Lens talk...

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Alrighty folks, lets taok about lenses...

Yesterday I was at a photoshop and made the bad mistake of having the guy pull out that Sigma 50-500mm AOP EX DG lens I've been saving up for... and man I couldn't believe the size of that lens! I had only read about it and seen pics on the internet, but to see it in person was amazing.

So yeah, that's the next lens I will get. Unfortunately it'll be about a year before I can afford it as the baby runs about $1,000. But this lens I feel will keep me vey happy for a long time so I can save money from picture sales to eventually upgrade to some Canon L glass!

But yeah, tell me what lenses you guys own and your opinions about them!

 

[Sadpanda]

Is that $1000 australian or american?

Whats the quality of the 50-500 like? thats a pretty huge range for one lense to cover. I'd love to know how it goes.

I just bought the 24-105 IS USM L . I havent had much of a chance to use it yet ( I will be tomorrow though finally finished work!).

 

[Southern Cross]

Be careful with what you buy, check ratings and user opinions first. Honestly, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS might be a better choice for you. If it accepts teleconverters, even better. 500mm isn't all it's cracked up to be unless you have a high quality lens.

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Sadpanda: The $1,000 is US.


The quality of the lens is actually very nice. Here is a great example of the sharpness at the 500mm end: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0664475/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1027377/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0697027/L/

Since I photograph aircraft it is really important to have something that allows you to reach out and grab those jets when they're 10,000 feet above the earth at the top of a loop, then come down to 200 feet within seconds.

It has the reach that I want (500mm... since 300 is just barely enough) and the price that is reasonable. (Any other 500mm lens is at least ANOTHER grand, and right now I'm really not ready to put up with the hastle of a prime lens)

As you can see in the 3 above images, the quality is quite nice... especially for it's huge range.

And yes, be very careful that you get the version of the 200L you need!

 

[utdbear]

I have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I love my lenses. I'd like to get the 100-300 since I shoot a lot of sports and 200 just isn't quite enough to cover an entire baseball field.

 

[2Bhumble]

I have a Leica lens that came with my Panasonic FZ-20 camera. It's 12x optical zoom retains F2.8 brightness throughout the entire zoom range (36mm to 432mm). More lens then I'll ever need

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

I have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I love my lenses. I'd like to get the 100-300 since I shoot a lot of sports and 200 just isn't quite enough to cover an entire baseball field.

I've heard those are excellent lenses. Having that F/2.8 must be really nice. I currently own Sigmas older 100-300mm F4-6.5... pretty decent lens. I tried the DG /F4 version and is day and night difference, you'll like it. That extra 100mm will really help too.

I have a Leica lens that came with my Panasonic FZ-20 camera. It's 12x optical zoom retains F2.8 brightness throughout the entire zoom range (36mm to 432mm). More lens then I'll ever need

That's incredible. It's amazing how far digital cameras have come... I remember the first one I got actually took 3.5 inch floppies!! haha



And on a personal note... I just ordered the "Bigma" 50-500mm along with UV and circular polarizing filters. Ugh, makes me kinda sick forking out $1,000 like that, but it's for the business I'm trying to start.

 

[2Bhumble]

And on a personal note... I just ordered the "Bigma" 50-500mm along with UV and circular polarizing filters. Ugh, makes me kinda sick forking out $1,000 like that, but it's for the business I'm trying to start.

How's the business venture going by the way if you don't mind me asking? Will this be a full time business or a sideline? Your photos look great and it seems like you could do well at it.

 

[Justin Horne]

I'm wanting a 70-200 2.8 with IS. That said, the cost, apart from being quite a bit of work to afford, I just couldn't justify to myself... That said, I want one.. I am kinda tempted for a 4.0 without IS though. Same quality, but at least I MIGHT be able to justify "needing" it to myself...

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

How's the business venture going by the way if you don't mind me asking? Will this be a full time business or a sideline? Your photos look great and it seems like you could do well at it.

Slowly but surely. I got an E-mail back from an attorney I contacted earlier last week, so hopefully I'll be able to work out all the legal stuff this week. Now that the most important part of the equation (equipment) has been solved my next priority is sorting out the contracts I need for model/property releases and then determine what I need to do for tax purposes.

Right now the business will be on the sidelines... at least for this summer. My goal is to have everything completely sorted out so that I may sell some merchandise at local aviation events in the summer of '07 along with more freelance work. If everything goes according to plan, I'll even be advertising in a few regional aviation publications as well.

I'm wanting a 70-200 2.8 with IS. That said, the cost, apart from being quite a bit of work to afford, I just couldn't justify to myself... That said, I want one.. I am kinda tempted for a 4.0 without IS though. Same quality, but at least I MIGHT be able to justify "needing" it to myself...

Awesome, eventually I'd love to have a lens with IS. It'd be kinda nice having that added protection to ensure crisp pictures.

But, not for a few years. I've depleeted my funds enough with that Bigma. (Which arrives WEDNESDAY!!)

 

[Justin Horne]

Awesome, eventually I'd love to have a lens with IS. It'd be kinda nice having that added protection to ensure crisp pictures.

But, not for a few years. I've depleeted my funds enough with that Bigma. (Which arrives WEDNESDAY!!)

IS is nice, but honestly, it's really just like giving it an extra stop or so, I don't tknwo the details... I've got the 17-85 IS (Which I reccommend, btw) and it's nice, especially because it's an F/4. That said, If it was F/2.5 or so, It'd be just as good without IS. I just think of IS as like having a slightly wider aperature. That said, a 200 MM lens at F/2.8 with IS= Crazy awesome..

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

lol man, crazy-awesome I should say so!! That's pretty sweet!

Man, I bet you can get some sweet backround blurr with that 2.8. For some reason I just love pics with a shallow depth of field... with static objects anyway.


So, what kind of photography do you like to do most?

 

[Sadpanda]

IS is nice, but honestly, it's really just like giving it an extra stop or so, I don't tknwo the details... I've got the 17-85 IS (Which I reccommend, btw) and it's nice, especially because it's an F/4. That said, If it was F/2.5 or so, It'd be just as good without IS. I just think of IS as like having a slightly wider aperature. That said, a 200 MM lens at F/2.8 with IS= Crazy awesome..

I wouldn't totally agree with saying F4 with IS is like a 2.5 or 2.8 You can shoot at the same speed at F4 as if it was F2.5 or whatever, but you get more depth of field (or less background blur..however you want to look at it).
I've got the 24-105L IS F4 and i've been pretty happy with it. But I definitely do agree with you that a 200mm F2.8 IS lens would be 'crazy awesome'
Only problem is they cost so much i think the canon 70-200L IS F2.8 is twice the price of the F4 version.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

For my Canon Digital Rebel XT I current have:

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit lens"
50mm f/1.4
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
24-70mm f/2.8L
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

I just bought the 10-22 and the 24-70, so I haven't used them much yet. I'm not happy with the 10-22 as it seems to have focusing issues. OTOH, the 24-70 seems quite sharp, even wide open. The 100-400 is my fav, as I like to take wildlife shots.

 

[superduperblake]

For my Canon Digital Rebel XT I current have:

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit lens"
50mm f/1.4
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
24-70mm f/2.8L
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

I just bought the 10-22 and the 24-70, so I haven't used them much yet. I'm not happy with the 10-22 as it seems to have focusing issues. OTOH, the 24-70 seems quite sharp, even wide open. The 100-400 is my fav, as I like to take wildlife shots.

You have a very nice setup there!
I was actually thinking about buying the 10-22, but it's nice to know you aren't happy. I don't want to drop that much money on something that has issues. x.x



Anyone know how the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM would be for all around/model portraits?

Also is it worth the extra money for the 2.8, or would the f/4L be just as good? -- About a 400 dollar difference between the two.

 

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Ya know what... go for the 2.8. When it comes to lenses, the $400 difference really isn't that much.

I had the choice of getting the Sigma 170-500mm or the 50-500mm... better reviews of the 50-500mm meant more to me than the $400 difference.

But take that from someone who hasn't used either of those 70-200mmL's! haha

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You have a very nice setup there!
I was actually thinking about buying the 10-22, but it's nice to know you aren't happy. I don't want to drop that much money on something that has issues. x.x

Well, it's not *that* bad. It just seems to be touchier with the AF than with my stock 18-55mm lens. It also seems to be a bit softer sometimes compared to the 18-55, although it definitely has been corner sharpness.

Overall, I'm not as blown away by this lens as I thought I would be. It's not horrible, but not quite as good as I expected.

I'll probably end up swapping for another copy, so I'll post my impressions then.

 

[superduperblake]

Well, it's not *that* bad. It just seems to be touchier with the AF than with my stock 18-55mm lens. It also seems to be a bit softer sometimes compared to the 18-55, although it definitely has been corner sharpness.

Overall, I'm not as blown away by this lens as I thought I would be. It's not horrible, but not quite as good as I expected.

I'll probably end up swapping for another copy, so I'll post my impressions then.

Aye. My canon 20d came with an 18-55. Worst lens I have ever had. =X

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Aye. My canon 20d came with an 18-55. Worst lens I have ever had. =X

I'm very impressed my 18-55 lens. Considering that it's far cheaper than any of my other lenses, it still produces pretty good images when stopped down a bit and not at the extremes of the focal range. And it's extremely lightweight, making it handy to carry around in pocket when I need it.

I also exchanged my 10-22mm. I ended up trying a couple other copies, and really, all the copies looked identical at the store. I got a new one anyway and tried it out again at home, comparing it to the 18-55 and 24-70. I think the 10-22mm just isn't built quite as sharp (at least at 22mm) as those other lenses, even stopped down. That's not to say it's bad. In fact, if you didn't do side-by-side comparisons, you'd probably not even notice. But scrutinizing it, it isn't quite as sharp as I expected after reading various glowing reviews.