Lenses

Quo Fan · Jan 5, 2009

If you are going to hand hold, then IS is important. If you are going to always lock down your camera on a tripod, then you don't need IS.

Canon L glass is top of the line, and can be identified by the red stripe around the lens. You can't get much better than that, though you spend a lot for it.

There are people that swear by 3rd party lenses, and some of them are on par with L glass. You have to decide whether having a white lens or a black lens will do it for you.

Personally, I like my white lens. A Canon 100-400mm f4-5.6L.

Toshi · Jan 5, 2009

instead of a 70-200 (i used to have a canon 70-200 f/4L) i rock the canon 135mm f/2L. it's incredibly awesome. also highly recommended is the canon 50mm f/1.4. not L but still USM focusing and nice, nice bokeh. the other lens in my current stable is the sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 HSM. it's decent but not the sharpest under f/13 and possibly superfluous now that i've gone full frame.

narlus · Jan 5, 2009

damo, it all depends on what you are shooting (if you need IS or not). if you can consistently keep the shutter speed above the rule of thumb for inverse focal length (ie, if you are shooting @ 200mm, you want 1/200 or faster, as a rule of thumb - some people are steadier (or less steady) than others)). insert arguments about whether the sensor crop factor should also be taken into consideration.

i personally use IS all the time on that lens, as it allows me to get pretty sharp shots hand-held @ 1/50 or even less. granted, subject motion is immune to IS so again it comes down to how you plan on using this lens.

i've not used that sigma but i have had extensive experience w/ a sigma fisheye and 30mm prime, both giving great results. check POTN for user feedback.

lastly, if you don't need f/2.8, you can get a cheaper, lighter, and sharper lens by choosing the canon 70-200L f/4...IS is also an option if you think you need it. i had this lens and really liked it, but i needed the extra stop for concert shoots so i sold it and got the big brother.

Westy · Jan 5, 2009

I don't have first hand experience but I've been looking at longer lenses and a friend has the Sigma above and highly recomends it.

narlus · Jan 5, 2009

the sensor/image quality of the rebel series (XXXD) and next step up (XXD) isn't much at all, really. i took plenty of great shots w/ my 350D that look as good as stuff coming out of my 30D. so, i wouldn't worry about putting an L lens on a XXXD series body...

i have no experience w/ a tamron, but i know a couple of people w/ the 18-50 f/2.8 who like it.

for candids or mtb shots, f/4 would probably be fine, esp if you don't mind bumping the ISO (and it shouldn't be an issue).

if i were you, i'd look @ the canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS and then look for a fast zoom in the 17-70 range.

Quo Fan · Jan 5, 2009

I also have a Tamron lens, but I need to get it serviced, since it is not as sharp as the reps claim is should be. BigT has Tamron lenses, and loves them.

For candid shots on the street, f4 is good enough. For fast MTB, you want faster glass, or off camera flashes.

narlus · Jan 5, 2009

i wouldn't think that a 70-200 lens would be the ideal choice for street photography.

if you don't have much wooded sections (and i recall Les Gets being mostly wide open, same w/ Pleney), f/4 should be fine.

Transcend · Jan 5, 2009

If you are shooting action, IS is useless as your shutter speed will need to be be pretty high anyways. The 70-200 isn't really a big lens anyways so please don't put it on a monopod.

That said, you invest in glass. Bodies come and go and get replaced pretty often. Photographers regularly use 8-10 year old lenses without a problem. It's an investment, so don't worry about what the morons tell you about putting that lens on that body. In 2 years you will own a new body anyways, most probably.

I would go for 2.8 long before I went for IS, that's for sure. The 70-200 i make most of my money with is a 70-200 2.8. No IS for me, more than happy with it.

Transcend · Jan 5, 2009

Damo said:
I like hearing that sort of thing Fraser.

I know you'll probably be using the Canon glass, but have you got anything to chime in on the other brands?

No ideas on other brands. I'm a CPS member so I get a decent discount on Canon stuff and really good support from them for any issues, repairs, loaners etc.

blue · Jan 5, 2009

I borrowed a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and it had horrendous chromatic aberration.

I'd get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 if you can afford it. The f/4 version is smaller and cheaper, but you may find yourself needing to upgrade to the stop faster version at some point.

Echoing Toshi's thoughts - the 135 f/2 is an AMAZING lens. Probably the best lens I've ever used. It's a good telephoto length on a crop sensor, and it's ridiculously sharp/fast. If you don't need a zoom range, I'd rock it in a second.

narlus · Jan 5, 2009

the 135 is an ace lens for sure, but shooting riders w/ a prime like that on a crop body would be tough.

Mike B. · Jan 5, 2009

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM EX DG and like it although it's a bit slower to focus than I really prefer (on a 20D). When I feel I can justify it I'll replace it with the Canon non-IS version. The body really needs to go to back-up duty first.

I also have the Tamron 18-50 and really like it for a 3rd party lens. Build quality is not as nice as say my Canon 85 1.8 and it doesn't focus as quickly but good for my intended uses. The range is excellent though for just walking around with the crop bodies in my opinion.

Transcend · Jan 14, 2009

Damo said:
Ok, here's another question:

If one rarely shoots in f2.8, is there any point in buying such a lens? Or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?

I'm thinking with MTB photography you'd use around the f8 mark to get a bit of background while still allowing enough light in to shoot faster shutter speeds (correct?).

So therefor, would a f.4 70-200 be good enough? Or is it more a matter of glass quality?

Which could then lead to a second question: What are your favoured (and I realise this depends on lighting etc) settings? What is your most-used aperture in MTB photography?

Read my photo articles. There is no "most used" article. Going form full sunshine to deep woods can take you from F11 to f2.8 in a hurry. Bike stuff can require pretty fast shutter speeds and 2.8 will be the only thing besides big lights that can allow you to do that at times. It is a godsend on many occasions.

Remember 1 stop = double the shutter speed. That can mean shooting at F4 100/sec o f2.8 200/sec. That can easily be the difference between handshake and no handshake on that lens.

The Canon 70-200 f4 is as good as the 70-200 f2.8, no worries there. It's all about light and DOF. There's a reason some os us spend $4000+ for a 300mm F2.8 when the 300mm F4 is $1500.

narlus · Jan 14, 2009

and also remember that one stop is a bump in ISO from 800 to 1600...i am regularly @ 1600 and noise is not much of an issue w/ me.

one of canon's strengths over nikon is their line of f/4 lenses...one may not always need f/2.8 and can get away w/ using a smaller, lighter, and far cheaper lens that's one stop slower. if you can make up this stop using ISO, it might make sense for you.

binary visions · Jan 20, 2009

Go for the lens you need. The faster lens is going to be twice the weight of the Canon and a little shorter. If you're okay with that, go for it.

DPReview found the Sigma to have slightly inferior optics against Canon's f/2.8 lens, but consider that you're comparing it against the f/4, and all lenses improve sharpness and image quality when stopped down so apples-to-apples you'll likely find them more comparable at f/4 - and will have the option of shooting at f/2.8 if you want it.

It's your personal decision. For me, 70-200 is by far not my most used focal length so I'd probably get the f/4 zoom to avoid the weight/size in my bag. For some people, though, that's the focal length that's glued to their camera.

moff_quigley · Jan 21, 2009

binary visions said:
Go for the lens you need. The faster lens is going to be twice the weight of the Canon and a little shorter. If you're okay with that, go for it.

DPReview found the Sigma to have slightly inferior optics against Canon's f/2.8 lens, but consider that you're comparing it against the f/4, and all lenses improve sharpness and image quality when stopped down so apples-to-apples you'll likely find them more comparable at f/4 - and will have the option of shooting at f/2.8 if you want it.

It's your personal decision. For me, 70-200 is by far not my most used focal length so I'd probably get the f/4 zoom to avoid the weight/size in my bag. For some people, though, that's the focal length that's glued to their camera.

But most reviews have the f/4L being sharper than the f/2.8L.

Damo...We used to have the f/4L. Ended up selling it for a small loss and picked up a f/2.8L IS. I guess you really need to ask yourself if you need that extra stop or IS etc. When we bought the f/4 that's what my wife needed at the time, but now she needs the 2.8 and the IS (weddings/no flash allowed inside stuff). If I could do it again I'd probably go ahead and ante up for the f/2.8L IS in the first place, but it worked out ok.

Or you could think of it this way...it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Transcend · Jan 22, 2009

I'd go with the sigma long before I went with the Tamron, in case that makes any difference. Sigma build quality is generally pretty good, as is the support. Tamron, not so much from what I have heard.

binary visions · Jan 22, 2009

Damo said:
Incidentally, I did find this review which shows the Tamron to be as good as, sometimes better than the Canon. At less than half the price too.

I read that review a while back hoping they'd find the Tamron was a good lens because of the price, but this destroyed any hope for me:

The big problem with this lens, however, lies in the focusing systems. The autofocus motor is relatively slow and noisy, which puts it at a major disadvantage compared to its ultrasonic motor-equipped competitors, simply because AF performance impacts strongly on many of the typical uses for a fast telezoom lens. The slow speed of the motor means focus tracking simply isn't fast enough for sports or action, or even children running around playing; it's also a distinct problem in low light or with low-contrast subjects, where the lens can take what feels like an eternity to achieve focus. This is compounded by the noise the motor makes, which could be a real problem in situations such as wedding or event photography for which the user wishes to remain unobtrusive; discrete it is not. Also the Tamron lacks a focus limiter switch, so has a tendency to hunt back and forwards through its entire range when it fails to lock focus first time. But perhaps the biggest problem we encountered was a tendency for the lens to mis-focus, seemingly at random and disturbingly frequently, such that F2.8 shots in particular were often not critically sharp (although it must be pointed out that this may be specific to either our test sample, or the Canon mount version)

Fraser; as with most of the third party lenses (actually, as with most lenses), you have to cherry pick the good ones. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens is stellar - fantastic optical quality, at a fraction of the price of the Nikkor equivalents. I've heard the 17-50 f/2.8 is also excellent.

narlus · Jan 22, 2009

the aftermarket lenses i've owned have been pretty damned good. of course, none were long lenses which relied on fast accurate AF.

sigma 30 f/1.4 (i got a used copy that had no back- or front-focusing issues, and it was outstanding for about a 1/3rd of the price of the canon 35L)

sigma 15 f/2.8 fisheye. excellent quality and build, some prefer this to Canon's offering.

tokina 12-24 f/4. very good ultrawide option for a crop body. i kinda liked the clutch mech to use manual focusing.

Lenses

Short One Marshmallow

don't make me kick your ass

Harbinger of Doom

Short One Marshmallow

Eastcoast Softcore

the teste

Short One Marshmallow

Eastcoast Softcore

don't make me kick your ass

Eastcoast Softcore

My Nuts Are Flat

Short One Marshmallow

My Nuts Are Flat

boob hater

Eastcoast Softcore

Turbo Monkey

Short One Marshmallow

My Nuts Are Flat

Eastcoast Softcore

Short One Marshmallow

The voice of reason

Why don't you have a seat over there?

Short One Marshmallow

My Nuts Are Flat

The voice of reason

Eastcoast Softcore