if i plan to have only one prime lens, what would you recommend me getting, the 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8? for general purposes.

... or skip the two, save some $$ and get the 50mm 1.8?:D

50mm is of course more versatile between the two. nice for portraits and nice for street...for shooting cute stuff...

85mm is a portrait lens na talaga. excellent for formal photo shoots.

the 50mm 1.8 is really a killer of a lens. never regretted borrowing it! hehehe.

The 85mm is also known as the "basketball lens"...

I have the 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it. It works for portraits but you have to get up real close for face shots, which might not be possible in some situations. I'm considering the 85mm too...

if i plan to have only one prime lens, what would you recommend me getting, the 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8? for general purposes.

... or skip the two, save some $$ and get the 50mm 1.8?:D

What would you consider "general purpose." Suggest review the pictures you have taken for the past 2 months and decide.

Hi John,

The decision would actually depend on your working budget and shooting requirements. The 50mm f1.8D lens is already fast and can be used in portraits and an all around glass. Try checking the sale price of Nikon, they might have the right lens you need at the right price. So, are you still using your Nikon D70s aside from your Olympus System? There is a sale right now in Glorietta until Sept. 17, 2006 for the E500 complete with 40-150mm and 17-45mm lens and free 1GB CF card for only Php 46,995.00. Happy Shopping.

why 50mm? why not 20mm?

@arnell -- will try to do that thanks ;)

@eric -- sold my d70s last may, sold my E-500 kit last week, what's left is my E-1 and 14-54mm lens and my new 30D. I'm looking into getting a prime lens for the 30D, budget is around the 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 60 2.8 macro... thanks for the input. :D

@derek, i was thinking that the 20mm would be covered by the 17-40 F4 L i'm (planning on) getting in the near future. hehe! plus, i dunno if i would be able to use a fast wide prime since i'd probably be stopping it down for group shots and scapes and stuff. :D hehe!

You can't go wrong with any of them, as long as they don't end up just sitting in your bag. Like many, I wanted both lenses and the macro as well. it never ends.

Personally for my needs, i want a portrait lens for head and shoulder shots, small subjects like babies and kids, and product shots.
I went with the 60mm efs macro 2.8:
why?


i get a 3 in1 lens - it's close enough to the 50, and 85 plus a 1:1 macro
Exteremely Sharp wide open - top notch mtf charts and reviews
USM - fast focussing, full time manual focussing,
very important: no distortion up close, even feature closeups, like a baby's facial features
macro capability - 1:1 magnification, better handholding compared to the 100mm macro (due to 1/focal length rule)
For portraits - focal length equivalent is 96mm for cropped camera, which is about right for me
Why i didn't choose the other lenses:

85 focusing distance is too large (for my subjects) and i have other lenses already that cover the focal length.
50mm 1.8 (not sure if this affects the 1.4) has distortions once you get too close, the face fattens up like in a wide angle, but not as bad of course.
It seems you need to stop both lenses down a bit to get very sharp pics anyway.I'd get the other two for their low light usefulness, or if i'm planning to go full frame anytime soon.

Regarding getting the out of focus capability DOF, i think 2.8 is more than enough to get out of focus DOF for me. Skill in knowing how to use DOF is more important than shooting everything at 1.4...that's until i get a 1.2 lens that is. ;)

Hi JonDexter,

I would go for the 60mm f2.8 macro if you intend to do a one-prime-lens solution... it's more versatile since you can already handle several shooting situations (standard, portrait, macro, low-light). In my own experience as a KM user, the following lenses are the mostly used and are always in my bag...18-70mm f3.5-5.6, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f2.8 macro, 85mm f1.4, 100mm f2, 100-300mm f5.6 APO, 1.7xTC. If I need to carry just one lens... I will definitely choose the 50mm f2.8 macro.

For an EF-S body, i'd get the 60mm macro. Since you cant decide on which length, 50 or 85, go somewhere between - like 60mm :D

Plus you get 1:1 macro.

Ok, i just reiterated what the others already said. Just to drive the point.

I so love my 50mm though :P

john, i have both and i love them

i would say the 50 is more for general use while the 85 is really for portraits...when i take studio workshops i only use my 85...it allows me to get tight face shots wihtout having to get too close to the subject

Well since I already have the 50, my next would be the 85. Both at f/1.8 btw. Planning to use the 85 for outdoor portraits and live performances where the extra reach and higher aperture is necessary.

But based on my experience, 50 is pretty long already for most of my shots since its equivalent to an 80mm focal length already. That's why am also currently eyeing a 35 as my normal lens.

for me i'll get both...

If you're choosing between the 3 and you can only get one at this point, I'd go for the 60macro. As one poster stated, it's a good in-between.

I have all 3 Nikkors and here are my comments:

The 85mm is a perfect with my 17-35. It allows me to cover far subjects or shoot with a narrow FOV when I need to. The only caveat is that it focuses down to 3ft only, so I can't move any closer and thus require longer working distances. This takes getting used to as I'm used to shooting veryveryclose with the 17-35.

The 60 macro solves the distance problem of the 85 when shooting portraits, but of course, you have to compensate for the 1-1/3 to 2 stop loss from the 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 On the other hand, I also feel that for certain subjects, this lens is too sharp to the point of being unflattering, hence the need to keep the 85.

The 50 sees the least action in my type of photography, but when in a pinch, gives you more room to play with than the 85 because of the bigger FOV. I find the 35 more useful than the 50.

Each of the 3 have their own special place in your arsenal, and I'd suggest owning them all as soon as budget permits. But among the 3, I'd easily replace the 50 with either a fast 35, 28 or 24, just so that you have a smaller, lighter unit when you don't feel like bringing around your zoom.

The Nikkor 28/1.4 comes to mind and I think Canon has an equivalent.

The 85mm is also known as the "basketball lens"...

I have the 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it. It works for portraits but you have to get up real close for face shots, which might not be possible in some situations. I'm considering the 85mm too...

y do you call this a basketball lens

ive heard a lot of people here are using this lens, considering that the price is v v cheap. i also read about it on dpp magazine making it to the "top" or list of popular lens. since the price is cheap, i am worried about its performance. is this really a good buy? i still dont know much about lenses, i only have two, the one that comes with the kitlens, i think that's 18-55 and the other one from my old slr (eos rebel 66) i think that's 35mm. do i still need the 50mm? thanks!:Grin:

we wouldnt put it there if we didn't believe it was such a great buy.

we wouldnt put it there if we didn't believe it was such a great buy.

ok. thanks for the quick reply sir. i also would like to ask, if u dont mind, what are the things to be consider when buying lens at hidalgo. im eyeing on watsons, they sell it for only 4k and i am planning to buy the lens later. thanks!:)

Yup it's a very good lens considering its only P4,000. Go ahead and buy it. With its aperture of 1.8, it gives you very good bokeh... great for portraits. It hunts quite a lot though but with very good, sharp IQ you couldn't care less.

ok. thanks for the quick reply sir. i also would like to ask, if u dont mind, what are the things to be consider when buying lens at hidalgo. im eyeing on watsons, they sell it for only 4k and i am planning to buy the lens later. thanks!:)

as per canon philippines mandate: check for local warranty. you wouldn't want to pick up a grey market lens and support parallel importing.

mount in on your camera, check if it focuses well. check if the images you are getting are sharp at different apertures. make sure no scratches, dents or marks.

as per canon philippines mandate: check for local warranty. you wouldn't want to pick up a grey market lens and support parallel importing.

mount in on your camera, check if it focuses well. check if the images you are getting are sharp at different apertures. make sure no scratches, dents or marks.

I got mine from Canon Dzone in moa. P4,700, 6 month zero interest. you may want to consider that, especially since maulan ngayon, hirap puntang quiapo, hehehe.

ciao!

Yup it's a very good lens considering its only P4,000. Go ahead and buy it. With its aperture of 1.8, it gives you very good bokeh... great for portraits. It hunts quite a lot though but with very good, sharp IQ you couldn't care less.

thanks sir edilbert.:) now im getting more excited. thanks again.

I got mine from Canon Dzone in moa. P4,700, 6 month zero interest. you may want to consider that, especially since maulan ngayon, hirap puntang quiapo, hehehe.

ciao!

too bad i dont have credit cards. i will consider buying at Dzone if they allow me to pay in cash, 6months 0% interest... by the way, does Dzone offer 0% interest on speedlites? thanks much!:Grin:

I got mine from Canon Dzone in moa. P4,700, 6 month zero interest. you may want to consider that, especially since maulan ngayon, hirap puntang quiapo, hehehe.



i haven't been to canon Dzone, but this makes me wonder.... are they really that much more expensive? that P700 difference amounts to 35%APR........ man, if my investments have that kind of yield, i'd be set for life! i think that more than compensates for the 0% interest.

id rather spent more of 700 ensuring the warranty, convinence (parking, hazard, hold-up possibility in quiapo etc etc...) malamig pa sa moa. hihihhi

ric,

i have to agree with you about parking. it's next to impossible in quiapo. i've only been to hidalgo stores once. i had to either park my car in SM manila city hall or leave it at my mom's shop in ronquillo area. but my main concern here is the price difference which amounts to almost 18%. and this is on an item that hardly amounts to anything (nowadays in photography).

like i said, i've never been to dzone, but i sure hope their more expensive products (like the body) are not that much more expensive compared to other authorized dealers.

how come? isn't it true that the 0% for 6 months apply to eos cams and lenses above15k only?

I got mine from Canon Dzone in moa. P4,700, 6 month zero interest. you may want to consider that, especially since maulan ngayon, hirap puntang quiapo, hehehe.

ciao!

@ mycelocampo (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/member.php?u=4902): Yes, go ahead and buy the lens , I bought mine 3 days ago in Hidalgo and I can't stop clickin'! :) here's a sample shot...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/222/512305271_4b8035155e.jpg?v=0

Just wondering...do you think which is more important ....

IS Lens or a F2.8 lens

This is really bugging me...i was suppose to buy 28-135mm f 3.5-5.6 IS USM this morning ....but last night i tried my friends' 24-70mm f2.8 L (which i know cost more) ...made me stopped to think again......i wanted to buy a Lens with IS but the F2.8 is good for low light conditions..

Need your opinion guys....which do u think....?
Thanx in advance!.

f/2.8 :Grin:

f/2.8 or better yet, both. hehe...

P.

It's a great buy! More than 50% of my shots is from that lens.

P.

50 mm f1.8 II is a very good buy, I bought mine @ Mayer for 3,900 with official canon warranty (not shop warranty). I was stung when I see the result of My latest prenup using this lens last May 19(my first time to use the lens and my first time to shoot a prenup), the sharpness is very good and the price is cheap!

how come? isn't it true that the 0% for 6 months apply to eos cams and lenses above15k only?

Strictly speaking, yes. But i think they made exemption for me, hehehe. paki usap lang kaya 6 months. I even wanted 1 year but it would have been too much a favor already.

__________

Obviously, Dzone is more expensive than the shops in hidalgo but i think they're almost the same as other mall distributors. I would actually prefer buying in hidalgo but there are times when i just don't have the cash (so i use card) and buying stuff in the mall with my kids is just so convenient.

ciao!

f/2.8 , best choice bro

f2.8 or better if both.

Chris,

Having 28-135 as my walk around lens, I have no complains. When it comes to indoor shoot, I always have a problem and have to rely to my mighty 50mm f1.8 if I cant/dont use flash. Besides, IQ wise nothing beats the L lens.

As for me, after experiencing indoor model shoot, I am really longing to have 24-70 f2.8. . . :)

The 24-70 has so much more going for it, IQ, larger aperture, better bokeh. The only drawbacks are cost and weight. If these are not issues, then go for the 24-70. You won't regret it.

thank you guys for the kind replies. just got the lens yesterday at watsons. hehe=)
i havent tried shooting using the lens, except when i test it before the buy, so the lens hasnt impressed me yet. hmmm... let me see... now i wonder what do people like with this lens considering that it has no zoom (is that he correct term for that?) as i've said earlier, i know nothing about lenses. my bad... again.

@tyrone, lovely little girl you got there. and the bokeh is indeed good!

@peterson, thanks much guys. loved. ***

@manuel, i havent check on mayers. i got the lens at 4k, with international warranty...

congrats on your new 50mm! I just got mine last week rin and I luv it. The bokeh is fine for portraits, but what I seriously dig about the Nifty Fifty is how sharp the images appear especially in low-light conditions.

great value for money lens at the 4k range! :D

f/2.8 :D

:D

congrats on your new 50mm! I just got mine last week rin and I luv it. The bokeh is fine for portraits, but what I seriously dig about the Nifty Fifty is how sharp the images appear especially in low-light conditions.

great value for money lens at the 4k range! :D


thanks ken. ang saya siguro kung lahat ng lens ganito ka-mura lng. hehehe! sure im gonna try the lens when i got home later. sharpness, so that's what the lens is all about...:) excited nako ulit!

the other one from my old slr (eos rebel 66) i think that's 35mm. :Grin:

Hi Mycel. A little OT. Is your 35mm lens an f/2? Let me know if you want to let go of this since am in the market on getting a 35mm. Thanks.

Mycel,

For your appreciation (of your new lens), the photo below was taken using the 50mm f/1.8 lens set at 1/400s, f/2.8, ISO 100.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/208/512921126_ecd2b24dda.jpg

ciao!

thanks ken. ang saya siguro kung lahat ng lens ganito mura lng. hehehe! sure im gonna try the lens when i got home later. sharpness, so that's what the lens is all about...:) excited nako ulit!

hehe, sanang mag-dilang anghel ka and marinig ka ng Canon regarding more affordable lens. :Grin:

from my experience, the Nifty takes a little getting used to lang coz it's "fixed" and wala syang telescoping/wide-angle abilities. nasanay kasi ako sa 18-55 and like you, the Nifty is only the second lens I've bought and tried for a DSLR.

pero it really is a super-sulit lens! try it at F/2.8 for portraits with bokeh and F/8 for shots with sharp foregrounds and backgrounds. It's also supposed to be good for astrophotography because of it's wide aperture, pero di ko pa nasusubukan yan. :D

Just wondering...do you think which is more important ....

IS Lens or a F2.8 lens

This is really bugging me...i was suppose to buy 28-135mm f 3.5-5.6 IS USM this morning ....but last night i tried my friends' 24-70mm f2.8 L (which i know cost more) ...made me stopped to think again......i wanted to buy a Lens with IS but the F2.8 is good for low light conditions..

Need your opinion guys....which do u think....?
Thanx in advance!.

It's not a fair comparison. Better if you compared the 24-70L f2.8 vs the 24-105L f4L IS.

If you are going to swing for a P54k or so budget for a lens, these are the 2 choices. In the 28-135 IS, it's easy, the 24-70L. But with a 24-105L IS as a comparison, it's harder. Both have their Pros and Cons.

For me, I chose, the 24-105L IS. I like the range, I like the size, and the weight. And the IS is the clincher. Even on a so-so day, I know I can shoot 1/15 at 105mm. On a good day, I can shoot 1/6sec at 105mm. That's tough to do even for f2.8 at 70mm. Even at 1/30 at 70mm, you better have hands like a tripod leg. If I need DOF or speed, I whip out my 100 f2 usm or 50 1.8 mk2. Not even the 24-70L can touch it for sharpness, DOF, and speed.

But as I said, this is MY preference. Whichever you pick, it's going to be better than the 28-135 IS.

Hi Mycel. A little OT. Is your 35mm lens an f/2? Let me know if you want to let go of this since am in the market on getting a 35mm. Thanks.


hello lester. im not sure if its an f/2. sorry. ill check when i got home. btw, i still dont have much lenses so i think ill keep it muna.:Grin: and also, it has sooo many scratches and dust in it so i think you'll never gonna like it. hehe:D (this is bec it is a 4yr old lens. bought it when i was in 2nd yr college for my photography class) thank you for the offer.:)

Mycel,

For your appreciation (of your new lens), the photo below was taken using the 50mm f/1.8 lens set at 1/400s, f/2.8, ISO 100.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/208/512921126_ecd2b24dda.jpg

ciao!

what a lovely shot sir! very sharp indeed. pretty colors. now im loving it. thanks very much. you guys are making me more excited. now im missing my camera plus plus plus new lens. hehehe!:)

@ric and rey. medyo hassle nga pumunta ng quiapo. pero in my case, wala nman akong auto so no need for parking spaces. tsaka live at espanya near uste lng kaya hndi mahirap sakn magpabalik balik ng hidalgo. hehe! and for the warranty mga sirs, ive heard that canon is now honouring international warranties. how true is that? thanks! :)

That's what i thought...everyone has the same advise....F2.8..
So budget will be kept again for 24-70...Ipon ipon muna ulit!..

THANKS GUYS!....appreciate your advises!

hands down, f/2.8 :) not only you have better glass elements, it's a sure thing (except if you really have shaky hands)

hello lester. im not sure if its an f/2. sorry. ill check when i got home. btw, i still dont have much lenses so i think ill keep it muna.:Grin: and also, it has sooo many scratches and dust in it so i think you'll never gonna like it. hehe:D (this is bec it is a 4yr old lens. bought it when i was in 2nd yr college for my photography class) thank you for the offer.:)

No worries Mycel. Enjoy your primes, it's addicting :)

how about 17-55 2.8 IS, at least you have both worlds

@ Mon...i need the Length as well....and i do sometimes have shaky hands...

i have a general philosophy when it comes to this dilemma.

IS is a CONVENIENCE....LARGER aperture is a NECESSITY. herherherher

but still, it's a case to case basis...

but in your case...24-70!!! =)

Between your two choices, it's hands down 24-70/2.8 L.

Between your two choices, it's hands down 24-70/2.8 L.

Same here. :)

i have a general philosophy when it comes to this dilemma.

IS is a CONVENIENCE....LARGER aperture is a NECESSITY. herherherher

but still, it's a case to case basis...

but in your case...24-70!!! =)

Glenn,

I beg to disagree. IS is not a convenience. And LARGER aperture is not a necessity in all situations. Here is a situation:

A wedding, low light, at 70mm, your shutter speed is at 1/30, f2.8 at at iso 1600, how confident are you that you can get that shot without a tripod, monopod, or bracing yourself at the back of a church pillar, or the pew assuming your subject is not moving?

With my 24-105mm, I can shoot at 105mm, f4, 1/15 or even 1/8 with confidence on a good day. On a bad day, that better be 1/15 for me to have that confidence. I can also go to 70mm just to even the up the percentage of getting it right.

Is that now a CONVENINCE to have IS? Or did that IS just saved my butt?

Last Feb, I shot with a P5k per wedding shooter (shooter for hire). P5k means he is a good and seasoned shooter. Most just get paid P2.5k or P3k. He was using an 85 f1.8 and shooting mostly at f1.8-f2 1/50 1/40 at san sebastian church at iso 800 with a 10d. Sometimes he gets 1/60. Now, I was shooting at around 60-105mm myself at 1/15 and not one was blurred. He had a about 5-8% of those shots blurred. I had zero. Is IS now merely a CONVENIENCE?

f2.8 is a necessity. Hmmm. On a group pictures, at 24mm, you would need f5.6 on average to get all those people at the altar sharp especially if you have two or 3 layers of people. At that same example and church I mentioned. If the guy was shooting at 1/60 at f1.8 or f2 at iso 800, he will likely get 1/8 at f5.6. Do you think he can handhold it that slow? Sure, he should be using a 24mm if he had the 24-70 f2.8L and he could probably get 1/15 or 1/20 at the wide. But without IS, what's likely his ratio of keepers vs a 24-105L w/c you can handhold at 1/8 at 105mm? This is now 24mm and surely, now, it even tilts more in favor of the one with IS. I can tell you, even on a bad day, 1/10 sec at 24mm handheld with the 24-105L IS is doable. Can we say that for the 24-70L at 24mm without a tripod or monopod?

And as I said in my previous post, if I need DOF for the artsy shot, or need speed, I'd use a 100 f2 usm, or a 50 f1.8 mk2. The 24-70/105 isn't going to defeat these lenses for DOF, speed, and sharpness, especially stopped down. If this is the case, then f2.8 is also not a NECESSITY.

But if I were to Follow your logic (and philosophy) of what is a NECESSITY, then it would be better to get an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 or 50 f1.8 or the 35 f2 because if it is a NECESSITY having a fast lens, these are faster. Cheaper too even if you get a 3 lenses compared to the 24-70L. And IS being merely a CONVENIENCE in your logic is not going to be part of the equation anyway.

Someone mentioned the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS. Now, that is the better all around compromise. Except, maybe for the OP, 55mm may be too short. If the OP were doing events and weddings, a 17-55 f2.8 IS, with a ef-s 10-22 and a 70-200 f2.8 or f4L IS would be a great 3-lens combo. Even for non-events it would just be useful. My 10-22 and 24-105L IS is very useful 2 lens combo for almost 95% of my shooting situations. I am thinking of getting a tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2 . No, not for f2.8 or shutter speed improvement of 1 stop. It's more for the smaller size and weight for my personal walkabout lens and the range is just right for a 1 lens solution. It is just great to put that on a 400d.:)

Now, think of the 17-55 IS. bigger, heavier, more expensive. But I read that those guys can shoot at 1/6-1/8 sec at 50mm f2.8 easy. Now, even Tamron at 17mm will have a hard time getting the same results! See the power of IS? If you are now in vacation in Burma or Thailand inside those temples, you have no flash or it is not allowed, do you now think shooting at 1/8sec at f2.8 inside a building or museum is a CONVENIENCE or a NECESSITY? You can take that shot with the tamron and pray your hand didn't shake. Or you can take it with the 17-55 IS and have the confidence that you got the shot. If that IS allowed you to get that shot, then IS is not merely a CONVENIENCE now, is it?

Perhaps, it is time to re-evaluated your philosophy, Glenn? :)

well thats informative...thanks Mel....You just woke me with 3 lens to 1..

Im choosing between the:
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Price US $1600
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM Price US $1100

If i have the extra money i'll get the one with the IS. :)

mel, it's just what I will tell myself when faced with that dilemma. that statement is only applicable when i realllllyyy need to choose between two similar lenses.

mentioning other lenses such as the 1.8's is not part of the dilemma I am talking about. of course, i have the option of just using them when needed.

what i am saying is when faced by a particular instance where i really have to choose one between an IS lens with smaller aperture or a lens w/o IS but with bigger aperture.

example:

Put 70-200 2.8L and 70-200 F4 L IS right in front of me right now.

And you tell me that i can only choose 1. I will definitely choose the larger aperture over the IS..basing it on my "general" philosophy (which is not applicable in some situations like the ones you mentioned).

of course, IS can save many many shots from being in the recycle bin, but I personally would still opt to work with a larger apperture lens where i am more comfortable with rather than an F4 lens with IS.

so....no. i stand by my "general" philosophy . =p

ps: IS is a convinience because i can make those shots using a TRIPOD (which is NOT very convinient)...so...IS is a convinience that i am not ready to accept yet since i am pretty comfortable using my tripod.

diff'rnt croaks for diff'rnt frogs. :)

so it comes down to speed and stability. where your field is determines the purchase of either of these two.

most pros need the larger aperture because of speed (sports, journalism). they don't care much about the IQ, they care about capturing the right moment w/out the image getting blurred. f/2.8 @ 1/60 or f/4 @ 1/30 (ISO speed being equal)?

the rest may find themselves just fine w/ the IS (hobbyists, advanced amateurs, semi-pros or even some pros!)

if you can have both (either in one lens or 2-lens combo), so much the better.

but IMHO the 24-105L is a very good compromise between the fast and the stable.

and i have the 24-70L in my arsenal. :)

When I was contemplating between the 24-105 f/2.8L and 24-70 f/4L. I chose the f/2.8L, why? because sabi ni Sir. Angelo Santos na its a nice L Lens :) yehey :) Kidding Aside because of the f/2.8, its faster kase. I know both L's are sharp, just wanted more speed in my Lens un lang :) Very satisfied, so satisfied

is this any good?

help please, someone is offering me the lens for 5k eh

This might help.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

thanks buddy! will check it out!

somehow, fredmiranda reviews make me sad because all the lenses I can afford get bad reviews. haha! well, we get what we pay for.

The 50 f/1.8 is indeed cheap, but aside from its build quality, there is nothing "cheap" about this lens. Nice bokeh and sharp images for P4k. Hunts a bit though during AF. But at only 4k with such great sharpness and DOF? This lens is almost a must have!

Even though 90% of the time, my 17-55 f2.8 is on my camera (which can cover the 50mm range), I still keep my 50 f/1.8 for portraits. Its bokeh is just just too creamy and beautiful to let go.

So mycel go get yourself this affordable lens and enjoy your sharp images and ceamy bokehs.

mel, it's just what I will tell myself when faced with that dilemma. that statement is only applicable when i realllllyyy need to choose between two similar lenses.

mentioning other lenses such as the 1.8's is not part of the dilemma I am talking about. of course, i have the option of just using them when needed.

what i am saying is when faced by a particular instance where i really have to choose one between an IS lens with smaller aperture or a lens w/o IS but with bigger aperture.

example:

Put 70-200 2.8L and 70-200 F4 L IS right in front of me right now.

And you tell me that i can only choose 1. I will definitely choose the larger aperture over the IS..basing it on my "general" philosophy (which is not applicable in some situations like the ones you mentioned).

of course, IS can save many many shots from being in the recycle bin, but I personally would still opt to work with a larger apperture lens where i am more comfortable with rather than an F4 lens with IS.

so....no. i stand by my "general" philosophy . =p

ps: IS is a convinience because i can make those shots using a TRIPOD (which is NOT very convinient)...so...IS is a convinience that i am not ready to accept yet since i am pretty comfortable using my tripod.


No, Glen, IS is NOT a mere CONVENIENCE. IF you have to USE A TRIPOD in your f2.8 24-70L to get your shot, how can that be a CONVENIENCE? Is now a tripod a NECESSITY? Or is also a CONVENIENCE? It does duplicate the role of IS, doesn't it? But is that CONVENIENT? Is it convenient for you to carry a tripod all the time with a NECESSARY non-IS lens?

Also in certain places you are not allowed to use a tripod (one church we went to told the photographer not to set up his tripod), what now? My guess is that they want to protect the rug of the church or maybe the floor from scuff marks.

If the IS lens lets you shoot wthout a tripod, handheld, no other help except that technology, is lighter, is smaller, is slightly cheaper, but it's only handicap is f4, how can that be a mere CONVENIENCE?

If the IS lets you get the shot that a 1-stop better lens cannot do, and not do without the aid of a tripod, how can that lens not be a NECESSITY? I acknowledge that that 1-stop can at times spell the difference between a blurred shot and not (e.g 1/30 or 1/40vs 1/60 or 1/80 w/c I call the boundary shutter speed for most situations), but to say that f2.8 is a NECESSITY by itself is being too overly optimistic. Again, at 70mm, it would be hard for anybody to handhold a shot of a non-moving subject at 1/8 sec handheld w/out IS. The 24-105L can do so with a high degree of reliability even at 105mm (w/c also magnifiies the shake so that is even a better performance than merely comparing it to 70mm).

So, I ask again, is IS a mere CONVENIENCE?

Better check your logic and your reasoning, Glen :). Your slip is showing. :)



Also, a DILEMMA generally means a choice between two unfavorable situations or solutions. Barring any other lenses and you have to choose two, the 24-105L is not even a unfavorable in most GENERAL situations.

Again, if you still wish to adhere to your philosophy, you are free to do so. But we mustn't allow people to be mislead by squeeky reasoning. There are a lot of newbies out there that can be mislead. We may voice out our own opinions, but there are things that if shown in the light of day is pretty enlightening to say the least and is not subject to whim or mere preference. There are gray areas, but this isn't one of them.

If "General" means, it is more or less appropo for most situations, and if events photography seems left out by your principles, there is something wrong.

You can either 1-change or modify your philosophy. 2-remove the word associating CONVENIENCE (a mere convenience) to the 24-105L 3-modify the conditions where something is a NECESSITY, 4-acknowledge that IS can be a necessity in some situations.

And don't forget to check out the meaning of DILEMMA.:)

What you have is not a dilemma.

Again, maybe it is time to re-evaluate your philosophy. :)

If not, do not forget to bring your tripod when you go out and shoot.

Hi guys, newbie here. I'm planning to buy a telezoom lens and i'm looking at 70-300 IS and 70 - 200 f4. Can you share your personal experiences on each lense.

Thanks a lot.

up to 200mm is a goodbuy, 300mm can be a bit tricky with focusing

I just recently got my 70-200 f4 IS and I may say that it is the best that I got. Sharpness is nothing short of excellent even wide open at f/4. Focus speed is quick and accurate. This is my first and longest telephoto lens and I find it challenging if not difficult to find frames on the long end. Although a bit expensive - especially compared to it's non-IS predecessor - with the combination of IS, excellent image quality in a sturdy package, I think it's well worth it.

For people looking for a lens on this focal range (70-xxx), I recommend you to think and consider among 70-300 f/3.5-4.5 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 non-IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. Usually, it boils down to your budget and your planned type of use. For me, it took a lot of thought and pondering until I decided to get this one. Here are some of the points that I have considered on how I ended up with this lens:


70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

Pros: inexpensive, value for the money, 3rd gen IS, extra 100mm range among the 70-xxx family, 8-blade circular aperture design, contains UD glass, ok image quality (depends where you intend to use your images)
Cons: variable aperture, length extends considerably during zooming, front element extends and rotates during focusing (not good for polarizers), average build quality (plastic, but it's a non-L so nothing much to expect), ok image quality (again, this depends where you intend to use your images), low resale value [?]


70-200 f/4 L non-IS

Pros: inexpensive (for a white red-ringed lens :Grin:), light weight on a sturdy package, excellent image quality, L-series lens
Cons: non-IS, no weather sealing


70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS

Pros: high build quality, excellent image quality, L-series lens, f/2.8 (full stop faster than f/4)
Cons: a bit expensive for me considering it has no IS (I think IS really helps a lot on this focal range) and I don't think I really need the f/2.8 aperture for my use, heavy


70-200 f/2.8 L IS

Pros: high build quality, excellent image quality, L-series lens, f/2.8 (full stop faster than f/4), 2nd-gen IS, weather sealing

Cons: expensive, expensive, and did I already say expensive??? This is the lens that I really wanted and have always been wishing for BUT it is way out of my budget and I don't really need an f/2.8 aperture. I would rather invest on another body for the extra money that I would pay for this lens.


70-200 f/4 L IS

Pros: 3rd-gen IS (definitely works!), excellent image quality (sharpest canon zoom lens tested on photozone...I would say sharper than my 24-70 lens at 70mm f/4 setting), light weight on a sturdy weather-sealed package, L-series lens, constant f/4 aperture along the entire zoom range

Cons: a bit expensive (compared to its non-IS predecessor)



So, after a lot of thinking and saving, I finally bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS. No regrets so far and loving every moment I spend with it. :Grin:

Kenny / Joseph

Thanks on your detailed explanation,basically i'll be focusing on Portrait and landscape.
The 2.8 is definitely out......too expensive.

what goes in my mind right now is: IS and extra 100mm focal length or superb IQ?

Ken, how much is the 70-200 f/4 IS and what store?
Can you post some pics?

Thanks.

I saw in an ad of Canon that they have marked down 70-200 f4, both is (almost 50k) and non-is (almost(30k) version together with 70-300 ISU (almost 30k), this may be a perfect time for you to get one. IMHO, i dont think you will go wrong with any of the lenses you are choosing.

IQ for all 3 are almost perfect, you may want to consider its resaleablility. its quite obvious 70-300 are less saleable afterwards. I do own the 70-300isu and would think the extra 100mm is not too signifacnt an advantage, but i can attest the IS is an excellent addition. considering that the main reason for your purchase will be the tele end rather than the short end. Even in good lighting, you can step up and use higher aperture values.

hi. i have the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. i have no complains with it so far. i can still seem to get blur free shots at 200mm but i think its mostly because i try to stand very still with my back against the wall. :Grin: the IS is better but i couldnt afford it. i have no regrets so far. the picture quality is great. the colors are sharp and the dof is superb for portraits.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/254/444772230_b3b87e85fe.jpg

this was taken with my 70-200..

lizard - thanks for sharing canon marked down promo on their lenses. ( need to decide na
to avail the big discount )
I agree with you that IS is an excellent advantage....my walk around lense is 17-85
IS and helps me a lot in taking good pic.

didsconsing - wow...i like that shot, superb IQ what can i say....the power of L lense
is really magical, very detailed picture, sharpness, color quality is really
great.

guys thanks a lot, guess i have to choose between 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300 IS
with the 20K price difference i can still buy additional accesories......
guess i have to try it for myself then and decide which one......happy shooting

Hi Lizard,

I didn't see that ad. Where are they selling these marked down lenses?

Guys, what can you say bout 85mm 1.2 (bukod sa "mahal" sya!) ??? Is it really good for portrait/glamour photography??? Okay ba sya for studio and outdoor shoot???

Please, please give me solid, solid advice! I'm planning to save money for this.

Big thanks!

When I was contemplating between the 24-105 f/2.8L and 24-70 f/4L. I chose the f/2.8L, why? because sabi ni Sir. Angelo Santos na its a nice L Lens :) yehey :) Kidding Aside because of the f/2.8, its faster kase. I know both L's are sharp, just wanted more speed in my Lens un lang :) Very satisfied, so satisfied

hi. dont you mean the 24-105 f4 L and the 24-70 f2.8 L??
i

Guys, what can you say bout 85mm 1.2 (bukod sa "mahal" sya!) ??? Is it really good for portrait/glamour photography??? Okay ba sya for studio and outdoor shoot???

Please, please give me solid, solid advice! I'm planning to save money for this.

Big thanks!

i think prime lenses are made for that purpose. if you're only really planning to use that lens for that then go for it. but if you think you could use it for other shots then maybe you could go for a zoom lens with an f2.8. like the 24-70. at least you could use that in more fields than one. :Grin: just my newbie opinion. anybody feel free to correct.

I'm also deep in thought about which lens to buy. I'm technically still a hobbyist but I regularly take travel photos, product and store shots which have been published in a major newspaper and some magazines. I've also been approached by a PR agency to take their events photos.

My camera is an EOS 400D and I currently have the following lenses in my bag:
• Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 II (kit)
• Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 II
• Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM
• Sigma EX 105 f3.8 DG macro

I'm planning to buy a walkaround lens (17-40 or 18-135), a portrait low-light lens (50mm 1.8) and a zoom lens (70-200 f4).

Are these lenses OK for my requirements?

Any advise will be loads of help. Thanks.

i think prime lenses are made for that purpose. if you're only really planning to use that lens for that then go for it. but if you think you could use it for other shots then maybe you could go for a zoom lens with an f2.8. like the 24-70. at least you could use that in more fields than one. :Grin: just my newbie opinion. anybody feel free to correct.


Thank you very much Dids!

The 85mm is also known as the "basketball lens"...

I have the 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it. It works for portraits but you have to get up real close for face shots, which might not be possible in some situations. I'm considering the 85mm too...

Why "basketball lens"? Is it the one preferred by photogs covering basketball games? Seriously, I take a lot of basketball game photos because my son plays varsity ball and if this lens will help me cover his games better then I'll think of getting one.

My favorite is the 24-70mm 2.8L USM -- thanks to BJ for influencing me, LOL! :p

@ kenny, just how much did you got your 70-200f/4 L IS?
appreciate your input since i am also looking a lens on that range ty.

OT: guys how much EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS ? thanks :)

chris, i think EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS is in 20k pesos more or less. try looking for the thread canon lenses price update. cheers

folks, looking to buy my first lens outside from the kit. i'm thinking either wide-angle or macro. i'm just a budding hobbyist so hope you suggest something affordable. looking forward to your suggestions.

@paolo

i had a similar situation a month ago. i was eager to get a lens outside my kit. im not an expert but here is my friendly advice.

get the 50mm F1.8. its cheap and it is so good.

second, for the more expensive stuff. save up for what u really need and want. i was too eager and got the 28-135 f/3.5 - 5.6. had a really hard time coz im shooting mostly indoors. i know most people will ask you what kinda of photography ur into, i suggest u really think about it.

im getting the 24-70 f/2.8, coz it wil help me a lot indoors. if outdoor ka most of the time, the 28-135 is a good and affordable walk around lens. but most people say get a walk around lens which ull be happy with. ofcourse kit does wonders also.

if feeling mo nature tripper ka talaga. go for macro. but di ako ma-macro so ask around,.

fisheye ok rin.. but ofcourse limited ka.


hope this helped.

folks, looking to buy my first lens outside from the kit. i'm thinking either wide-angle or macro. i'm just a budding hobbyist so hope you suggest something affordable. looking forward to your suggestions.

if you're into landscapes you can get a wide-angle. if you're using a canon crop dslr, get the ef-s 10-22mm ultra-wide angle lens. you won't regret it. if you prefer to take macros, you could get an ef-s 60mm macro or 100mm macro. if you want a really good zoom L lens with good lowlight capability, get the ef 24-70mm f/2.8 L. pangarap ko yun...hehe.

@mark & leslie

thanks for your inputs. i did a little research and you guys pretty much suggested what i came up with myself. here's what i'm planning, within this lifetime i hope:

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

... in no particular order. turns out, the most expensive looks to be the wide angle zoom lens, which is the one i really want right now cause i seem to be inclined to shots that require that range.

anyway, thanks again.

@mark & leslie

thanks for your inputs. i did a little research and you guys pretty much suggested what i came up with myself. here's what i'm planning, within this lifetime i hope:

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

... in no particular order. turns out, the most expensive looks to be the wide angle zoom lens, which is the one i really want right now cause i seem to be inclined to shots that require that range.

anyway, thanks again.

you're welcome. i currently have the 10-22mm and 50mm f/1.8 II. i love these lenses that i don't rely on the kit lens anymore.

the 28-135mm is a good buy with its IS. you might want to check hidalgo in quiapo to get the most competitive prices. if you're going for installments, try canon dzone for the 10-22mm.

yah, the 28-135 is a good walkaround lens... i was planning to sell mine after i got my 70 300 2.8 pero i just cant part ways with it... :)

yah, the 28-135 is a good walkaround lens... i was planning to sell mine after i got my 70 300 2.8 pero i just cant part ways with it... :)

if you do plan to sell, let me know ... :Grin:

@ mark, may I know how much u bought ur 10-22mm?

@ mark, may I know how much u bought ur 10-22mm?

got it for 38K at canon dzone. it's a lot more expensive than buying in hidalgo. but i get to pay it installments. and of course, i have a reliable warranty!

by the way, natupad na ang pangarap ko. hehehe. :)

Just want to know if there is an updated price list of Canon lenses available in this forum. Thanks.

I'd like to ask what Canon lens (for the 400D) to purchase as this will be a first outside the kit lens. I am partial to taking shots from a distance (am I saying this right??) and macro shots.

I'm sure of the place where to get 'em (Hidalgo, where else...he he he) but just know know which amongst a long list from Canon or even Sigma.

Appreciate yur suggestions guys.

I'd like to ask what Canon lens (for the 400D) to purchase as this will be a first outside the kit lens. I am partial to taking shots from a distance (am I saying this right??) and macro shots.

I'm sure of the place where to get 'em (Hidalgo, where else...he he he) but just know know which amongst a long list from Canon or even Sigma.

Appreciate yur suggestions guys.


I would suggest 100mm Macro 2.8. Very excellent for walk around shooting from a distance and at the same time MACRO. Low light problem ? Well its a fast lens 2.8. Sharpness ? Again its a PRIME. Don't waste your time. Grabe it while its on stock ! :D

I would suggest 100mm Macro 2.8. Very excellent for walk around shooting from a distance and at the same time MACRO. Low light problem ? Well its a fast lens 2.8. Sharpness ? Again its a PRIME. Don't waste your time. Grabe it while its on stock ! :D

Thanks for the tip Clemn. I'll be checking it out this week.

I'd like to ask what Canon lens (for the 400D) to purchase as this will be a first outside the kit lens. I am partial to taking shots from a distance (am I saying this right??) and macro shots.

I'm sure of the place where to get 'em (Hidalgo, where else...he he he) but just know know which amongst a long list from Canon or even Sigma.

Appreciate yur suggestions guys.

For a tight budget that does almost everything do get the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM. Best for its price!

I do still agree with clemm regarding primes which are still the best in IQ compared to zooms as I have the 100mm 2.8 Macro USM, 85mm 1.8 USM, and my first ever prime the 50mm 1.8 II but most of the time you wont go wrong and use the 28-135 considering the focal range. It also has a macro setting although only 0.19X magnification but still well worth it. and considering it has IS. Great for beginners until you find your true passion.:Grin:

I would suggest 100mm Macro 2.8. Very excellent for walk around shooting from a distance and at the same time MACRO. Low light problem ? Well its a fast lens 2.8. Sharpness ? Again its a PRIME. Don't waste your time. Grabe it while its on stock ! :D

i agree. nothing beats a prime in terms of sharpness. i bought the 'simple' and 'cheap' 50mm 1.8 mk II and rarely used the kit lens since. i was happy with the output.

but if you have a big budget and want a bit of versatility, you can get the 24-70L or 70-200L.

For a tight budget that does almost everything do get the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM. Best for its price!

I do still agree with clemm regarding primes which are still the best in IQ compared to zooms as I have the 100mm 2.8 Macro USM, 85mm 1.8 USM, and my first ever prime the 50mm 1.8 II but most of the time you wont go wrong and use the 28-135 considering the focal range. It also has a macro setting although only 0.19X magnification but still well worth it. and considering it has IS. Great for beginners until you find your true passion.:Grin:

thanks jjbuenafe. will keep it in mind.

i agree. nothing beats a prime in terms of sharpness. i bought the 'simple' and 'cheap' 50mm 1.8 mk II and rarely used the kit lens since. i was happy with the output.

but if you have a big budget and want a bit of versatility, you can get the 24-70L or 70-200L.

thanks mark. wow! this site is really very very helpful for newbies like me.

appreciate your replies. :Grin::Grin:

If you have a kit at 18-55, would buying a 28-135 IS be redundant cause you already have the kit? Would the IS make a really big difference?

What's the disadvantage if you just get a 70-300 with IS also? (Aside from the cost) Would the lower aperture be a deciding factor?

Low-light capability + wide range VS long zoom

Have to make a really thought of decision for my next purchase as this is really (quickly) getting quite expensive :Grin:

If you have a kit at 18-55, would buying a 28-135 IS be redundant cause you already have the kit? Would the IS make a really big difference?

What's the disadvantage if you just get a 70-300 with IS also? (Aside from the cost) Would the lower aperture be a deciding factor?

Low-light capability + wide range VS long zoom

Have to make a really thought of decision for my next purchase as this is really (quickly) getting quite expensive :Grin:

First of all it depends on what you really want to shoot. If its more of a all around or would you be needing a long range lens. Buying the 28-135 IS is not redundant if you have the kit. Its one of the "good value" lenses that canon has. Its great for walk around and to add to that it has IS. Aside from the sturdy built it has an aspherical lens to minimize CA. Had this for a short while but no complains, I hate to part with it but I just cant resist the L. Actually to add to your decision, its on sale right now for only P18K until Sept 30... after that its back to 24K. So I think this would be the better value of the two. Just my 2 cents.

like everyone else here, i'm looking for a kit lens replacement... 28-135 IS sounds good. but how does it compare with the 17-85 IS (how much is the discounted price)? Which is better? thanks! i hope i can come up with a decision by sep 30 :)

Hi! I'm also having the same dilemma (17-85 or 28-135). I am considering events photography (weddings) in the future when I obtain the necessary skills and my main concern is which lens would be more usable (in terms of range). Of course, image quality is also a primary concern.

Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Btw, I have the same equipment as rafael + flash.

Hi. My 17-40 f4L doesnt get off my camera during weddings. I rarely used my 28-135 IS, so I sold it. Need the wide end most of the time. 28mm is not wide enough on my 30D w/ the 1.6x crop factor. I use a 70-200 f2.8L on a 2nd body for my portraits, candids and close up shots. I dont like changing lenses that much esp in a wedding.
:)

Cheaper alternative: Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5:Grin:

Hi! I'm also having the same dilemma (17-85 or 28-135). I am considering events photography (weddings) in the future when I obtain the necessary skills and my main concern is which lens would be more usable (in terms of range). Of course, image quality is also a primary concern.

Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Btw, I have the same equipment as rafael + flash.

Rod,

If you do events, better think of lenses in terms of sets or group of lenses. Not that you can't do with a single lens, but a single lens solution, especially long zooms may have compromises. Usually, what is compromised is 1-range, 2-lens speed. By going on a 2 or 3 lens set, you overcome those problems. Besides, having a 2 lens set alone, gives you a lens backup in case one conks out. It doesn't happen often, but at least you have a 2nd or 3rd lens to fall on. And once you move up, you will have a 2nd body. So, might as well plan for that 2nd body and what lens will be in there.

You will find that the 17-100mm is the range you will likely be operating 95% of the time. So best to try to cover this range when it comes to events.

This is what I have now as my main workhorses:

10-22 and 24-105.

Some prefer the 24-70 f2.8L. Others can replace that with the tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di or a sigma equivalent.

Others go this way:

17-40L or 17-55/50 and pair it with

- 70-200L
- 10-22

Others go this way:

24-70 and a 17-40L
24-70 and a 16-35L

You can basically mix and match. The common denominator is that you cover the range. Some need the 70-200s for the longer end, some prefer to go wider. Or if you want it all, go on a 3 lens solution:

10-22, 24-70/105L, 70-200

If the price is too rich for you, go 3rd party. I used to have this set:

tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Di
tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di

The best in tems of IQ and is f2.8 where it matters most.

You can also choose this for an all around:

tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2

Then add other lenses on the wider or longer ranges.

Also, you can opt for primes as your 2nd lens. For example:

17-55 IS or 17-50 f2.8s and an 85 f1.8 usm.

This makes a for a very sharp set with a decent wide and an excellent portrait prime lens. If you use a 1d or 5d, just exchange the ef-s lens with a 16-35L or 17-40L.

If you want to go all prime, that's possible too. A 35mm and 85mm sounds good, though it is hard to go all prime as 17mm lens is usually a zoom. 14mmL might be too rich for most people's wallet. The canon 28mm isn't that good either compared to a 17-40L zoom, so might as well get a zoom. The 24L might also be too rich for many's wallet considering it isn't as versatile. Again, most just stick with the 17-40L or 3rd party equivalent.

So, think of events lenses in sets.

Hi! I'm also having the same dilemma (17-85 or 28-135). I am considering events photography (weddings) in the future when I obtain the necessary skills and my main concern is which lens would be more usable (in terms of range). Of course, image quality is also a primary concern.

Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Btw, I have the same equipment as rafael + flash.

If your considering events photography in the future, you will most certainly desire to own 24-70L. with this in mind you would want to sell the opne your gonna buy now at a decent price. Seems to me 28-135s are more common to own as upgrades to the kit lens ans easier to sell. Considering you can purchase a 28-135 now in the Canon Promo Sale, you can sell it at a much lesser loss.

Hi Mel, Lizard,
Thanks for all the info.

Based on your comments/suggestions, I'm very close to deciding to buy the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 because of its relatively cheaper price compared to Canon 24-70L with approximately the same focal range. Anyone have an idea of its local price?

Further comments would also greatly help.

Thanks!

considering your gonna be doing this as a profession, might as well go for the Canon 24-70L, at 28mm , you will often time find yourself a little to close to your subject. Economically, you will never go wrong with the canon, as i have heard, a lot of people who get alternatives to canon's 24-70L still end up buying canon 24-70L or canon's 24-105L IS. so in the end, it is still economically cheper to get the canon. on the other hand, you may also want to try and look at the alternative sigma''s 24-70.

hi

my kit lens already is giving me a headache (err99) and i'm looking for a suitable replacement.

below are my candidates:

17-85 4-5.6 IS USM - P23,000
28-105 3.5-4.5 USM - P8,000
28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM - P18,000

What are your thoughts? should I go cheap since I'm still learning? or go ahead and purchase the 17-85 IS? Does the IS really help for these models?

I'm also looking at the sigma and tamron 18-50mm f2.8 options but they are also around P17,000.

Any thoughts? Ofcourse I want the sharpest photo as much as possible. This review (http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm) made a bad review for the 28-105/135...

Anyone who used any of these lenses, your inputs will be greatly appreciated. I am planning to buy this weekend so I hope you can help me decide. Thanks.

Hi Rafael,

Not quite sure if you already bought your lens... Just in case you haven't, here's my 2 cents on the Canon 28-135. I have a 350D and this lens is the only lens I have aside from my kit lens. It's always on my Camera. IQ is decent, especially if you stay within its sweet spot of F8 to F11. I haven't really specialized on a particular field (i.e. Landscape, portraits, macro, etc) so the 28-135 range fits me. It's a great walkaround lens. In all of my travels or special occasions, this is the lens that I use. It might be a bit challenging to do indoor shots using ambient light (due to variable aperture of 3.5 to 5.6 - not quite fast enough), but if you have an external flash (i.e. 430 EX), you can compensate. It's IS can also help to minimize camera shake.

i'm a complete newbie about camera lens. just bought my 400d a week ago and i'm just a "hobbyist" of photography. which lens should i buy, ef 50mm f 2.5 compact macro (since i'm interested in close-ups) or ef-s 28-105mm f 4-5.6 usm (for my general purpose lens). sorry if i sound like a newbie.

again, max out what you have.. learn and make do with what you have first..
once you think you have, decide what field you are most interested in. that's when you start thinking about buying a lens.. a good lens wouldn't always make you take better pictures..

welcome to dpp.. btw, use the search feature for your queries first.. it'll help you a lot.. it's magical.. haha:Grin:

i'm a complete newbie about camera lens. just bought my 400d a week ago and i'm just a "hobbyist" of photography. which lens should i buy, ef 50mm f 2.5 compact macro (since i'm interested in close-ups) or ef-s 28-105mm f 4-5.6 usm (for my general purpose lens). sorry if i sound like a newbie.

hi

my kit lens already is giving me a headache (err99) and i'm looking for a suitable replacement.

below are my candidates:

17-85 4-5.6 IS USM - P23,000
28-105 3.5-4.5 USM - P8,000
28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM - P18,000

What are your thoughts? should I go cheap since I'm still learning? or go ahead and purchase the 17-85 IS? Does the IS really help for these models?

I'm also looking at the sigma and tamron 18-50mm f2.8 options but they are also around P17,000.

Any thoughts? Ofcourse I want the sharpest photo as much as possible. This review (http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm) made a bad review for the 28-105/135...

Anyone who used any of these lenses, your inputs will be greatly appreciated. I am planning to buy this weekend so I hope you can help me decide. Thanks.


Hi Rafael,

Among your choices, I would go for the 17-85. The focal range of this lens is excellent. How I wish Canon had one with an f2.8. You may still not realize it but wide angle is important and the 28-105 and 28-135 are not wide enough. Though you will get a longer zoom end on these lenses, they are not much of a zoom anyway.

If I were you, I would get the 17-85 and just save up for a zoom of 70-200 or 70-300. Doing this will give you a solid minimalist's set up that will cover you 90% of the time.:)

whats a great studio lens? something that can do portraits, group shots, etc..

whats a great studio lens? something that can do portraits, group shots, etc..

With your choice of the word "Great", I would say any of these L lenses:

1st choice = 24-70mm f2.8L
2nd choice = 24-105mm f4L
3rd choice = 17-40mm f4L

Other solid choices

- 17-55mm 2.8
- 17-85mm
- 18-55mm IS (New)

Just my opinion.:)

@jijo: ya, thats pretty much the line up i've been considering.. i really wish i could afford the 24-70 L already! sigh.. anyway, due to budget limitations i'm considering the 17-85. you really think this is a good lens? will i get enough bokeh when i need it?

@jijo: ya, thats pretty much the line up i've been considering.. i really wish i could afford the 24-70 L already! sigh.. anyway, due to budget limitations i'm considering the 17-85. you really think this is a good lens? will i get enough bokeh when i need it?

Hi Jason,

The 17-85 will have limitations in its bokeh. Simply because of its openings. But by doing the following, you will still get very good bokeh:

1. Choose your background - Background with little detail, contrast and texture are ideal.
2. Create distance between your subject and the background - The greater the disance, the better bokeh. Of course you will be very limited in doing this in a studio setting.
3. Zoom in - The longer the focal length you use, the better the bokeh. Provided of course you are also close enough to the subject.

Combining these 3 elements will address your bokeh concerns. Lastly, of course there is still Photoshop.:)

Other than the bokeh, don't forget that the range of 17-85 is excellent. This (at least for me) will also serve as a solid walk-around, working, everyday or "whatever you may want to call it" lens. The range will cover you 95% of the time in a studio setting. For the 5% that it doesn't, just improvise.:)

Simply put, after the L lenses I listed, this is your best choice for your use.

Good luck.:)

@jijo: thanks man!

hi i'm planning to buy a sigma 10-20mm wide lens but i saw the canon 10-22mm... can anybody tell me which lens to buy... and how much it cost ?

sir i suggest canon 10-22mm at 27,000 sale price, whats ur camera?

quick question:
can i have my lens serviced at any of the Dzone branches?

Quick question, is a UV filter and lenshood needed for a 50mm f/1.4? I mean they are quite pricey and if the output images of the lens will not improve significantly, I might just choose to forego the added accessories.

^ get only the best UV filters, locally i think it's the kenko/ hoya MC filters, but IMHO, no matter the brand, it will only increase the chances of flare and of course the more medium that light will pass through the more the image degrades

BUT to protect your investment, i believe that putting a UV filter on your lens will be a good idea, u may never know when THAT bump will happen so better be prepared :)

^ get only the best UV filters, locally i think it's the kenko/ hoya MC filters, but IMHO, no matter the brand, it will only increase the chances of flare and of course the more medium that light will pass through the more the image degrades

BUT to protect your investment, i believe that putting a UV filter on your lens will be a good idea, u may never know when THAT bump will happen so better be prepared :)
I agree. I think at least the UV filter should be put on. So that settles that. Only thing that remains... to get a P2.3k lenshood for a 50mm f/1.4 or not.

--> halu. NEWBIE here. does the 24-70L have IS ? wont i have blur problems if theres no IS ?...trying to replace my 18-55 IS kit ( who wants ?). ....oh , and will it the f2.8 suffice for a bokeh? ...do let me know ASAP !!! ..am buying this afternoon . heheh. tnx

--> halu. NEWBIE here. does the 24-70L have IS ? wont i have blur problems if theres no IS ?...trying to replace my 18-55 IS kit ( who wants ?). ....oh , and will it the f2.8 suffice for a bokeh? ...do let me know ASAP !!! ..am buying this afternoon . heheh. tnx
Hi, Aaron. The 24-70 L has no IS but it's probably one of the best lenses you'd get for Canon. Lens construction is great as well as the optics. f/2.8 is good enough bokeh for any zoom lens and at f/4 it's tack sharp. I think that's fast enough even without IS.

--> halu. NEWBIE here. does the 24-70L have IS ? wont i have blur problems if theres no IS ?...trying to replace my 18-55 IS kit ( who wants ?). ....oh , and will it the f2.8 suffice for a bokeh? ...do let me know ASAP !!! ..am buying this afternoon . heheh. tnx

Not an expert here but...

I've got pretty shaky hands, but I try to be conscious of the way I hold/brace the camera to keep it stable. Added weight of the 24-70L also helps minimize the shake.

I suggest not getting rid of your IS kit lens if you can afford to, you might find the 24-70 to be a bit narrow on the 24mm end. The 6 additional mm's is quite a big difference. Unless you have something wider, such as a 10-22mm or 12-24mm. And it's a handy substitute for the 24-70L if you need to travel light.

Bokeh is really nice on this lens.

HTH!

--- darn. got this message " page cannot be displayed" for 2 days. anyways, thank you for the answer.
got the 24-70L ( 51,000 for 12 mos. ). ahah. have the 10-22 already so am planning to sell the 18-
55 kit lens. am planning to get the 50mm 1.8 also ....dzone price is 4700 ...would anyone know how much this is in hidalgo ? tnx. again.

Congratulations, enjoy your new toy! BTW, I guess you got it from a Dzone... would you know if the 17-40L is still on sale? :D

--- yup. i think. but duno if still on stock. mine was the last one.

Does anyone have the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? Is it worth getting?

Guys, i have canon 350d and i only have 3 lenses, including the kit lens, a 28-135IS and a 50mm 1.8, and i have 35,000 as a budget for my next lens, help me decide guys on what to get.... badly needed your suggestions salamat


i think wide ang kailgan ko, pero any suggestion is appreciated!

Are you missing any range?
Or do you need speed?
If I were in your shoe, I'd choose better lenses than more glass (quality over quantity).
One person can have a glass collection that can range from 10mm to 1,000mm. But do you get the IQ that you want?
My suggestion is this, sell all your 3 lenses and get a 24-70L - you should be well-covered majority of the time.
On your next big purchase, you may want to get a UWA (10-22) or telezoom (70-200 2.8).
If you crave for a prime for those low-light situation, get a 50mm 1.4. You should be covered at least 90% with that setup.
Good luck with your shopping :)

nice suggestion..or you can sell the 28-135 is and buy a 24-105L with the 35k and whatever amount you can get for the 28-135..that should be enough for the 24-105..around 45k..:)

Im not planning to sell my 28-135 kasi heheh, which is better, the 10-20mm or a 17-40mm L, considering that i still retain my 28-135?

If you want to keep the 28-135, then get the 10-22, sell the kit lens and the 50 1.8 and get a 50 1.4.

Just my personal opinion.

Ah ok..if that's the case then go for the 10-22..17-40 is still covered by the kit lens..fresh perspective for the 10-22 uwa..:)

uhm, just a question why dont you want to sell your 28-135?

if i were in your position id sell the kit and 28-135 and buy the 17-85 and a flash.

if you ask me you dont need an "L" lens and you dont need a 50/1.4. Your 50/1.8 is good enough why jump to a 1.4? More expensive gear does not mean better pictures. I think youre still a beginner like most of us. Still trying to find out what you really wanna do/field to get into. The 17-85 gives you the flexibility of a wide and a zoom and IS without breaking the bank. Your 50/1.8 gives you the opportunity to know what a fast lens can do and gives you a taste of how it feels like to shoot a prime. Your flash will let you capture photos that could have escaped you. Keep your 35k, invest in some seminars this will prove more useful than an expensive lens.

Like what I said, its "just my personal opinion".
Everyone's got different opinions - no opinion is right or wrong. Opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. What is right to me may be the opposite to you.

Other's junk can be a treasure to someone else. The 50 1.8 may be "good enough" for most, but not to some. We're on gear thread and OP asking opinions about what to buy (not what skill he need).

But you're sayin', "Yeah, don't buy a Ferrari since your box-type Lancer is good enough, what you need is to invest in a racing school since you're still a beginner"....








uhm, just a question why dont you want to sell your 28-135?

if i were in your position id sell the kit and 28-135 and buy the 17-85 and a flash.

if you ask me you dont need an "L" lens and you dont need a 50/1.4. Your 50/1.8 is good enough why jump to a 1.4? More expensive gear does not mean better pictures. I think youre still a beginner like most of us. Still trying to find out what you really wanna do/field to get into. The 17-85 gives you the flexibility of a wide and a zoom and IS without breaking the bank. Your 50/1.8 gives you the opportunity to know what a fast lens can do and gives you a taste of how it feels like to shoot a prime. Your flash will let you capture photos that could have escaped you. Keep your 35k, invest in some seminars this will prove more useful than an expensive lens.

Im not planning to sell my 28-135 kasi heheh, which is better, the 10-20mm or a 17-40mm L, considering that i still retain my 28-135?

Stephen ... got the ultrawide 10-22mm and i'm happy with it. :)

Like what I said, its "just my personal opinion".
Everyone's got different opinions - no opinion is right or wrong. Opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. What is right to me may be the opposite to you.

Other's junk can be a treasure to someone else. The 50 1.8 may be "good enough" for most, but not to some. We're on gear thread and OP asking opinions about what to buy (not what skill he need).

But you're sayin', "Yeah, don't buy a Ferrari since your box-type Lancer is good enough, what you need is to invest in a racing school since you're still a beginner"....

Bro, you're starting again hehehe... I dont think he is pertaining to you man...

I will go for the UWA...:) Peace!

Guys, i have canon 350d and i only have 3 lenses, including the kit lens, a 28-135IS and a 50mm 1.8, and i have 35,000 as a budget for my next lens, help me decide guys on what to get.... badly needed your suggestions salamat


i think wide ang kailgan ko, pero any suggestion is appreciated!

Dude, only you can answer your question...:) If you are not yet sure on what lens you need (not want), then i suggest keep your money first and all your lenses. If you feel you dont need any of those on hand, then its time to sell and buy. But looking at your line-up... My personal suggestion would be to sell the kit lens, then get the UWA lens... that will get you covered. Cheers!

Like what I said, its "just my personal opinion".
Everyone's got different opinions - no opinion is right or wrong. Opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. What is right to me may be the opposite to you.

Other's junk can be a treasure to someone else. The 50 1.8 may be "good enough" for most, but not to some. We're on gear thread and OP asking opinions about what to buy (not what skill he need).

But you're sayin', "Yeah, don't buy a Ferrari since your box-type Lancer is good enough, what you need is to invest in a racing school since you're still a beginner"....

Rob....take it easy man...Not everyone will have the Dough as you could spend on your Canon Arsenal...Yes it's an Opinion but why do you get so aggrivated about it....Easy lang man... Opinion lang din naman from someone else eh.... Peace...

I used to have the Exact same Line up as you Stephen...28-135 IS, 50mm F1.8, Kit Lens & Sigma 70-300mm. Not So Expensive Lens for a beginner.

Oppss..I apologize if I "sounded" harsh on my remark. I guess its easy to misinterpret things even if its not your intention. Peace :D

uhm, just a question why dont you want to sell your 28-135?

if i were in your position id sell the kit and 28-135 and buy the 17-85 and a flash.

if you ask me you dont need an "L" lens and you dont need a 50/1.4. Your 50/1.8 is good enough why jump to a 1.4? More expensive gear does not mean better pictures. I think youre still a beginner like most of us. Still trying to find out what you really wanna do/field to get into. The 17-85 gives you the flexibility of a wide and a zoom and IS without breaking the bank. Your 50/1.8 gives you the opportunity to know what a fast lens can do and gives you a taste of how it feels like to shoot a prime. Your flash will let you capture photos that could have escaped you. Keep your 35k, invest in some seminars this will prove more useful than an expensive lens.

I agree with Christopher totally, though if you REALLY want to try other lenses, the best bet would be to borrow or shoot with someone with the lenses you are eyeing. Try them out and see how it handles in the situations you shoot the most.

For the most versatility though, I would suggest selling your kit lens and the 29-135 and getting the 24-70/2.8L While it IS more expensive, the ability to take wide shots and zoom into portraits is a winning combination. Plus the 2.8 opening combined with 800-1600 ISO enables you to shoot in low-light conditions without a flash. The next lens you should consider then should be a 70-200/4L IS. its still cheper than the 70-200/2.8L IS. But that's after you got your money back na haha!

I have a 400D and the same lenses as you (with the 28-135mm as the most recent addition). If ever I were to buy a new lens, I'd probably get the 24-70L or the 17-85 if budget is tight - but I won't be doing that anytime soon. :D

Sorry, but my suggestion is

1.) Sell the 350D = 20k
2.) Sell all your lenses = 23K
2.) So you now have 43K + 35K in hand = 78K
3.) Buy a used 30D Body for 36K
4.) Buy a 24-105 F4L for 42K

hmmmmm... 30D plus 24-105 baby!

With that budget, 10-22 would be a good additional to your line up. Or you could sell the 28-135 and get the 24-70 2.8L or the 24-105 f4L IS. I always keep my 50mm 1.8. I don't think its worth selling too.. it's a keeper :)

Bro, you're starting again hehehe... I dont think he is pertaining to you man...

I will go for the UWA...:) Peace!


oooohhh goody! another pop corn thread? :D

oooohhh goody! another pop corn thread? :D

Hahaha!!! You wish...:Grin:

...go to ebay.ph. look for a 70-300mm USM IS lens. its only 40k. brand new . with canon warranty and free lenshood. wow!
now you can start shooting those really candid shots !
( am not selling here am i ? just suggesting an item my bro is selling ) ehehehe.

--> pardon the newbie.

im new to photography & i want to know and learn the difference between the 50mm f1.8 and EF-S 18-55mm. hope all the photogs out there could share their thoughts & knowlegde about these lenses. thanks! :):):)

....am new too. hello. from what i know we call the former a PRIME lens , fixed focals and aperture. the latter we call regular zoom lens ...variable focal lenght and aperture naman. if you're puzzled cuz they both cling to the "50" range" , they're major difference would be the aperture ( how much light , opening , depth of field the lens can take. )

--> quality wise , primes have the edge. why ? ...that i can explain when you ask again why.

--> btw , ako misis taga diha pud cebu . anha mi karon xmas ug new year. so, kung naa mo grupo diha nga mag shoot , ipa ila-ila lang ko. ( trans : ask helen torreon )

the EF 50mm f/1.8 is a prime lens, which means its stuck at 50mm. to zoom, you have to use your feet :) this lens has a maximum opening of f/1.8, which means you can use faster shutter speeds even in poor lighting conditions. couple that with your canon's excellent high iso performance and you have a great indoor portrait lens.

on the other hand, the EF-S 18-55mm lens is zoom lens, and as its name implies, has a focal length range of 18mm (wide angle) to 55mm (standard). it has a variable maximum aperture, meaning at its widest (18mm) it has a max opening of f/3.5. zoom in to its longer end (55mm) and the max opening is f/5.6 (which is really good only for outdoor/bright lights shoots).

quality wise...the 50mm is sharper and produces great bokeh (blurred backgrouds) so loved in portrait shots. its a pang-artista lens...makes your plain looking neighbor look good :) the kit lens, owing to its versatility and cheapness, is a good lens to start learning the basics of photography :)

hth :)

....dami naman smileys ni idol jay, oh. pero kung lalaki yung nag tanong kahit isang smiley wala. ahahahaah. idol !

....dami naman smileys ni idol jay, oh. pero kung lalaki yung nag tanong kahit isang smiley wala. ahahahaah. idol !

you should see me in person, smiling is second nature to me! :) :) :)

nyeheheh

....LOL. i will. someday. sama din ako sa boracay mission. ahahaha. ill hone my skills first.

Get the 17-40 f4L. Its only 29k. Very good landscape lens. Very sharp.

Save up & sell your 28-135 to get a 70-200 f4L / f2.8L or a new body. I still use my 350D and so far it hasnt given me any problem.

Its always a good advise to invest on a great L lens.:Grin:

aaron ebio and jay jallorina = thanks for the info's guys

@aaron ebio = yah theres a dpp cebu, there will be a sinulog 2008 photo contest hope maka anhi ka by january hehe. ig anhi nimu next month ipa ila-ila tikaw.

thanks again guys! amping

Get the 17-40 f4L. Its only 29k. Very good landscape lens. Very sharp.

Save up & sell your 28-135 to get a 70-200 f4L / f2.8L or a new body. I still use my 350D and so far it hasnt given me any problem.

Its always a good advise to invest on a great L lens.:Grin:

Pare! JV told me your party was a blast!!!! Oh man, I'm really regretting I did'nt get to go.... bawi next time bro.:Angry:

Oops off topic, hehehe . Listen to Bordoy, he knows what he's saying when it comes to Canon. :)

uhm, just a question why dont you want to sell your 28-135?

if i were in your position id sell the kit and 28-135 and buy the 17-85 and a flash.
for how much you can sell the kit lens?

Thank you for the suggestion guys! but still cant decide, i want an L lens na wide, but considering my budget i can only afford the 17-40L lens, I am also afraid to purchase the EF-S lens, considering its not compatible with other canon bodies, but i think a 10-20 wide is the one i really need....

wahhhhhhh cant decide!

Pare! JV told me your party was a blast!!!! Oh man, I'm really regretting I did'nt get to go.... bawi next time bro.:Angry:

Oops off topic, hehehe . Listen to Bordoy, he knows what he's saying when it comes to Canon. :)

Pareng Peter... Next time ha! DEC 7. Fiesta sa Roxas.

Sorry for the OT guys.:Grin:

Thank you for the suggestion guys! but still cant decide, i want an L lens na wide, but considering my budget i can only afford the 17-40L lens, I am also afraid to purchase the EF-S lens, considering its not compatible with other canon bodies, but i think a 10-20 wide is the one i really need....

wahhhhhhh cant decide!

I have ambitions of owning a FF camera in the future kaya I steered cear of EF-s Lenses. I must admit that it would be nice to have a 10-22mm on my 30D or a 17mm on a FF cam.

The 17-40 f4 is perfect for me and stays on my cam (30D) almost 100% of the time. The 16-35 f2.8 would be a lot better if not for the price.

for how much you can sell the kit lens?

probably 2.5k

just to put my two centavos in...

i agree with most of the people here. sell the 28-135. i used to own the lens (was my first purchase) and i used the hell out of it. :Grin: but often came up soft.

with your 35k budget, plus whatever you can get from the sale of the 28-135 (plus if you can sell the kit lens), go for either the 24-70 f/2.8 L or the 24-105 f/4 L. these two lenses are probably the most commonly coveted lenses in the canon lens line up.

but if you have already made up your mind to go wide, and are just looking for some reassurance from other DPP members, i can vouch for the 17-40 f/4 L. it's a great sharp lens. maybe a bit short on the wide end (on the 350D), but you can always just step back a few steps if need be. :D

good luck with your choice.

hi

my kit lens already is giving me a headache (err99) and i'm looking for a suitable replacement.

below are my candidates:

17-85 4-5.6 IS USM - P23,000
28-105 3.5-4.5 USM - P8,000
28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM - P18,000

What are your thoughts? should I go cheap since I'm still learning? or go ahead and purchase the 17-85 IS? Does the IS really help for these models?

I'm also looking at the sigma and tamron 18-50mm f2.8 options but they are also around P17,000.

Any thoughts? Ofcourse I want the sharpest photo as much as possible. This review (http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm) made a bad review for the 28-105/135...

Anyone who used any of these lenses, your inputs will be greatly appreciated. I am planning to buy this weekend so I hope you can help me decide. Thanks.

I was in the same scenario about a month back when I was decided to replace my kit lens. Was choosing between the three lenses you listed above. Went for the 17-85 IS because:
1. For the 28-105, it's hard to shoot at 105mm end without blurring. Tried this at the store myself and I couldn't get shots that were sharp enough for me.
2. For the 28-135 IS, you get extra zoom, but lack wideness. The 11mm difference is quite substantial. And the fact that you're using a cropped sensor means that you're 28mm lens is not really shooting at that focal length.

The 17-85 IS was the choice for me because it offered a good range (decent at both wide and tele ends) and had IS. Also, if you factor in the 1.6x cropping, your 17-85 works just like a 28-135 on a FF camera.

Just my two cents worth.:Grin:

...AUgust.

have that lens man. and am planning to sell it bnew. ahaha. cuz i recently got a 70-200L for xmas.
IQ and IS with the lens is good. no prob. i just dont dig the lenshood that's whay am disposing it.
pm me.

what are your opinions regarding the sigma 12-24?

what are your opinions regarding the sigma 12-24?
From what I researched when I was looking for a UWA, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 is a bit better in terms of color and IQ. However, if you will be using it as a dedicated UWA and not for walk around, try the Sigma 10-20 f/47-5.6 or the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. The extra 2mm on the wide side is an additional 10-degrees field of view.

what's better 70-200mm f/2.8L or the 70-200mm f/4L IS for use indoors in receptions etc...

i love the 2.8 but the IS on the f/4L is also tempting. and the f/4L IS is the newer lens right? means newer technology is incorporated on that lens? thanks.

...edison. there's the 70-200 2.8 IS. get that one.

...edison. there's the 70-200 2.8 IS. get that one.

sadly i can't afford it at 91k+ hehe. also read some reviews, it's not that sharp daw... can't say talaga kasi haven't had a chance to try these lenses in person...

so i really need some inputs here guys. thanks.

Congratulations, enjoy your new toy! BTW, I guess you got it from a Dzone... would you know if the 17-40L is still on sale? :D

I went to Dzone Mall of Asia and they are still on sale 31,200 until supply last. Check it out :)

Bro where can i sell the 28-135 is?

what are your opinions regarding the sigma 12-24?

id prolly get the sigma 10-20 na lang. ive seen this in action used by hochi sa bolinao and it was great. BUT! with the canon conterpart at a measly 25k, its even cheaper than a brand new sigma 10-20.

Dont let your L lust go wild. If youre looking for a UWA then you need to have the 10-22 no ifs and no buts.

hi edison, i have a 70-200 2.8 IS and mine is sharp. IS really spoil u!

2.8 if u need indoor shots, F4 IS adequate for outdoor. u can also get away with F4 IS indoor just shoot with higher ISO, or if venue has enough lighting. or do it this way, F4 IS + 85 1.8 (just in case u need indoor shots with larger openings) :)

sadly i can't afford it at 91k+ hehe. also read some reviews, it's not that sharp daw... can't say talaga kasi haven't had a chance to try these lenses in person...

so i really need some inputs here guys. thanks.

Nope I would suggest the 85 1.2

hi there. I'm an enthusiast newbie who would like to later on focus on wedding photography. I plan to purchase a wide angle lens dedicated for Canon 30D.
Which do you think I should buy to complete my gear for wedding photography? :Oops:

I have the following lens already:
Canon 30D kit lens - 18-55mm f/5.6
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200mm L USM

Thanks. Would really appreciate your thoughts :Evil:

kit lens already considered wide :) if u want wider, canon 10-22, or a sigma 10-20(ata) and a tokina 12-24 :)

try to check canon 16-35 2.8L :P

yup chris is right try 16-35... its 2.8L very useful for your wedding photography plan..

10-22 for me. though it's not a L, they say it performs like one. 16-35 is like 25-50 on a crop camera..

hi there. I'm an enthusiast newbie who would like to later on focus on wedding photography. I plan to purchase a wide angle lens dedicated for Canon 30D.
Which do you think I should buy to complete my gear for wedding photography? :Oops:

I have the following lens already:
Canon 30D kit lens - 18-55mm f/5.6
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200mm L USM

Thanks. Would really appreciate your thoughts :Evil:

For me, definitely the Canon 10-22mm.:) This is like a 16-35 on a full frame. The options for creative composition is endless with this lens. The 16-35mm and 17-40mm are top notch lenses but are just not wide enough for my taste. If you can, try all these lenses before you decide.

Good luck.

You may want to consider the 17-55 f2.8. The preeminent Lito Sy uses this as his workhorse lens using his Nikon 1.5 crop cameras (I attended his 3-day seminar). Madame Pilar Tuason uses a 24-70 in her 5D which is the same as the focal length of 17-55 given that 5D is a full frame camera.

You may say that you already have the kit lens (18-55) which has a similar Focal Length as the 17-55. My reaction would be - the picture quality will be much better with the 17-55 plus its a 2.8. You will need this for natural light opportunities. Better glass inside.

The 10-20 is a great lens. I have one and it is L-like. Problem is for events, major distortion of faces at the flanks pag sinagad mo sa baba ang focal length.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. You've been very helpful to a newbie like me. Great to be a member of DPP. You have many mentors who generously share their insights. Really appreciate it :Grin:

Agree with rc. If you plan to go full frame someday , then get the 17-40 F4L or 16-35 F2.8L.

If you think you will be all set for a cropped sensor then get the EF-S 10-22 or EF-S 17-55 F2.8.

I was thinking of a wide angle lens for my next purchase. I narrowed it down between the 10-22, 17-40 and the 16-35.

In the end I eliminated the 10-22 because of my film SLR.

Just wondering, are the Canon zooms still on sale? The fact that there's no tax in PH makes it cheaper than here in SG hehe

... last week , trinoma had only 4 kinds of zoom lenses left ( didnt jot it down ). for those interested , inquire at 916-6055.

what's better 70-200mm f/2.8L or the 70-200mm f/4L IS for use indoors in receptions etc...

i love the 2.8 but the IS on the f/4L is also tempting. and the f/4L IS is the newer lens right? means newer technology is incorporated on that lens? thanks.

Yep, reviews says f4 is sharper than the 2.8, but what made me decide to purchase the f4 aside from the price was the convinience of using it. its much lighter than the 2.8 and feels better when holding since its smaller than the 2.8..its a joy to use..by the way, i only have the non is version of the f4, and still low light shots are acceptable if you bump the iso to 800 or 1600..just use noise ninja in case there's too much noise on the shot..:)

where is D-zone. Any idea how much is a canon 50mm f/1.8 lens?

I think it is better to buy at hidalgo it should be cheaper there 4K or less

Between the Canon 50 F1.2L and 85 F1.2L lenses,which among them would be more suited for a Canon 40D camera with a 1.6 crop factor?And why?
Thanks.

My friend has an 85mm F/1.2L... I must say it is one big prime lens. Produces the most awesome portraits. The only downside is it's steep price...

Between the Canon 50 F1.2L and 85 F1.2L lenses,which among them would be more suited for a Canon 40D camera with a 1.6 crop factor?And why?
Thanks.

This will depend on what you will use it for.

A 50mm will be a short telephoto on a 40D. This length will be usually very good for small groups and half body portraits. The f1.2 will also be unbeatable in low light.

The 85mm on the other hand will be a medium telephoto on a 40D. Very good for portraits (half body, full body or head shots). Again the f1.2 will be excellent in low light.

Just my share.:)

i think people rave about the 85L and rant about the 50L. check out the other canon forums on their opinion :)

50 for a 1.6

Get both if you have the money.
But if you were to choose only one, then get the 85L.

Between the Canon 50 F1.2L and 85 F1.2L lenses,which among them would be more suited for a Canon 40D camera with a 1.6 crop factor?And why?
Thanks.


I don't think the two are comparable - they offer different fields of view. Hence, it will all depend on how you will use the lens. What I suggest is for you to think how you will use the lens and frequency of such usage when deciding on the focal length. Then buy the best your money can buy. That way, you get the most and best bang for your buck.

The 2 ultra wide meaning the 10-22mm lens? (Itches)

Actually, I think they are a bit comparable. Though they have different focal lengths, I think they can still fall under the category of subject shooting primes. Most people compare the 85mm and the 100mm Macro and I think that is a bit more of a stretch to compare. Anyway, I personally feel that the 50mm focal range is a lot more useable in other shooting escpades. You can just step in a little if you need some more zoom.

what can u say about this lens? is it worth to buy it? share your point of views please, would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! :):):)

Check out this website: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I guess you need to ask yourself: Do I really need the 300mm?:)

P.

Better wait for the release of EFS 55-250 IS..:)

I suggest going for a better lens if you're looking for high IQ.

Better wait for the release of EFS 55-250 IS..:)


I totally agree to this :)

This is one of Canon's cheapest lenses for the focal length but also one of Canon's worst. It's not worth it !!! Btw, what do you intend to use the lens for ?

If you're gonna buy a new one, I suggest you don't. :D I own one and the review from the link Peterson gave was pretty much accurate. The reason I have one was that I just got it dirt cheap for like $50 X 42.0845 = PP2104.225. :D Besides, when shooting with it handheld at the max focal range you should have really steady hands, otherwise your shots are gonna end up so blurry.

@Peter
300mm is pretty useful when you're shooting your neighbor from the other apartment. :D

@Peter
300mm is pretty useful when you're shooting your neighbor from the other apartment. :D

Bwahahahaha! Unfortunately, my neighbors are my relatives.:Oops:

If budget permits, get an L lens instead. :Grin:

P.

i have a 70-200 2.8 IS and mine is sharp. IS really spoil u!

2.8 if u need indoor shots, F4 IS adequate for outdoor. u can also get away with F4 IS indoor just shoot with higher ISO, or if venue has enough lighting. or do it this way, F4 IS + 85 1.8 (just in case u need indoor shots with larger openings) :)

IMO,

I would say to get the 2.8IS this way you wont argue wether to get the f4 or f2.8. If you like the f4IS and you will use it indoor that would be alright too. For me the weight on the 2.8 does not really matter to me. But it is also your choice :)

what would you guys rather choose?which lens will be the best lens for portrait?pls give some insights.thanks

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

i'd take the last one. better yet ..go faster .....take the 85 1.2 ...eheheh

Good day. What about 16-35 L II lens, any body out their knows or using this kind of lens? what are the pros and cons of this kind of lens? thanks. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerrylimlee

Good Afternoon DPP people! :)

I would like to ask your opinion on what is the best / highly recommended Canon

Wide or Ultra Wide Lens?

Thanks for your valued ideas.

More power! :)

for 1.6 crop bodies (350D, 400D, 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D) EF-S 10-22. no brainer.

for full frame and 1.3 crop bodies (5D, 1Ds and 1D series) EF 17-40 f/4L. best bang for buck.

for 1.6 crop bodies (350D, 400D, 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D) EF-S 10-22. no brainer.

for full frame and 1.3 crop bodies (5D, 1Ds and 1D series) EF 17-40 f/4L. best bang for buck.

Thanks Jay! :) I'm using Canon 40D. So you are recommending 10-22?

Second the EF-S 10-22mm suggestion. And the suggestion came from Jay Jallorina, you should check out his Multiply site and see what one can do with that lens.

Edit: forgot to mention that I have that same lens on a cropped body and it's a nice tool to have in one's camera bag.

Thanks Jay! :) I'm using Canon 40D. So you are recommending 10-22?

definitely. t'was the only lens that made me take my kit lens off my 30D :D


patrick...sir ha....you have multiply? di kita contact. na conscious ako bigla! :D

Second the EF-S 10-22mm suggestion. And the suggestion came from Jay Jallorina, you should check out his Multiply site and see what one can do with that lens.

Edit: forgot to mention that I have that same lens on a cropped body and it's a nice tool to have in one's camera bag.

Thanks Patrick :)

marv, go for the 10-22mm. If your in Manila before buying one, i'll let you test my 10-22mm

definitely. t'was the only lens that made me take my kit lens off my 30D :D


patrick...sir ha....you have multiply? di kita contact. na conscious ako bigla! :D

Thanks Jay :)

marv, go for the 10-22mm. If your in Manila before buying one, i'll let you test my 10-22mm

Thanks sir mel! :)

there might be leftovers from the lens sale at DZONE store here. Got mine during the sale at 27K

10-22 rocks the UWL world!!!

EF 17-40 f4L for FF
1.6 then the 10-20 would be the one.

Just reaffirming ther other's suggestions: for crop bodies, 10-22, hands down, is a great performer, light and sturdy at that! For full-frames, I personally like the 17-40 f/4 more than the 16-35 f/2.8. The former has a tad bit more range and only sacrificing 1mm on the wide! The 2.8 shouldn't be the selling factor because wide shots are mostly done lighted -- like landscapes and such.

10-22, Beautiful lens, distortion at wides is the lowest compared with any other lens...(but of course there still is distortion). You will have to teach yourself to scan the whole image in your viewfinder and watch out for disfigured faces. Heres a link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

ah ok.dont have a budget for the 1.2 hehehehe.thanks for the suggestionhttp://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
i'd take the last one. better yet ..go faster .....take the 85 1.2 ...eheheh

Guys, aside from our kit lens, what would be the next practical all-around lens? Please include the update price of it if you know.. thanks!

24-70mm F/2.8 is great for walk around lenses, after buy a telephoto lens liked 70-200mm f/2.8.
BTW... I believe there was a thread same as this one... please browse the pass post threads.

:)

10-22 rocks the UWL world!!!

thanks norman :)

EF 17-40 f4L for FF
1.6 then the 10-20 would be the one.

thanks JJ! :)

Just reaffirming ther other's suggestions: for crop bodies, 10-22, hands down, is a great performer, light and sturdy at that! For full-frames, I personally like the 17-40 f/4 more than the 16-35 f/2.8. The former has a tad bit more range and only sacrificing 1mm on the wide! The 2.8 shouldn't be the selling factor because wide shots are mostly done lighted -- like landscapes and such.

thanks so much jong :)

10-22, Beautiful lens, distortion at wides is the lowest compared with any other lens...(but of course there still is distortion). You will have to teach yourself to scan the whole image in your viewfinder and watch out for disfigured faces. Heres a link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

thanks so much bernie :)

24-70mm F/2.8 is great for walk around lenses, after buy a telephoto lens liked 70-200mm f/2.8.
BTW... I believe there was a thread same as this one... please browse the pass post threads.

:)


am torn between 24-70L f/2.8 and 24-105L f/4 IS...
:Thinking:

kindly use the search tool please.. this has been discussed over and over again.. welcome to dpp btw:)

anyhow just for the heck of it.. i chose the 24-70 over the 24-105.. i've tried both and you can't go wrong with either of the two..:)

am torn between 24-70L f/2.8 and 24-105L f/4 IS...
:Thinking:

Can you control the distortion of the Canon 15mm Fisheye?

kindly use the search tool please.. this has been discussed over and over again.. welcome to dpp btw:)

anyhow just for the heck of it.. i chose the 24-70 over the 24-105.. i've tried both and you can't go wrong with either of the two..:)

@ RV: Will have to agree with Jared. 24-70 for me as well. :Grin:

@ RV: Will have to agree with Jared. 24-70 for me as well. :Grin:

thanks for the advise guys... i haven't slept for a couple of nights thinking about this.
haha.

thanks for the advise guys... i haven't slept for a couple of nights thinking about this.
haha.

RV, I know exactly how you feel. I went through the exact same thing when I was choosing between the 24-70 and 24-105.

It'd help if you really think about what type of photography you're gonna use it for. That piece of information alone can help heaps in deciding which to go for.:Grin:

Anything with an f2.8 or above lens is great. So 24-70L it is.

A Canon 28-135 Is it is a normal to telephoto lens. partner it with a 10-22 and it would be a good combination.

Only complain about the 28-135 is its softness in the telephoto area, solution: use aperture 7 to 11 in your settings

A Canon 28-135 Is it is a normal to telephoto lens. partner it with a 10-22 and it would be a good combination.

Only complain about the 28-135 is its softness in the telephoto area, solution: use aperture 7 to 11 in your settings


Thanks for the tip. I'm not that bothered with the softness. Stopping the lens down one or two stops usually takes care of it (this goes for any lens, with the exception of the L series of course).

I'm looking into getting the EF-S 55-250mm for my next purchase. After that, I'd probably have to decide whether or not to replace the 28-135 :( Any advice?