Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Gadgets and Gizmos > Photography and Video

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2005, 21:20   #1
Sheepking
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,551
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts
**The official Canon Digital SLRs thread**

Seeing as it was being discussed anyway i thought i'd start it.

I wondered what lens people would recommend after the kit lens. I'd like a 70-200 or 70-300 but thats as far as i'd got.

Last edited by Sheepking; 07-02-2005 at 21:50.
Sheepking is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 21:41   #2
Guest 1052
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,166
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
I looked around others forums and have ordered a 50mm 1.8 Mkii lense from 7dayshop, cost about £55, supposedly the first lense to buy.

Also treated myself to a Sigma 70-300 APO Mark II, not played with it much but enjoyed results to date.
Guest 1052 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 21:45   #3
Wendelius
XBox Live: Wendelius
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 4,886
Thanks: 95
Thanked 80 Times in 56 Posts
Why not EOS xxxD? Why can't we discuss 10D, 20D and 300D topics here, considering that all those cameras are pretty similar and use the same lenses?

It seems to me that, if we split those cameras into multiple threads, EOS D owners will still need to check all 3 threads to make sure they don't miss any relevant information.

In fact, I kinda like the idea of titling the thread "The official Canon Digital SLRs thread", as suggested in NicolaUK's thread.

Wendelius

Last edited by Wendelius; 07-02-2005 at 21:47.
Wendelius is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 21:47   #4
Guest 3697
wibble
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Nam... Dagen-nam
Posts: 111
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The obvious one is the 50mm f1.8: Nice and cheap and essential for low light photos.
The other lens I've bought is a 100-300mm 4.5-5.6: Not expensive and it has a real USM for fast and silent focusing.
Guest 3697 is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 21:57   #5
Wendelius
XBox Live: Wendelius
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 4,886
Thanks: 95
Thanked 80 Times in 56 Posts
While we are speaking of Canon Lenses, I have a 28-105mm Sigma lens which is OK as a first lens and have started looking at the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD ASPHERICAL IF (CANON AF).

It's gotten one of the top reviews (above Canon's own 17-40 lens) in the first part of a round-up of Canon lenses in this month's "Photos Reponses" (a good photography French mag I bought on the continent this week-end).

It's also available much cheaper than with Jessops on EBay (405 Euros instead of 399 pounds) but am not sure whether to trust that German vendor or not: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...sPageName=WD2V

The tough question is whether to go for this wider angle first or a 200 or 300mm zoom lens. I need to decide what kind of pictures I want to focus on.

Wendelius
Wendelius is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 22:25   #6
Guest 4990
FA Cup Winners 2006
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 4,438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendelius
In fact, I kinda like the idea of titling the thread "The official Canon Digital SLRs thread", as suggested in NicolaUK's thread.
That was my idea I didn't start the thread because I ain't got a Canon.
Guest 4990 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 00:17   #7
Highlander
There can be only one!
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 4
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
The Canon 28-135mm IS is also a popular choice, as a first lens.
I've just ordered mine from 7DayShop

Last edited by Highlander; 08-02-2005 at 00:18.
Highlander is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 01:13   #8
Guest 20625
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 175
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepking
Seeing as it was being discussed anyway i thought i'd start it.

I wondered what lens people would recommend after the kit lens. I'd like a 70-200 or 70-300 but thats as far as i'd got.
It all depends on what you need and your budget. Post and I'll recommend you a lens
Guest 20625 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 06:50   #9
Guest 53
A girl who loves football
 
Guest 53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Beacons on the doorstep.
Posts: 14,519
Thanks: 332
Thanked 142 Times in 80 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendelius
While we are speaking of Canon Lenses, I have a 28-105mm Sigma lens which is OK as a first lens and have started looking at the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD ASPHERICAL IF (CANON AF).

It's gotten one of the top reviews (above Canon's own 17-40 lens) in the first part of a round-up of Canon lenses in this month's "Photos Reponses" (a good photography French mag I bought on the continent this week-end).

It's also available much cheaper than with Jessops on EBay (405 Euros instead of 399 pounds) but am not sure whether to trust that German vendor or not: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...sPageName=WD2V

The tough question is whether to go for this wider angle first or a 200 or 300mm zoom lens. I need to decide what kind of pictures I want to focus on.

Wendelius

The Tamron 17-35 is a fantastic lens! I've had it for about 6 months now and am very impressed with it. I bought after reading a review of it where it was compared to the 17-40L and it came out very very well against it. When I go the lens I did a comparison against a friend's 17-40L and we both preferred the Tamron image straight out of the camera.
Guest 53 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:08   #10
Guest 3272
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 143
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I second the 50mm f1.8. superb lense for the price. I use it exclusively for low light gig photography, bokeh's not bad as well. essential purchase IMO
Guest 3272 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:23   #11
Guest 24775
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 814
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'll add a third to the 50mm f1.8, VERY good lens for £50. I really wanted the 1.4 version but could not justify that 5 fold increase in the price

IIRC canon did a 50mm f1.0 lens a while back but i'm sure it wa an FD fir, and would probably be scared stiff of the price if they released a EF version!

I was going to buy a 70-200L f2.8 from Hong Kong recently, but i'm holding off as I'm bidding on 70-210mm f2.8 on Ebay. Want to see how well it performs.
Guest 24775 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:44   #12
gothmog
fear my smilies
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Shipley, land of dancing
Posts: 1,700
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmurphy
IIRC canon did a 50mm f1.0 lens a while back but i'm sure it wa an FD fir, and would probably be scared stiff of the price if they released a EF version!
It is EF mount

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=3

Bit of a speciality product though

-- Jon
gothmog is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 12:06   #13
Andrew70
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,245
Thanks: 6
Thanked 71 Times in 27 Posts
Am I right in thinking that the Tamron is one of the newer lenses that has been designed specifically for the APS sized sensor?

I really like the sound of the lens but I have to keep one eye on the future. In time I would hope to upgrade my 300D and surely there is a very good chance that full sized sensors will evenutally find their way into consumer (rather than pro) priced bodies.

I'd be loathe to buy a lens now that I knew I couldn't use if I upgraded my camera in the future.

A.
Andrew70 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 12:29   #14
gothmog
fear my smilies
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Shipley, land of dancing
Posts: 1,700
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I believe the Di is just something to do with special coatings on the back of the lens to reduce internal reflections off the CCD (doesn't happen with film). So I think the 17-35 is a full frame lens.

From tamron:

Tamron's new ultra wide-angle zoom lens starts at 17mm when used with a conventional 35mm SLR camera. When mounted on an APS-size digital SLR camera, it provides a focal length coverage equivalent to a 28-55mm (on a 35mm format camera), covering the desirable wide-angle to
standard range.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm.asp

-- Jon
gothmog is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 12:36   #15
Wendelius
XBox Live: Wendelius
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 4,886
Thanks: 95
Thanked 80 Times in 56 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
The Tamron 17-35 is a fantastic lens! I've had it for about 6 months now and am very impressed with it. I bought after reading a review of it where it was compared to the 17-40L and it came out very very well against it. When I go the lens I did a comparison against a friend's 17-40L and we both preferred the Tamron image straight out of the camera.
I'm very tempted by that lens. Do you have any preferred supplier for your lenses that would sell this one at a good price or should I give that Ebay seller a try?

Wendelius
Wendelius is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 15:34   #16
wilber
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 392
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 3 Posts
Warehouse express maybe - pretty good when I've dealt with them and their prices are usually about as cheap as it gets for mainstream dealers (7DS don't sell tamron) http://www.warehouseexpress.com/inde...on.html#af1735

It's a lens I'm considering to replace the kit lens but that's on hold as I've just bought the Canon 70-200 F/4 L (there's a thread in the bargain forum which I posted a few days back for 7DS selling it at £400). I have a Canon 2x teleconverter on order to add to this one.

Next purchase will be an ultra wide angle probably the 10-22 EF-S lens as I've read a few horror stories about the Sigma 12-24 which is it's only competitor as of today.

To complete my kit I have the 50mm F/2.8 EX Macro, which was a lens i ended up with rather than chose (my old setup contained a sigma maco that wouldn't work with the 300d so sigma let me upgrade to this one for £70). It is a really good lens though & even though it's not very fast, it does take same very good images. An HSM version would be better.
wilber is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 16:23   #17
Ravioli
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Kent
Posts: 10,644
Thanks: 143
Thanked 222 Times in 164 Posts
I've got the 28-138 IS and the 50mm 1.8. Both very nice starter lenses imo.
I also have a 80-200mm, back from my non digital days, which I'd like to get rid of and replace with the Sigma 80-400mm F4-5.6 EX APO OS, when I have enough money
Ravioli is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 16:34   #18
Matholwch
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 3,552
Thanks: 268
Thanked 79 Times in 47 Posts
The 50mm f1.8 II is a definite for any new DSLR owner with a limited budget - go for the f1.4 if you have the spare cash, stop the 50mm markII down to f2.2 and you get super crisp images.
This was the first I bought after the 300D kit, then got myself a Sigma 55-200mm DC lens (like an EFS lens) for a holiday in Europe.
Then realised that my 300D had devalued by £200 in three months, and decided rather than invest in better cameras then I'd invest in quality glass. Got myself a 17-40mm L grade lens, and now looking at getting the 70-200mm f4 L, will be selling the Sigma. The Canon lenses don't seem to devalue much, especially the L grade lenses.
__________________
"I can see my house from heeeeeeerrrrre..."
Matholwch is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 16:34   #19
Wendelius
XBox Live: Wendelius
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 4,886
Thanks: 95
Thanked 80 Times in 56 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilber
Warehouse express maybe - pretty good when I've dealt with them and their prices are usually about as cheap as it gets for mainstream dealers (7DS don't sell tamron) http://www.warehouseexpress.com/inde...on.html#af1735

It's a lens I'm considering to replace the kit lens but that's on hold as I've just bought the Canon 70-200 F/4 L (there's a thread in the bargain forum which I posted a few days back for 7DS selling it at £400).
Argh! I found the Bargain thread you posted: http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/s...d.php?t=348037

Now I'm seriously tempted by 2 lenses.

For the Tamron 17-35, the Ebay seller offers it for 413 Euros, including P&P, which comes to £285. It's quite a bit cheaper than the £338 from WH Express. But we're back to the choice of using a reputable reseller or taking a chance with Ebay.

And then the 70-200 L lens is looking very appealing too. Aren't the f4 and no IS (I know, those cost a lot more) too limiting for everyday use? Can you get away with no tripod in anything else than perfectly sunlit conditions if you add a polarising filter on top of it?

Thanks for the info. Some more things to ponder...

Wendelius

Last edited by Wendelius; 08-02-2005 at 16:35.
Wendelius is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 17:40   #20
wilber
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 392
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 3 Posts
If using a polarising filter increase the ISO by one stop (never use one myself with this sort of lens). Haaving said that, It's not the sort of lens I'd use in poor light without a tripod anyway.
wilber is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network