View Full Version : What wide (short zoom) should I go for???
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 09:54
I'm a Canon lass and confess to being a bit of a lens junkie, However quality of image produced is more important than just the "name" so........
I want wide;fast throughout, with a short, variable focal length for my gig images. (I have tried the 20mm and 35mm primes but find them a bit too restrictive). I have it in my head that it has to be the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L. I already have lenses that start at 24mm, but they just are not quite wide enough sometimes.
He who holds the cheque book however thinks;
1. I'm greedy ;)
2. There must be an equaly good quality third party option.
Over to you guys....and yes, I know 1. is correct:lol: What would you advise?
If you want proper wide then I'd recommend the much documented 10-20 Sigma. IMHO you are unlikely to be shooting at 2.8 at the wider lengths, so I wouldn't get hung up on speed.
with the primes what apertures do you normally shoot at? Just wondering if it has to be fast glass or if it could be sharp lens just a little slower?
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 10:30
If you want proper wide then I'd recommend the much documented 10-20 Sigma. IMHO you are unlikely to be shooting at 2.8 at the wider lengths, so I wouldn't get hung up on speed.
This was shot at f1.4 if memory serves me (I'm at work right now). This gig had excellent lights, but still had to use f1.4 to get decent shutter speed. Think the ISO was about 800, but can't quite remember.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/2396/MG_9258.jpg
I don't think the 10-20 would be anywhere near fast enough........but I've never tried it.... perhaps I should!
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 10:34
with the primes what apertures do you normally shoot at? Just wondering if it has to be fast glass or if it could be sharp lens just a little slower?
Same gig, different lighting. 35mm F1.4mm again......and yes. I missed my aim with the focal point!!
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/2396/MG_9168.jpg
Totally agree for the shots you've shown, but none of them are 'wide'. Just thought because of the title you were more interested in the wide end.
Craikeybaby
22-12-2008, 11:34
Normally I would say the 17-40 as it is a great lens for the price, but can see that you would need the f2.8, so I'd go for the 16-35.
How about the 17-55 IS? f2.8 all the way.
How about the 17-55 IS? f2.8 all the way.
Good shout, or the Tamron 17-50 2.8, which also, from what Ive read, is noticeably wider at 17 than the Canon.
Totally agree for the shots you've shown, but none of them are 'wide'. Just thought because of the title you were more interested in the wide end.
I think you are referring to ultra-wide. Wide is really anything shorter than 50mm. :)
Canon Bob
22-12-2008, 13:58
Don't discount the possibility of finding a used 17-35/2.8L They're frequently found in 2nd hand listings and you'll get quality at a very reasonable price.
Bob
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:10
Totally agree for the shots you've shown, but none of them are 'wide'. Just thought because of the title you were more interested in the wide end.
They are tight because I don't have a wider lens!!
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:12
Don't discount the possibility of finding a used 17-35/2.8L They're frequently found in 2nd hand listings and you'll get quality at a very reasonable price.
Bob
That's an idea Bob......didn't realise there was such a lens. Seems strange for there to be two lenses with only 1mm difference. Any idea why canon changed it?
I went looking for lenses with my Mum the other day for her new 450 and I loved the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
She didn't get one and went for a 10-20 and the 50-150 but of all the (seemingly hundreds) of lenses we checked out, that little number impressed me by far the most.
Small, very sharp, light, the macro setting nearly is just that and not a bad feel for manual focus either. All in all, a bit of a bargain at £250 I thought. :thumbs:
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:15
Good shout, or the Tamron 17-50 2.8, which also, from what Ive read, is noticeably wider at 17 than the Canon.
Sorry, but how can a 17mm be noticeably wider than a 16mm at the wide end???? Or have I missed something?
Carole, whats your budget?
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/index.php?id=23&product_uid=728
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:31
Carole, whats your budget?
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/index.php?id=23&product_uid=728
I would say below £1K........he might have different ideas!! I could probably get away with under £700.
I use 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron for nearly all close gig stuff now used to use the 18-50mm f2.8 Sigma which is also brilliant
I would say below £1K........he might have different ideas!! I could probably get away with under £700.
Link in my previous post is for a 16-35 2.8 Mk2 at £769 :)
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:44
I use 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron for nearly all close gig stuff now used to use the 18-50mm f2.8 Sigma which is also brilliant
Hi Sakura. You know I love your work, so I'd value your reason for swapping from the Sigma to the Tamron, for just 1mm. What extra does the Tamron give?
The Tamron is considerably cheaper Carole, one of the only complaints i have heard is noisy AF, but in a gig environment that wouldnt matter a jot !
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 15:48
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two??
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Asp Canon Mount
Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon
Personally think the Tamron is sharper. I do really like them both though. 17-50 is more or less permanant on my 40d with 70-200 Sigma on my 30d. If I don't have enough reach I will put the 28-70mm on the 40d - usually if the band are very far back on stage - but its not often. Both the lenses give -to me - the best option rather than having a 24-70mm or my 28-70mm. In an ideal world I would love a 17-70mm f2.8 (or a 10-400mm f1.8 hehe!!)
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two??
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Asp Canon Mount
Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon
same lens more guff :)
Yep :)
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 16:06
Thanks...........think it's the Tamron then.
http://www.rockphotographer.org/out/doug_aldrich1.jpg
This is at 17mm with exif
well it was saved with exif grrr...
Sorry, but how can a 17mm be noticeably wider than a 16mm at the wide end???? Or have I missed something?
I was referring to a comparison of the Canon 17-55 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
A couple of reviews I have read say that the Tamron is noticeably wider than the Canon at the 17mm end. How this is possible I don't know, construction perhaps? It made it sound like the Tamron was certainly wider.
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 16:22
well it was saved with exif grrr...
It's ok...exif there. Just what I want!! Thanks for your advice.
I was referring to a comparison of the Canon 17-55 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
A couple of reviews I have read say that the Tamron is noticeably wider than the Canon at the 17mm end. How this is possible I don't know, construction perhaps? It made it sound like the Tamron was certainly wider.
Thanks. I have just "added to basket"" and order in before 6pm so should have it tomorrow!!
:woot::bonk::woot::bonk:
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 16:23
Yep :)
Thanks Ian. Have decided on the Tamron, so Him Indoors is happy too!!
Now about those owls................
Canon Bob
22-12-2008, 16:24
That's an idea Bob......didn't realise there was such a lens. Seems strange for there to be two lenses with only 1mm difference. Any idea why canon changed it?
Here you go Carole...£399 in Ex++ condition....real value for money
http://www.camtechuk.com/shop/shop-list/product-list.php?manufac=canon
Bob
It's ok...exif there. Just what I want!! Thanks for your advice.
Thanks. I have just "added to basket"" and order in before 6pm so should have it tomorrow!!
:woot::bonk::woot::bonk:
You've picked a cracker, I have one on the way to me also.
Here's one of the review that makes reference to the "width" part.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
Dont think you will regret that Carole, Matt the moderator has that lens too, and swears by it :)
Re the owls, we need a nice bright day for them or shutter speeds are really slooooow will have to keep an eye on the weather and will let you know :)
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 16:38
Here you go Carole...£399 in Ex++ condition....real value for money
http://www.camtechuk.com/shop/shop-list/product-list.php?manufac=canon
Bob
Thanks Bob, but the added length of the Tamron (for versitility), it's relative low cost and Sakura's :thumbs: has persuaded me to go third party.
Have a great "wide" Christmas everyone!!!
Thanks...........think it's the Tamron then.
Or, as has been suggested, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for £600 new. Generally regarded as the best lens in this category. With IS too. Tell me why not? I've got one :)
Richard.
BTW, focal length is not an absolute guide to angle of view as lens constuction can do strange things at mega-wide focal lengths, eg fish-eyes. But for lenses like these, 17mm is 17mm is 17mm. The difference, if any, is that the lens might be marked 17mm, but is actually a little bit longer. Naughty, but very common.
It is a super lens I was just checking the exif on a few of my gigs in the year and I seem to like 17mm end a lot! :lol: enjoy!
Now I need to open a thread entitled 'should I go for the 1d mk 3 or a 5d mk2"
Now I need to open a thread entitled 'should I go for the 1d mk 3 or a 5d mk2"
Wait! Mk4 is coming any minute (then IanC will sell you his Mk3 :D).
:bonk:aargh too many choices!!:bonk:
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 17:07
It is a super lens I was just checking the exif on a few of my gigs in the year and I seem to like 17mm end a lot! :lol: enjoy!
Now I need to open a thread entitled 'should I go for the 1d mk 3 or a 5d mk2"
Depends on which one handles noise best (and I don't mean decibels) :lol:
Depends on which one handles noise best (and I don't mean decibels) :lol:
Erm, that'll be the Nikon D3/D700 then... :D
photostar_1
22-12-2008, 19:55
Erm, that'll be the Nikon D3/D700 then... :D
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: OK, so for the moment, I'll concede you are right......but having a bag full of Canon lenses means most of us are stuck waiting for Canon to match it...........and they will............:thumbs:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.