Some lense advice and recommendation please

kjt · 09-05-2008 10:25am #1

Howdy Folks,
Theirs been so much talk about the 50mm(1.8) of late I'm going to buy her. Along with that I have brought it down to 3lenses and would love to hear from anybody who has one/has tried one. I'll only be buying one.

They are:
CANON EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM
CANON EF 15MM FISHEYE 2.8
CANON 17-40MM F4

I have had my eye on the Fisheye lense for quite a while now but I'm just not sure how the crop factor on the 30D will affect shots. As well as that, I wouldn't want to use the lense all the time as I'm sure people overuse their first fisheye.

I plan to head to the states for a little bit of a roadtrip over the summer so taking that in mind what would you advise?

I have a 30D, 17-85mm and a Sigma 150mm macro at the moment.

Thanks for having a read

Paulw · 09-05-2008 11:23am

Ask yourself how often you'd use the fisheye.

I think I'd go for the 70-200mm. It gives you a nice wide range, great for wildlife, very sharp lens and great in good light.

The 17-40mm would be nice and wide, but don't forget that it's less wide on the 30D.

Overall ... I'd certainly recommend the 70-200mm.

Duchovny · 09-05-2008 12:02pm

I guess it depends what kind of photos you want to take...

You ask for 3 totally different lens and do totally different things...

And you have a 17-85 so buying the 17-40 would be good, but you would still have the same 17mm...

Looking for then lens you have i probably would go for the 70-200.

Or 10-22, i know you don't mention but its a good option to have a look.

kjt · 09-05-2008 12:15pm

Thanks for the help lads!

To be honest I haven't chosen a preferred subject as of yet and thus would like the lense for a wide range of things.

Would the 70-200 be sharp and fast enough for decent sports shots?

I guess when I'm away I'd like to be taking a good bit of scenic shots/landscape, would the 70-200 be too narrow for this? Then again I can always use the 17-85. In the near future I'd like to start taking some portrait shots, I suppose that could be covered by the 50mm.

Thanks for the advice so far

elven · 09-05-2008 12:53pm

Fajitas just got the 15mm, but he uses it on a 5D. I had a shot of it on the 350d and it still has a good bit of fishbowl going on...

It may also be worth considering the sigma 18-55 f2.8 - it's an ef-s lens so don't bother if you're going to be going full frame antime soon, but it's a lovely sharp lens, the new version (i have the older one) does macro, and it's faster than the f4 you refer to. Dunno how the two compare in price mind you.

kjt · 09-05-2008 12:54pm

Thanks Elven!

Paulw · 09-05-2008 1:16pm

kjt wrote: »

Would the 70-200 be sharp and fast enough for decent sports shots?

Yes during good daylight. No for floodlit or poor light sport.

kjt · 09-05-2008 1:34pm

Thanks Paul.

I think I'm down to the 50mm(1.8) and the canon 70-200.

Is their much of a difference between the CANON 70-200MM 2.8 IS and Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM Lens? I think I'm going Crazy

Duchovny · 09-05-2008 2:16pm

Well L is L to be really honest i took pictures with the 70-200 F4 and i have myself a 70-300 IS USM.

The differences are quite small, at 70 you can't really see difference, and i prefer to have the extra 100mm.

I do a lot of landscape and the 70-200 F4 looks pretty good for it...
On this case i prefer to lose a bit of sharpness to add more zoom, i also have the 28-135 so from 135 to 200mm its not a lot.

Anouilh · 09-05-2008 2:20pm

If you do a search for the Flickr groups that discuss each of the lenses you mention, it will be easier to decide, KJT. Apart from the discussion, there are many examples posted of the best photos each lens is capable of producing.

Also, looking at the discussion on the Sigma 70-300mm dg apo in Boards.ie might be of use.

kjt · 09-05-2008 2:25pm

Thanks very much Duchovny and Anouilh!

Duchovny · 09-05-2008 2:41pm

Anyway have a look here.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/

You can select the lens and the camera and see the samples

jackdaw · 09-05-2008 3:15pm

kjt wrote: »

Thanks for the help lads!

To be honest I haven't chosen a preferred subject as of yet and thus would like the lense for a wide range of things.

Would the 70-200 be sharp and fast enough for decent sports shots?

I guess when I'm away I'd like to be taking a good bit of scenic shots/landscape, would the 70-200 be too narrow for this? Then again I can always use the 17-85. In the near future I'd like to start taking some portrait shots, I suppose that could be covered by the 50mm.

Thanks for the advice so far

If you want it for sports why not spring for the 70-200 IS L f2.8 ?

the extra stop makes a big difference..

kjt · 09-05-2008 3:23pm

jackdaw wrote: »

If you want it for sports why not spring for the 70-200 IS L f2.8 ?

the extra stop makes a big difference..

I'm actually looking around for prices on the 2.8 now, quite a difference!
Even between the 2.8 IS and non IS. This is why I hate credit cards!

AnimalRights · 09-05-2008 3:32pm

Don't forget though, as well as being much more expensive the 70-200 f2.8 is a lot bigger lens then the f4 version.

Anouilh · 09-05-2008 4:21pm

It just struck me that weight is a very important factor, given the surcharges
if you go over the allowed weight at airports. It might be worth waiting to buy until you travel to your destination, or have it sent there, if you are not in a hurry to get started with a new lens.

My new Sigma is considered to be a light lens by the manufacturers. I find it quite heavy and would think twice about travelling abroad with it.

(A web search with the words
"best light travel zoom lens" will give hours of reading, as many people have the same question.)

Some lense advice and recommendation please

Comments