Lens Help

[Aperture]

Hi. Eventually I want to get a new lens for my Canon Digital Rebel. (Original) I do macro photography a lot, but also do some landscape so I would like to get just a general lens that is better than my 18-55 kit. Just to get some ideas, could you guys recommend a good all-around lens & then maybe one macro specific one?

Thanks. Kevin

 

[iGary]

The 50mm 1.8 is a must-have. Just get it.

For a general walk-around, the 28-135 IS USM is a good choice, or if you want nice walkaround L-glass, the 24-70L is an awesome piece of work.

They also make some 28-105 glass, but I think you may be better off in the Sigma or Tokina arena there.

Others may have other good advice.

 

[Aperture]

iGary, is this 50mm 1.8 you were talking about?

Also, does anyone happen to have a sample image taken with that lens?

 

[iGary]

iGary, is this 50mm 1.8 you were talking about?

Yup--best $70 you will ever spend.

 

[SpankyPenzaanz]

100mm 2.8 macro also it is a great walkaound lens. I used it extensively until i sold off all my canon equipment for a leica setup. I also had the 28-135IS mentioend earlier in this thread and thought it was at best a mediocre lens. if you are getting a rebel i would reccommend the 28mm that canon has versus the 50 because the conversion factor will get about a 46mm equiv. the 50 will be more of a 75mm.

 

[iGary]

100mm 2.8 macro also it is a great walkaound lens. I used it extensively until i sold off all my canon equipment for a leica setup. I also had the 28-135IS mentioend earlier in this thread and thought it was at best a mediocre lens. if you are getting a rebel i would reccommend the 28mm that canon has versus the 50 because the conversion factor will get about a 46mm equiv. the 50 will be more of a 75mm.

The 28mm is nowhere near as sharp as the 50. Who gives a hoot about the crop factor?

You are right about the 28-135, but it is still a good lense for the price.

 

[Grimace]

The 50mm f/1.8 should be in everyone's bag.

The only problem that I have with the 28-135mm is that it crowds other standard focal lengths. 24-70mm, suggested above, is ideal for short to mid range. There are four different versions of the 70-200mm lens -- that length is popular for a good reason.

I liked my 60mm macro, but really could have used more reach. The 100mm macro is great -- and far less expensive than the (venerable) 180mm macro.

 

[sjl]

The 50mm 1.8 is a must-have. Just get it.

For a general walk-around, the 28-135 IS USM is a good choice, or if you want nice walkaround L-glass, the 24-70L is an awesome piece of work.

They also make some 28-105 glass, but I think you may be better off in the Sigma or Tokina arena there.

Others may have other good advice.

Concur on the 50mm. The 28-135 is ok - it's not the world's sharpest or fastest lens, but for the price, it's decent value.

I wouldn't bother with the 28-105. Much better to go with the 28-135. Or if you want that sort of range, the 24-105mm is L series glass, and is (from what I hear) comparable to the 24-70 ... if you'll be happy with f/4 rather than f/2.8, it's a bit cheaper, too.

If you're happy to buy EF-S glass (on the understanding that it won't go on a full frame or 1.3 crop body - ie, it only fits on the 300D, 350D, 400D, 20D, and 30D to date, with the possibility of more bodies in the future), the EF-S 17-85mm is also good value for money. The only reason I regret getting it is that I've decided I want to move to the 5D (or its successor) in the future, and I won't be able to use it on that body.

One image I took with the 50mm f/1.8 on a 20D:



Depth of field is a bit shallow in that shot, but that was because I don't like stopping that lens down - the five blades makes for weird bokeh. I want the f/1.4, but can't afford it for now.

 

[amin]

Hi. Eventually I want to get a new lens for my Canon Digital Rebel. (Original) I do macro photography a lot, but also do some landscape so I would like to get just a general lens that is better than my 18-55 kit. Just to get some ideas, could you guys recommend a good all-around lens & then maybe one macro specific one?

Thanks. Kevin

IMO, the most useful range to cover on the Digital Rebel is the rangge covered by the kit lens. If I were to walk around with a 28-x lens, I would miss the 18-27mm range. Therefore, I replaced my kit lens with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens, which is excellent in every way. Well worth the approx $400 for which it goes. It doesn't do true macro, but has a close minimum focusing distance, so it can be used for photography of small things. It is surpassed in its range only by the considerably more expensive Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. There are reportedly some bad copies out there of the Tamron lens, so be sure to buy from a store with a good return policy if you decide to go for it. My first and only copy is sharp at all focal lengths and apertures, has great color and contrast, focuses accurately and quickly even in low light, and is nice and compact. Highly recommended!

 

[milozauckerman]

Try photosig.com for images from the 50/1.8 - go to photos then 'by lens' and look for it under the Canons.

 

[Abstract]

If I were to walk around with a 28-x lens, I would miss the 18-27mm range. Therefore, I replaced my kit lens with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens, which is excellent in every way.

I'd seriously look at this advice. I have a Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 which I love love love because I'm "only" missing the 18-23 mm range that my kit lens offered. Not a huge loss, but if I were to get the Tamron 28-75 mm, Canon 28-105 mm, or any other 28-XXX lens, it would make photography a bit more difficult. I think losing the 18-23 mm range isn't too bad, but I couldn't lose the 18-27 mm range entirely. Most of my photos are taken at less than 30 mm.

On the other hand, I already owned a 12-24 mm Tokina f/4 before I bought my Sigma, so i guess the sacrifice wasn't such a big deal other than the convenience factor with owning a general purpose lens that's rather wide open.

 

[extraextra]

You're going to need seperate lenses for landscapes and macro work.

For Macro work, I can recommend the 100 f/2.8. The 50mm f/1.8 can't do macro and it's too long for landscapes. But yes, just buy it anyways because you can find other uses for it.

The kit lens stopped down to f/8 or so actually works very well for landscapes.

If you really want to replace the kit lens, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems like a solid lens.

 

[Aperture]

extraextra, you said the 50mm f1.8 isn't good for macros? I was browsing PhotoSig like another poster said, and came across this:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1788248&forward=browse

Does that picture not say it was taken with 50mm f.18? That looks like a good macro to me!

Is there something im missing?

Please Explain

Kevin

 

[sjl]

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1788248&forward=browse

Does that picture not say it was taken with 50mm f.18? That looks like a good macro to me!

Is there something im missing?

The important thing of note that you're missing is that the photographer used "a cheap 2x converter plus extender" (read the comments further down). In other words, while he used the 50mm f/1.8, he did not use it on its own. The 2x converter turns the 50mm f/1.8 into a 100mm f/3.6 (or thereabouts), and the extender pushes the lens a bit further away from the body: you get a closer focusing distance that way, but lose the ability to focus to infinity. All of this combines to turn the 50mm f/1.8 into a macro lens ... but it's not a macro lens in and of itself.

Macro work means that you're getting an image on the sensor that is the same size as, or bigger than, the object being photographed (or maybe half the size of the object, depending on whether you want to be picky or not ); the 50mm will not do this on its own, meaning it is not a macro lens.

 

[Aperture]

Ah, Thanks for explaining. How much is a 2x converter out of curiousity?

 

[amin]

Sigma has announced a new 18-50mm f2.8 zoom that has "macro" functionality as well, not to be confused with their earlier 18-50mm f2.8 zoom, which received mixed reviews.

You can read about the new lens here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093012sigma18-50dc.asp

The Sigma has the potential to produce better "macro type" photography than the Tamron (neither are true macro lenses) since the former has a greater maximum magnification.

 

[SpankyPenzaanz]

Ah, Thanks for explaining. How much is a 2x converter out of curiousity?

Not worth it in my opinion