as the others I mentioned.

The newest Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS is one of Canon's best lenses period. Same can be said for Nikon's version.

I have no experience with tilt/shift lens but would love to hear from others because I wouldn't mind learning more about them.

I shoot mainly with the Nikkor 17-55 F/2.8, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR 1 & Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro lens. I prefer the zooms and those give images about as good as any prime will. I also use a 1.7 x teleconverter which works on both the 70-200 and the the 105mm micro making them effectively a 119mm-340mm F/4.8 and the other a 178.5mm F/4.8 macro lens. I am not sure if the Canon teleconverters work with the Canon macro lenses, but that would be worth looking into.

What it really boils down to is what you shoot and what tools you need for that. I don't know if you have lens rental places over there, but that is a decent way to try things out as well.

 

Lots of info. Thanks

We do have lens rental places. I have thought about trying them out

I will try and look into some of those lenses you mentioned.

I will shoot pretty much anything

Mostly I use my cheap 135mm and my 100-400mm. But when I am in the mood I dig out the 60mm makro. It just require a lot of patience as manual focus is SO much better than auto focus.

 

No problem, I could talk camera gear all day long

I forgot to mention that a lot of people really liked the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 lens but not the newer VC (vibration control) lens as the older non VC lens appears to have better image quality. See the review here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

 

Please feel free to do so

I checked up on a couple of pics and prices of those you mentioned. Found an inasnely good pic of a car taken with the Tokina 11-16.

Then I found an even better pic of a cat taken with the canon 85mm.

But, damn!!! In DKK it is as much a the big TS I am eyeing. That would mean roughly 48k DKK ($ 8.5k) for he canon 85mm, the TS and the 70-200 f/2.8. OMG!

Car http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k76/moog177/Bluebeard/ca9cf33a.jpg

Cat http://rudiphoto.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p881825321.jpg

 

Those pics are great, I especially like the cat one. That is the problem with photography, it is an expensive hobby.

The Canon 85mm F/1.2 is pretty expensive, an alternative would be the Sigma 85mm F/1.4. It is not as good as the Canon, but still very respectable and probably costs half as much. Canon also offers an 85mm F/1.8, which I know nothing about. I have the Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 and really like it though. A fast 85mm lens is great for portraits and you can get some great out of focus backgrounds with it.

You could also try the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 lens as Blackwood has his review of it in another thread in this forum. It seems to be a winner. A cheaper Canon alternative would be the Canon 70-200 F/4. You lose a stop of light, but I suspect that lens is still a good lens to have.

One more budget lens that is great to have is the Canon 50mm F/1.8. Typically they are cheap, as far as lenses go, and can take quality pictures in low light. Also, good for portraits. That would be another one to consider.

 

I was not super impressed with Canon's 85mm f1.8.

 

I read up on the Canon 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 and they said one should go with the 1.2 or find something different. That was basically what i got from it. The 1.8 was okay, but nowhere near the quality of the other.

I actually thought about the Sigma thread earlier, and it is also what made me start this thread I guess. I don't want to make any mistakes and buy something I will never us, so I want to be pretty muh 100% certain on what I want before I decide to buy

 

Makes sense to me. Hopefully someone who shoots Canon can give you a little more info on the Canon lenses. Otherwise, hopefully this will give you a good place to start

 

So far I am very happy with my 100-400. In good light it's good, but when it gets darker you do have to work harder *LOL*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very true, but the 1.2 carries a $2k price tag vs about $400 for the 1.8. You must think if it's really more than 4x as good. Prices are USD btw.

 

My go to walk around for the last 7 years or so has been canon's EF 24-105mm f/4L. Pretty sharp even wide open, not a terrible amount of distortion, pretty fast, good IS. I used it enough that the red ring fell off.

Since my son was born, I've been using mostly the canon EF 50mm f/1.4. I played with the 1.8 "nifty fifty" and it's a nice lens particularly for the price, but the AF motor wasn't quick enough to keep up with my son's unpredictable movements, and shooting with a wide aperture meant I lost a lot of great expressions to OOF. The 1.4 is generally quick enough, and is pretty damn sharp. Here's a photo I took a few minutes ago:

I used to use the 17-40 f/4L for static cars, but stopped taking those types of photos and the lens wasn't getting much use (I favored the 24 for the IS, and stitched panos when 24mm wasn't wide enough).

I also have the 70-300DO IS. Something like f/3.5-5.6, not sure off hand. It's the compact tele zoom. Nice for its portability, great IS, decent sharpness stopped down around 7, but slow AF. Works great as a zoo lens, but not quick enough for real wildlife photography.

The newest addition (sigma 70-200 alphabet edition) is great. I can't say enough about it, though I've only really used it one time so far.


I'm in the market for a new wide angle. Probably will take the prime route.

 

I've always wanted the 24L or even the 28mm 1.8

 

Now that I'm on a full frame, the 17-40 seems like a good choice again. But I love the quality they can get out of primes.

Here's one from a few minutes ago with the 50mm 1.4.

http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/MostRecent/i-P98XXKR/0/O/MAB-20120402-0776.jpg

At 2.8 (above), it's probably sharper than the 24-105 (L glass) is at 4 (below).

http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/October-2011/i-rgMdBP9/0/O/MAB-20111025-3292.jpg

 

I loved the 17-40 but i found it was too wide on ff.

 

So am I, I'm going to try to rent one soon.

 

no such thing as too wide... wide is fun

 

Haha I was thinking the same thing. As long as distortion is kept under control.

 

distortion is only part of it, you need sharp corners too. ;-)

 

Typically the shift function is used in architectural photography to shift the perspective such that the vertical lines do not converge. In the past, performing this with film on a SLR camera required a shift lens. In the digital era we are now in, this perspective shift can be done in post processing, and is much easier than using the lens.

The other function, tilt, which is often used for landscape shots shifts the focus plane and this effect cannot be accurately replicated in post processing.

I don't want to discourage you from getting a T/S lens if you want to have one, it's just to give you another option in cracking the perspective issue. They are quite a bit of fun to play with.

 

I rather like it. Super fast focus (unlike the 1.2) and very sharp indeed. It's weakness is purple fringing on strongly backlit subjects, though there is now software to fix that.

 

How do you fix it on post processing? And does it require alot more space around the object you photograph?

Would be cheaper to do it that way and I could focus on other lenses instead first

 

Yeah, I just found myself toward the 40mm much more than the 17mm.

The chromatic abrasion was my main issue with it and I wasn't a huge fan of the focal length, it seemed to be either too much or too little.

 

Adobe lightroom does an excellent job correcting lens distortions, see here:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS43660fa5a9ec95a81172e081210db09b94-7feb.html

Fixing the wide angle, where everything appears tilted in a photograph is easy. Check out this video around the 6:40 mark, it shows how to fix it:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-lightroom-3/lens-correction-perspective-correction/