Support NeoGAF

[The_Inquisitor]

What zombi said. After a certain point, images actually become softer because the aperture is small, you get diffraction.

I tend not to go over f/16 ever if I can help it, with 11 being pretty sensible.

Made more rambiling edits above.

Well see you learn something new every day! I'm learning all my photography stuff on the fly, you guys have no idea how much I appreciate your help. I am working with my cousin to see if I can set up some photography blog on my domain. But that of course is relatively on the backburner compared to me going out and shooting with my camera.

 

[Marty Chinn]

There are no good 'all in one' lenses. There are always compromises. Also it defeats the purpose of having interchangeable lenses. Right tool for the right job.

There is a pretty crap 55-200 out there, but I heard the newest EF-S 50-250mm IS is actually pretty solid. Don't walk away with the notion that expensive is better. Often a lot of the expense is NOT optical quality, which has diminishing returns as you go higher.

You also have to realise that all of the modern lenses, even cheap EF-S mounts, tend to be much better than consumer lens models made decades ago. The resolving power of modern cameras are much more demanding, and hence why you are seeing a lot of really good EF-S lenses now.

Oh I totally understand wanting and needing to change lenses. Don't get me wrong there, but right now I'm just trying to find a good general lens that I will use probably 80% of the time. I want to start more general and work my way to specific needs. I just don't think I'll ever become the backpack full of lenses type though. I think I just want a good set of two or three lenses.

Here's some of the situations I think I'll be using the camera in:

- Family gatherings/holidays/birthdays
- Vacation
- Watching a hockey or baseball game
- GDC, E3, Wondercon, Comic-Con panels and show floor
- Eventually, taking picture of my kids

In many of those cases, I'll likely just have the lens I have on me and not want to swap or be carrying the extra load or inconvience of needing to swap quickly in odd places. I know there will be some situations where I do plan on swapping for like landscape and wide views, so I totally expect to have a couple lenses in some cases.

I'm just trying to get started for now and get something to replace the kit lens.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm just trying to get started for now and get something to replace the kit lens.

You don't have any cheap prime lenses yet?

 

[mrklaw]

What zombi said. After a certain point, images actually become softer because the aperture is small, you get diffraction.

I tend not to go over f/16 ever if I can help it, with 11 being pretty sensible.

I use the spatula, eclipse and special wipes. Just order the kit and follow the instructions.

why is this? Is it because of crop cameras? I have books showing f/22 for landscapes etc and f/8 or f/11 for general work. Is there a new rule of thumb for crop cameras? eg needing one stop less to get the equivalent DoF that you would have had on a ff/film camera?

 

[SnakeXs]

why is this? Is it because of crop cameras? I have books showing f/22 for landscapes etc and f/8 or f/11 for general work. Is there a new rule of thumb for crop cameras? eg needing one stop less to get the equivalent DoF that you would have had on a ff/film camera?

Crop cameras hit the point of diffusion sooner, yes. 35mm cameras will likely see some softening at f/22, then again at f/32, crop cameras sooner. f/16 is playing with it, but even if there is diffraction at that point it won't be too bad, usually.

 

[Rentahamster]

why is this? Is it because of crop cameras? I have books showing f/22 for landscapes etc and f/8 or f/11 for general work. Is there a new rule of thumb for crop cameras? eg needing one stop less to get the equivalent DoF that you would have had on a ff/film camera?

http://diglloyd.com/articles/Diffraction/Diffraction-TechnicalChallenge.html

http://diglloyd.com/articles/Diffraction/Diffraction-example-1DsM3.html

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Oh I totally understand wanting and needing to change lenses. Don't get me wrong there, but right now I'm just trying to find a good general lens that I will use probably 80% of the time. I want to start more general and work my way to specific needs. I just don't think I'll ever become the backpack full of lenses type though. I think I just want a good set of two or three lenses.

Here's some of the situations I think I'll be using the camera in:

- Family gatherings/holidays/birthdays
- Vacation
- Watching a hockey or baseball game
- GDC, E3, Wondercon, Comic-Con panels and show floor
- Eventually, taking picture of my kids

In many of those cases, I'll likely just have the lens I have on me and not want to swap or be carrying the extra load or inconvience of needing to swap quickly in odd places. I know there will be some situations where I do plan on swapping for like landscape and wide views, so I totally expect to have a couple lenses in some cases.

I'm just trying to get started for now and get something to replace the kit lens.

For 4/5 things you mentioned, a general lens like the 24-70L, 28-135mm, and 24-105L pretty much covers it all. The 24-70L is pretty much on my Camera 90% of the time, with 5% being the 85 f1.8 and the last 5% being my 28-135mm.

The lens is excellent when I brought it with me to Zion and Bryce national park, Anime Expo, Anime LA, and a variety of family weddings. The only time I wish I had a longer zoom like the 70-200 f2.8L was when I tried taking pictures of deer in Zion.

 

[-Rogue5-]

I want a 24-70 f2.8 quite badly (I'm leaning towards the Sigma, since it's half the price of a Canon L)... But I'm worried that at wide-open it's gonna be ever-so-slightly soft, and stopping down to f3.2 (or whatever is next) would be just a little too dark for night stuff.

As such, I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should just get a set of old nikkor primes (I'd need a 24, 35, and 85 at ~f2, which I could then stop down to f2.8 for additional sharpness, but primes are usually sharper than zooms anyway), or just bite the bullet and get a 24-70. On APS-C, I'd almost think that 85mm (equiv. to ~135mm) might be a little too tele, so I could probably skip that. Conversely, I might need/want something wider than 24, but similarly fast (I don't think Nikkor has an old 20 f2, do they?)

I'm also looking at the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and 30 f1.4 with lusting eyes, but I heard they're APS-C only, so if I ever go to Full Frame I'll get poopy vignetting (a big pet-peeve of mine... I don't like it as a stylistic choice at all.)

...By the way, I'm coming at it from a video perspective (which is 1/30th shutter and ISO1600 maximum.) On an APS-C, 70 is equivalent to approximately 115mm, which is a pretty decent tele.

 

[Futureman]

Anyone have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens?

Thinking of picking it up. I want a wide angle lens for low light situations.

 

[mrklaw]

quick - 7D with 18-135IS (cheap and cheerful lens), 7D with 15-85IS (more expensive but more of a keeper walkaround), or Panny GF1 with 20mm pancake?

Don't have a DSLR anymore, just a compact. Want to get back into it, but last time I went a bit mad with 70-200f4IS, 100-400L etc which I hardly used. So part of me wants a 7D but another part of me wants a nice simple camera with decent control.

 

[mrkgoo]

quick - 7D with 18-135IS (cheap and cheerful lens), 7D with 15-85IS (more expensive but more of a keeper walkaround), or Panny GF1 with 20mm pancake?

Don't have a DSLR anymore, just a compact. Want to get back into it, but last time I went a bit mad with 70-200f4IS, 100-400L etc which I hardly used. So part of me wants a 7D but another part of me wants a nice simple camera with decent control.

If you're going for the 7D, do the 15-85.

Panasonice 4/3 is a great choice too.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I want a 24-70 f2.8 quite badly (I'm leaning towards the Sigma, since it's half the price of a Canon L)... But I'm worried that at wide-open it's gonna be ever-so-slightly soft, and stopping down to f3.2 (or whatever is next) would be just a little too dark for night stuff.

As such, I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should just get a set of old nikkor primes (I'd need a 24, 35, and 85 at ~f2, which I could then stop down to f2.8 for additional sharpness, but primes are usually sharper than zooms anyway), or just bite the bullet and get a 24-70. On APS-C, I'd almost think that 85mm (equiv. to ~135mm) might be a little too tele, so I could probably skip that. Conversely, I might need/want something wider than 24, but similarly fast (I don't think Nikkor has an old 20 f2, do they?)

I'm also looking at the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and 30 f1.4 with lusting eyes, but I heard they're APS-C only, so if I ever go to Full Frame I'll get poopy vignetting (a big pet-peeve of mine... I don't like it as a stylistic choice at all.)

...By the way, I'm coming at it from a video perspective (which is 1/30th shutter and ISO1600 maximum.) On an APS-C, 70 is equivalent to approximately 115mm, which is a pretty decent tele.

As long as the lens is within Canon's margin, it can be microadjusted on most of the modern Canon SLR's, except the Rebels

 

[Marty Chinn]

For 4/5 things you mentioned, a general lens like the 24-70L, 28-135mm, and 24-105L pretty much covers it all. The 24-70L is pretty much on my Camera 90% of the time, with 5% being the 85 f1.8 and the last 5% being my 28-135mm.

The lens is excellent when I brought it with me to Zion and Bryce national park, Anime Expo, Anime LA, and a variety of family weddings. The only time I wish I had a longer zoom like the 70-200 f2.8L was when I tried taking pictures of deer in Zion.

Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...

 

[Rentahamster]

Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...

How often will you be going to these conferences? If it's not that often, just rent a 70-200 f2.8 on the occasions that you go.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...

Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.

 

[VNZ]

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in the negative impressions of the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8. For that price I was sure the build quality would be rather high (but obviously not as high as the L series). I do own two other lenses in the "higher end" EF-S USM series, the 10-22mm and the 60mm Macro; is the 15-55 of about the same quality, or would you guys say it's worse? I guess I'll have to find a specimen that I can try out for a bit before I buy one anyhow.

Maybe I'll just scratch that one from the list and just get one of the decent zoom lenses that are bundled with the 7D at some point later this year.

Edit: Any opinions or first hand impressions of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (XR Di-II LD IF VC, seriously that's too much alphabet soup), btw?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in the negative impressions of the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8. For that price I was sure the build quality would be rather high (but obviously not as high as the L series). I do own two other lenses in the "higher end" EF-S USM series, the 10-22mm and the 60mm Macro; is the 15-55 of about the same quality, or would you guys say it's worse? I guess I'll have to find a specimen that I can try out for a bit before I buy one anyhow.

Maybe I'll just scratch that one from the list and just get one of the decent zoom lenses that are bundled with the 7D at some point later this year.

Edit: Any opinions or first hand impressions of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (XR Di-II LD IF VC, seriously that's too much alphabet soup), btw?

Well, there is no such thing as a perfect lens.

I am certainly hoping that Canon listens to what the customers want and improve the lens. Better build quality, weather sealing, and maybe even improve the range. If they did that, I would have bought said lens in a heartbeat over the 24-70L (as good as the lens is, I want IS without paying $2,000 for the lens)

 

[mrklaw]

there is always a compromise. In the case of crop cameras, there isn't really a wide enough walkaround lens thats an L.

My ideal walkaround lens would probably be a mix of the 17-55 2.8, the 24-105L and the 15-85IS. So a 15-85 f2.8L IS.

 

[joshschw]

Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.

No.

Worst lens Canon makes. No joke. What a piece of junk.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

what do you guys think of the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for $300? Found a guy selling his used one and looks to be in good condition. There's no way I'm able to pay for the Nikon version.

Then there's the old Nikon 35-70 F2.8 which goes for about $500+ used.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

No.

Worst lens Canon makes. No joke. What a piece of junk.

I disagree, Canon has far worse lenses in its lineup.

 

[Stuck]

Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.

So I'm also in the market for a walk-around/travel lens for my XSi and I've been following the conversation here, but I'm still a little confused. I don't think I can justify any L quality glass at the moment, and I already own the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens as well as the EF 50mm f/1.8.

Is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 the clear choice against the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6? I know that there is no perfect lens and these all can do slightly different things, but I just want something of good quality in this walk-around category that I won't outgrow too quickly.

If I pick up one of these lenses, is there any reason to keep my old kit lens, or should I just sell it used to cover some of the cost?

 

[Marty Chinn]

No.

Worst lens Canon makes. No joke. What a piece of junk.

Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?

I disagree, Canon has far worse lenses in its lineup.

Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

So I'm also in the market for a walk-around/travel lens for my XSi and I've been following the conversation here, but I'm still a little confused. I don't think I can justify any L quality glass at the moment, and I already own the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens as well as the EF 50mm f/1.8.

Is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 the clear choice against the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6? I know that there is no perfect lens and these all can do slightly different things, but I just want something of good quality in this walk-around category that I won't outgrow too quickly.

If I pick up one of these lenses, is there any reason to keep my old kit lens, or should I just sell it used to cover some of the cost?

If you said EF-S 15-85, I would say that it is worth it.

That piece of glass is probably the best thing you can buy on your SLR until you get the 17-55 2.8 or move up to the 24-70L.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?

Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?

Here is why I would avoid the 18-200

"As noted earlier in the review, I used a Canon EOS 50D for testing this lens. Testing a lens with a new camera requires getting to know both at the same time. One of the things I am noticing with the very high density APS-C 50D sensor is that diffraction starts eroding image sharpness by f/8. The Rebel XSi/450D is not far behind with diffraction showing just past f/8. So, what I'm saying, is that stopping down to f/11 delivers less-sharpness with the latest 1.6x cameras (on all lenses). This leaves a narrow range of aperture settings to achieve the best image quality from this lens."

If you want to buy a quality EF-S Lens, get the 15-85

"The 15mm and 17mm to-something lenses have slightly wider angles available, but the 200mm end is simply really nice to have in the same lens. Super-zooms generally compromise image quality to some degree to gain their range. While I like the EF-S 18-200 and would prefer to have this lens over the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens, the EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 17-55 offer better image quality along with excellent Ring USM AF."

 

[joshschw]

Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?



Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?

I've never used the 18-200, but I can't imagine it being worse than the 28-135.

If you really want I could send you some old samples from when I had it still, it makes your pics look like high res cell phone pics a lot of the time. Has focus problems galore and even at its sharpest, which is a rare thing indeed, it's pretty mediocre.

You're not going to get a GREAT all-in-one lens like that. But you want one that doesn't screw up half the time!

Oh, and the IS on the 28-135 blows too. Nearly useless.

I'm sure both the 15-85 and 18-200 are better lenses. But, again, never used either of them.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I've never used the 18-200, but I can't imagine it being worse than the 28-135.

If you really want I could send you some old samples from when I had it still, it makes your pics look like high res cell phone pics a lot of the time. Has focus problems galore and even at its sharpest, which is a rare thing indeed, it's pretty mediocre.

You're not going to get a GREAT all-in-one lens like that. But you want one that doesn't screw up half the time!

Oh, and the IS on the 28-135 blows too. Nearly useless.

I'm sure both the 15-85 and 18-200 are better lenses. But, again, never used either of them.

You must have had a bad copy, because I took amazing pictures on my lens, even wide open. Just because you had a bad copy doesn't mean that all the lenses are like that. The lens gets even better when you stop it down.

It is a great lens, here are some of of my pictures. Guess which one is the 24-70L and which is the 28-135?

 

[joshschw]

You must have had a bad copy, because I took amazing pictures on my lens, even wide open. Just because you had a bad copy doesn't mean that all the lenses are like that. The lens gets even better when you stop it down.

It is a great lens, here are some of of my pictures. Guess which one is the 24-70L and which is the 28-135?

135
70 -it's not sharp, but it's wide open 2.8 is my guess. Any glass wide open isn't going to be sharp, maybe 1 or 2 lenses are the exception
135

and I can tell this at with poorly compressed 800px versions of your pics. Imagine what they look like at a normal size?

If you're satisfied, fine, I don't mind that you enjoy it. But I certainly would never see someone asking about it and not try to dissuade them from it. Sorry.
I know... Probably 4 people who have had a 28-135... Not a one would say anything better about any aspect of it then I did here.

I like the last shot too, cool

 

[Hcoregamer00]

135
70 -it's not sharp, but it's wide open 2.8 is my guess. Any glass wide open isn't going to be sharp, maybe 1 or 2 lenses are the exception
135

and I can tell this at with poorly compressed 800px versions of your pics. Imagine what they look like at a normal size?

If you're satisfied, fine, I don't mind that you enjoy it. But I certainly would never see someone asking about it and not try to dissuade them from it. Sorry.
I know... Probably 4 people who have had a 28-135... Not a one would say anything better about any aspect of it then I did here.

I like the last shot too, cool

Sorry, I feel the complete opposite you do.

My experience with the 28-135 has been great, so I take complete offense when someone completely mis-characterizes the lens. I would be inclined to agree that it is not the best lens (the 24-70L is on a whole different level), but it is very far from your spurious claims (hi-res cell phone pics, etc.)

For the used price that you get for the lens, you have an amazing introductory lens that will help you develop technique and hone skills, while also allowing the user to focus on what they NEED for future lenses. Just like how you feel you need to make your point, I feel I need to make mine, and mine is that you are getting a good lens for a good price. So we will agree to disagree, if you will push your point further, I will continue to argue.

Edit: I also could have used better sample pics (same f-stop), because the bokeh was a dead giveaway to any experienced photographer.

 

[LethaL ImpuLse]

Soo camera-GAF, I'm looking for a tripod to use with my D5000, what's a good and cheap (<$50) one I can buy? Sorry if my request is a little to vague, I basically know nothing about photography.

 

[Chorazin]

Soo camera-GAF, I'm looking for a tripod to use with my D5000, what's a good and cheap (<$50) one I can buy? Sorry if my request is a little to vague, I basically know nothing about photography.

I have this one and it's really nice for being as cheap as it is. Pretty light, too!

 

[Rentahamster]

the bokeh was a dead giveaway to any experienced photographer.

And the EXIF data, lol.

 

[mrkgoo]

Originally Posted by mrkgoo:
Yeah prices shot up due to the Japanese exchange rate.

But be thankful. I bought mine for about US$350 second hand (it did come with a hood and bag). That's because this lens comes in at NZ$800 new, which is about US$560.

Hmm, I should buy more lenses before I head back

yeah why not lol, go buy the new 100mm macro

It's a sickness. I need help.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's a sickness. I need help.

Sweeeet. Go take some portraits!

 

[BlueTsunami]

It's a sickness. I need help.

Oh my!

Quite possibly the most versatile prime in Canons arsenal, awesome purchase!

 

[Instigator]

After many delays, I finally picked up the Zuiko 12-60 a few days ago. Pricey, but it's quite an upgrade in most respects compared to the kit lens. I know other people in this thread also own this particular piece of glass.

 

[captive]

After many delays, I finally picked up the Zuiko 12-60 a few days ago. Pricey, but it's quite an upgrade in most respects compared to the kit lens. I know other people in this thread also own this particular piece of glass.

http://imgur.com/oLnEw.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
yessir.
Always in my pack wherever i go.

Congrats. Fantastic zoom.

It's cheaper now than when i bought it last year. :(

 

[mrkgoo]

yessir.
Always in my pack wherever i go.

Congrats. Fantastic zoom.

It's cheaper now than when i bought it last year.

It has very good specs, versatility wise. How much is it, and what is the optical quality like?

 

[captive]

It has very good specs, versatility wise. How much is it, and what is the optical quality like?

700-900 depending.

Optical quality it is superb. It does distort at 12mm.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1138/cat/all
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_2p8-4_o20/

It did my decay assignment entry, my warmth assignment entry, all the pics in the "series" assignment, my "mike and jenn" pic

Here is an example of the distortion at 12mm. I dont mind it hardly anyone is going to notice in this picture and the horizon isn't the subject anyway. Have this one 9x12 framed.

bokeh is excellent

Still light enough to be handheld at 1/10th IS OFF.

Houston city scape
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35765710@N02/3914687544/sizes/o/

Did this one @f16
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35765710@N02/4359461038/sizes/l/

 

[chaostrophy]

It's a sickness. I need help.

Cool, I'll be looking forward to hearing your impressions of it. The next lens I want is a macro, and I'm trying to decide between the 100/2.8L IS and the older 100/2.8.

 

[mrkgoo]

Cool, I'll be looking forward to hearing your impressions of it. The next lens I want is a macro, and I'm trying to decide between the 100/2.8L IS and the older 100/2.8.

Captive: Looks like a sweet lens. I have the 17-55 IS f/2.8, and the versatility is amazing. This 12-60 will have an even more impressive range, but I guess you lose a bit of portrait use (due to lack of wide aperture at the long end). It has IS too? Man, sweet.

Chastrophy: I hear they are optically very similar, maybe a smudge better for the L. The reason I decided to give it a go was that I love the 85mm focal length, and this isn't a stretch from that. I lose some wide apertureness, but I'm hoping the bokeh rendition, the sharpness, and the CA are all improved over that. Also, I really love my 60mm Macro, but find the bokeh is a bit 'scratchy'. This is a way to roll two of my favourite primes into one. Sort of.

As Blue Tsunami mentioned (and is reassuring to here!), I chose it because it seems to be super versatile. With the new IS, I can use it in places I couldn't even use the 60mm. I have taken sharp shots (non-macro) at 1/10th of a second at 100mm on a crop camera (I've found, on a good day, I can handhold pretty well even without IS, so with 4-stop IS, the 100mm seems to be crazy awesome).

I'll be sure to post more impressions and pictures when I get a real good go at this.

I may have an EF-S 60mm MAcro up for sale!

 

[captive]

Captive: Looks like a sweet lens. I have the 17-55 IS f/2.8, and the versatility is amazing. This 12-60 will have an even more impressive range, but I guess you lose a bit of portrait use (due to lack of wide aperture at the long end). It has IS too? Man, sweet.

Olympus does IBIS.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I may have an EF-S 60mm MAcro up for sale!

How much?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

It's a sickness. I need help.

Oh no, did you catch the L fever?

I am getting it too, we need two vaccinations for it before it consumes us all.

All sarcasm aside, I hope that we get some prime lenses updated with IS (I am looking at you 135L and 200L)

 

[Grimlock]

Anyone have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens?

Thinking of picking it up. I want a wide angle lens for low light situations.

I don't have that, but I have the Sigma 28mm f1.8 for my K-20d. I find it rather soft wide open, and there was some strong purple fringing. Stepped down to f2.5 and lower and it gets a lot better.

 

[mrkgoo]

How much?

I'm not really sure. I generally keep all my stuff, but if I never use it again (or much), I guess it's wise to sell it. Let's see, suggest retail is US$469, and B&H sell it for US$422. I have no idea what's reasonable. Not making a quote (I still need to decide) or anything but it'd probably be around the $300 mark. Maybe $322 just to be $100 off new. I notice Amazon have used ones for around US$380, so I'd definitely not go higher than $350. Oh, and I have a hood for this too. That would go with it.

That said, my fiancee does a lot of art and would probably find a macro lens for product shots very useful. I also have a soft spot for the 60mm macro. It's such a great little lens.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Hrm, if this comparison is to be trusted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=476&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=1

then it seems like the 18-200 compares fairly well with the 28-135 and in some cases its better. Man I can't believe how hard lens shopping is =)

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Hrm, if this comparison is to be trusted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=476&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=1

then it seems like the 18-200 compares fairly well with the 28-135 and in some cases its better. Man I can't believe how hard lens shopping is =)

The best thing to do is to go to a Camera shop and test it yourself.

 

[mrkgoo]

Some test shots with the 100mm Macro IS L.

If you want to see IS in action:

(these are also at iso3200 on a 7D - THIS is fairly low light photography!)

Click for 1024pix.

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200

I slightly missed focus with this one, but it's the most interesting image:

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200


EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/6s, iso3200

The last one is freaking 1/6s!

 

[mrkgoo]

It's also a bokeh monster:


EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso100