View Full Version : Lens addicition?
When I originally purchased my 30D in August last year I was pretty sure i'd only need a main lens and a zoom.
However, I have the following:
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8
Canon 70-200 F4/L
Tamron 90mm Macro
Sigma 30mm F1.4
and I've just ordered a Sigma 10-20mm. I'm not really any good at it either but its good having a wide variety of options while i'm learning/improving. I'm already thinking of replacing the 17-50mm with a Canon 17-55mm for IS and and the 70-200 with the F2.8 IS version.
Am a bit mad? Do you have an addiction to buying lenses?
puddleduck
05-07-2007, 12:29
I'm already thinking of replacing the 17-50mm with a Canon 17-55mm for IS
The 17-55 "upgrade" is money down the drain imho, and unless you need f/2.8 on the long end, I'd keep the 70-200 f/4 L which is fantastic.
Sounds as if you have a case of upgrade-itus, although if you can afford it, its up to you. Personally I've owned / tried loads of stuff and its hard to lose money on decent glass.
puddleduck
05-07-2007, 12:37
Actually I'd cancel the order for the Sigma 10-20 and order a Canon 10-22 instead. You won't notice any differece between the Tamron 17-55 and the Canon 17-55, you *will* notice a difference between the Sigma and Canon UWA , especially for corner / edge sharpness.
Radiohead
05-07-2007, 12:42
Sounds like itch-scratching - do you shoot a lot in low-light.
I agree with Andy about the 17-55 - it's way over-priced IMO and almost everyone using it over at DWF has had it fail at least once. Also agree on the 10-22mm That's a cracker.
I did check out the Canon 10-22mm, but I couldn't warrant spending the extra £150 for a specialised lens. I know i'm pretty mad on the other lenses.
The 70-200 is my favourite lens, I just find it really frustrating in low light so I'd like the IS version and 2.8 would be nice. The only reason I want the 17-55 is because its the lens I originally wanted to buy but I didn't have the cash at the time. I thought the 17-55 was optically the best lens in its class (with IS anyway)?
Radiohead
05-07-2007, 14:09
Well only you know what you really need. My approach has always been to work out what I shoot the most and spend the money there.
Personally I don't see the 17-55 being worth what it costs. The IS for that focal range is questionable and the 17-50mm does a sterling job.
As for the 70-200 - I love the 2.8 IS and need that extra stop for weddings. But, it's no better than the f4 optically and is much bigger and heavier. It's not a subtle lens. As long as you know what you're getting for the outlay then I can't advise against that lens.
The Tam 17-50 is an outstanding lens. The Canon isn't any sharper. See here for tests of both:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/all
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 is massive and heavy. Personally I'd feel ridiculously self conscious walking around with it. How often does the f4 lens really let you down from a speed point of view? Images are still very clean at ISO 800 on a Canon DSLR.
Tastydirt
05-07-2007, 14:29
I managed to quench my thirst for lenses a few months ago, I've got all the focal lenghts I use often covered (well... except perhaps for a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 :suspect:).
The best thing about buying lenses in the UK is that you can get them off people in the US for dirt cheap :D, then if you don't like it you can flog it off again for the same or more money.
TBH I'm surprised you're not lusting for a 5D, if I shot Canon I would be.
TBH I'm surprised you're not lusting for a 5D, if I shot Canon I would be.
But that would change the effective focal length of all his lenses, and would make the 30mm useless*
*if it's for sale, I'm interested :D
Radiohead
05-07-2007, 15:01
and that 17-50 would be no use.
AndyWilson
05-07-2007, 15:02
I spent 50 quid on a 2nd hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime on ebay...
..not quite in the same big-spender league as some :(
Tastydirt
05-07-2007, 15:04
Most of my lenses are DX only, but if Nikon bought out an affordable FF DSLR I'd sell them all :D.
Radiohead
05-07-2007, 15:08
I spent 50 quid on a 2nd hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime on ebay...
..not quite in the same big-spender league as some :(
Don't knock it Andy. That's a great price.
Lenses are indeed things of beauty and power. However, I have limited myself to the 18-55mm kit lens I got with my Nikon, a 70-300mm zoom, and my favourite Tokina 100mm 1:1 macro.
I think I've covered most eventualities there :)
I spent 50 quid on a 2nd hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime on ebay...
Manual or autofocus. My understanding was most of the minolta manual focus wasn't useable on anything but olympus 4:3rds.
(PS, I paid £25 for a pentax me-super with a Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 and a hoya 28mm 2.8 before the ruddy k10d came out. *Shakes fist in anger over his old prime lenses getting expensive*)
I spent 50 quid on a 2nd hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime on ebay...
That's a quality lens, nothing wrong with that.
I just spent £8.50 on a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 Series E. Cheap as chips (7 bags of chips obviously).
Radiohead
05-07-2007, 16:09
I still can't believe that price. £8.50. That's such a bargain.
I've decided to get an adaptor for my EOS so that I can stick my Zuiko 24mm on it.
Could be the start of something fun if I get along with manual primes on there as I love prime lenses.
I still can't believe that price. £8.50. That's such a bargain.
It looks clean, bit of rubbing on the black paint, barrel rotates smoothly and the aperture ring clicks solidly. No end caps, but did come with a metal lens hood from a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens. Will try it out shortly.
Anyway, it's John C's fault, he bought one first and I had to play catch up. :doh:
AndyWilson
05-07-2007, 18:47
Manual or autofocus. My understanding was most of the minolta manual focus wasn't useable on anything but olympus 4:3rds.
(PS, I paid £25 for a pentax me-super with a Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 and a hoya 28mm 2.8 before the ruddy k10d came out. *Shakes fist in anger over his old prime lenses getting expensive*)
AF - the MD minolta lenses won't fit the Sony A100, probably why they're damn cheap on ebay!
To echo Radiohead, both the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 are fantastic lenses, but it maybe only worth going for the 2.8 version if you really need it (or if you just really want one ;) ). Hold it up to your eye for about 7 hrs straight and it starts getting a bit heavy :D
Taq
To echo Radiohead, both the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 are fantastic lenses, but it maybe only worth going for the 2.8 version if you really need it (or if you just really want one ;) ). Hold it up to your eye for about 7 hrs straight and it starts getting a bit heavy :D
Taq
How much heavier is the IS version of the F4 then? I would have to get another bag if I wanted the 2.8. I aint really that desperate for the F2.8, mainly the IS i guess, but there's that need for always wanting the best one.
Maybe I should get the 100-400 instead for the extra reach?
Radiohead
06-07-2007, 11:42
Both the f4 IS and f2.8 IS and f4 non-IS and f2.8 non-IS are equally best to be honest. They're all sterling optically. Pick the right one for you.
f4 = 760g
f2.8 = 1,470g
Oddly even the 2.8 doesn't feel *that* heavy once you get used to it and it's balanced very nicely for holding which helps a lot. Get an optech pro strap for it though ;)
Taq
puddleduck
06-07-2007, 12:13
Personally I wouldn't under estimate the size of a f/2.8 70-200 lens. This is serious Pro glass, and carries - along with the price tag - a size / weight penalty. They are never discrete, and in some circumstances a large lens can intimidate your subject when doing close quarter people shots.
On the other hand they're great for bashing people out of the way ;)
snoopstah
06-07-2007, 12:33
Actually I'd cancel the order for the Sigma 10-20 and order a Canon 10-22 instead. You won't notice any differece between the Tamron 17-55 and the Canon 17-55, you *will* notice a difference between the Sigma and Canon UWA , especially for corner / edge sharpness.
Yeah, the Sigma's sharper ;)
Seriously, they're both excellent lenses. The Sigma does have more QC issues (the first one I got was knackered) but new one is easily sharper than either of the two Canon 10-22mm lenses my friends have, specifically at the corners.
The Canon is by no means a bad buy, even at the additional cost, but I'd be no means tell someone who has bought the Sigma that they made the wrong choice - mine is superior to the Canon examples I've seen in everything except distortion at the 10mm end (and obviously doesn't have the extra 2mm length either). Obviously there are likely to be many examples of the Canon which are better than the Sigma, too.
As others have said, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is a big and heavy lens. I've used it as a walkabout lens all day before without a monopod/tripod, but I regretted it the day after - seriously stiff shoulders, neck and arms! The quality is simply astounding though, even wide open.
Tastydirt
06-07-2007, 12:39
I've used a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 all day (1270g so not as heavy) without problems although if you do think you may have a problem with the weight you could rent one for the day and try it out before you buy.
http://mgmg74.blogspot.com/2007/07/sigma-ex-10-20mm-f4-56-vs-canon-ef-s-10.html for the Canon Vs the Sigma review.
Btw, where can you rent lenses?
You can rent lenses at Calumet (http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/ctl?ac.ui.pn=common.IncSel&ac.ui.if=text/rentaldest.jsp)
How much heavier is the IS version of the F4 then? I would have to get another bag if I wanted the 2.8. I aint really that desperate for the F2.8, mainly the IS i guess, but there's that need for always wanting the best one.
Maybe I should get the 100-400 instead for the extra reach?
I've just got the f2.8 IS. I um'd and ah'd between it and the f4 IS. In the end as someone said to me "if I didn't get it I'd always think I should have done" ;) You can only trade off the cost, weight and lens speed according to your situation and requirements and pick the one for you. Googling will throw up the same pro's and con's every time. Image quality always is very close. It is a reassuringly hefty, well built piece of kit. You do feel you have a quality item.
A friend has the 100-400 he uses for wildlife/sports. He like the lens. I did ask about the trombone style which I don't like - tried it on a borrowed 70-210 and hated it. He says he has got used to it but tends to almost preset at various lengths rather than constantly zooming in and out. Sort of like using it as a prime without the lens swapping from the sound of it. Not sure if it is weather sealed either.
t00thless
09-07-2007, 10:01
On the other hand they're great for bashing people out of the way ;)Hey thats my trick at shows, just "accidently" tap someone on the shoulder with the lens hood and then they turn around and go "oh sorry mate" and then move out your way, its brilliant for getting to the front of stuff :D
Also try www.fixationuk.com for rentals, i can reconmend them 110% as a company, they have a large rental list, and excellent service, £25+ vat for sensor cleans (£50+ vat for FF) based in Vauxhall London, 5 mins walk from the train station.
puddleduck
09-07-2007, 10:06
£25+ vat for sensor cleans (£50+ vat for FF) based in Vauxhall London, 5 mins walk from the train station.
That seems expensive for a 2 minute job to me? :thinking:
Nikon will generally do it for the cost of postage to them, or for free if you are at one of their Pro days. Canon CPS should also do it for free.
Tastydirt
09-07-2007, 11:06
Nikon will generally do it for the cost of postage to them, or for free if you are at one of their Pro days. Canon CPS should also do it for free.
Very interesting, I've got a dirty sensor and I'm just a little too lazy to get the stuff and clean it myself right now. How long does it usually take for them to get it back?
downhillbiker
09-07-2007, 11:12
Also try www.fixationuk.com for rentals, i can reconmend them 110% as a company, they have a large rental list, and excellent service, £25+ vat for sensor cleans (£50+ vat for FF) based in Vauxhall London, 5 mins walk from the train station.
So they charge double for full frame? That's just a rip off, plain and simple.
Very interesting, I've got a dirty sensor and I'm just a little too lazy to get the stuff and clean it myself right now. How long does it usually take for them to get it back?
Eh?! It's going to take you 10 times longer to wrap it up, take it to the Post Office and send it than it is to just clean it yourself. You don't need anything fancy to do the job. A lens blower brush (minus the brush) is fine.
Matholwch
09-07-2007, 14:36
I bought an Artic Butterfly (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?photo/cleaning/visibledust.html#ab724) whilst in NY for about £50, no one in the UK had stock back then. Does the job quite well for me, polish off with pect pads if needed.
t00thless
09-07-2007, 15:00
personally i dont trust myself with cleaning the sensor, i dont have the steadyist or lightest hands, so i am quite happy to take it up there for them to do it. When i took my 20D up there, somehow i had managed to get a grain of sand on the inside of the glass of the lens that was on there when i was in Thailand, but after i got it back from them, it was gone, they had also given the lens a clean up whilst the camera was there, and in my books, cant fault that.
I rarely change len's having the two bodys, so a clean once every six months does me.
I've now yet cleaned my sensor for my 30D. I can't see any dust on it at the moment after a year.
How quickly or paranoid are you all with lens changes? I literally get the camera face up twist it out so its ready to take off and unscrew the cap of the one i'm changing it to. Then I change over in 2-3 seconds. Is that being over paranoid?
puddleduck
09-07-2007, 16:48
I literally get the camera face up twist it out so its ready to take off and unscrew the cap of the one i'm changing it to. Then I change over in 2-3 seconds. Is that being over paranoid?
Nope, not paranoid at all - its good practice. I can do a lens change within a few seconds, I've got no dust on my S5 Pro sensor after 3 months of use (including 3 weeks in dusty Utah). As soon as I do see dust, I'll "Rocket Blower" it off, so it doesn't become a problem.
Radiohead
09-07-2007, 17:00
Have you bought the bloody lens yet then?
I bought an Artic Butterfly whilst in NY for about £50, no one in the UK had stock back then. Does the job quite well for me, polish off with pect pads if needed.
OMG! I doubt if cost price for this is more than £2.
Cleaning a sensor is simple. You don't need to touch it. A couple of puffs of air from a blower brush does the job (unless you've managed to coat it in jam!).
People do get paranoid about sensor cleaning. A lot of advice on photography forums just seems to reinforce this paranoia and the belief that you need some expensive kit to do it properly.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.