A friend at work is thinking about getting a DSLR ahead of a trip to Galapagos next year, and I've been guiding him through the minefield a little, but he's now asking questions way beyond my sphere of knowledge.
So I turn to you lovely people...
"Thanks for the help demystifying camera tech and lenses. I’ve narrowed it down to Sony, Canon, or Olympus. Love the tech in the Sony, not sure about the lenses. Adore the super high speed sharp focus of the Olympus I tried in Jessops, and its light weight, but not sure about the tech. Love versatility of the canon, not sure about the lenses.
I’ve seen actual in camera results of files with a verity of lenses from all these camera, and they are all fantastic.
My question is about lenses.. The Olympus can focus at incredible speed, but is that just because of the lens having an ultra sonic high speed motor thingy? Presumably if I chose a Sony or Canon and made sure I got USM, SSM or whatever they call it lenses then they would focus as fast as the Olympus I tried?
I’d like a 18-250 fast lens that can do sharp focus at high speed across the whole range. Not sure if such a thing exists...
Olympus does the fast focus but only 18-180 maxThe Sony does the range 18-270, but doesn’t mention a USMThe Canon does 18-200 but again doesn’t mention USM
Tried a Nikon and didn’t like it.
All support image stabilisation (vital for me), but nothing seems perfect. Does what I want exist?
A physically small (when closed) 18-200 (min) fast lens, image stabilised with incredibly fast focus speed. Does it exist on any camera?
I suppose the more important things are IS, range, sharpness, focus speed. So far it looks like the Sony, although there is a question mark over the quality of their lenses for sharpness.
Argahrgarhghar, this is hard!"
I shoot everything on a nifty fifty, so this is way beyond me... Any advice?
― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:00 (eleven years ago) link
he's looking for the holy grail of cameras! a 10-1000mm f/0.95 lens with no CA, distortion, and tack sharp...
Superzooms are necessarily a compromise. taking his last statement verbatim, I would say:
Canon - probably has the best AF system out of the three, but I'm not sure if the 18-200 comes in a USM version, so if he wasn't happy with the focusing speed in store, he may not find a faster version. Canon probably has the best high-ISO performance of the three manufacturers, which will go some way towards offsetting the small apertures of these superzooms. by the way, 35mm equivalent FOV of this lens: 28-320mm
Olympus - my poison of choice, I have to admit I was surprised by his evaluation - the 18-180 (36-360mm 35mm equivalent)doesn't get favorable reviews generally. another option on the Olympus platform is the Leica 14-150 (28mm-300mm equivalent) but it's hard to find and expensive. Olympus's DSLRs don't quite match Canon in the high ISO department. IS however, is built into the camera body, which allows the lens to be smaller overall. another possible combination would be a 14-42mm kit lens + 70-300 or 40-150 combination, but that wouldn't be an all-in-one combo. by the way, the 36mm on the wide end won't be as wide as the 28mm of the Canon. Oly's AF is also not as good in low-light situations - so the fast focusing speed may be negated by focus hunting.
Sony - also has in-body IS. I haven't heard of a Sony 18-270 but there is a Tamron 18-270 which is likely available in Sony and Canon mounts. DPReview however says the 18-270mm is a dog at focusing, so it probably won't be as quick as either the Canon or Oly.
Presumably if I chose a Sony or Canon and made sure I got USM, SSM or whatever they call it lenses then they would focus as fast as the Olympus I tried?
this is true but I'm not sure which of the superzooms come in USM/SSM versions.
the only other alternative I can think of is one of the digicam superzoom compacts...you can find 10x or 15x superzooms in compact bodies with IS from most of the manufacturers, but focus speed and performance won't be as snappy as a DSLR.
― a being that goes on two legs and is ungrateful (dyao), Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:29 (eleven years ago) link
Your friend should perhaps look at third-party lenses from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma; they're available in pretty much all mounts and generally a bit cheaper than camera-brand equivalents. In fact, that 18-270 he mentions for Sony - I think that actually is a Tamron (Sony don't do such a lens), so is probably available for Canon and Olympus too. Sony bodies have image stabilisation built in so I'm not sure it's worth buying lenses with IS as well for that system.
18-180 on an Olympus body gives the same field of view as 36-360 on a 35mm camera; 18-200 on a Canon is 29-320 - so that Olympus lens actually has greater reach than the Canon (higher crop factor) but is not as wide.
The Canon 18-200 is indeed non-USM (which was an odd decision), so will be a bit slower and noisier than the other lenses, I imagine.
This Sigma 18-250 might be worth a look? High-speed focus motor, anti-shake, available for Canon and Sony, perhaps not for 4/3rds.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:31 (eleven years ago) link
Cheers people! My friend is coming from a serious IT direction rather than a photography direction, so inherent limitations of form to him = something to be designed out in the next software update I suspect.
― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:36 (eleven years ago) link
yeah but he should also understand the "fast, cheap, good - pick two!" holy triangle
― ledge, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:42 (eleven years ago) link
I've long thought the thrifty fifty remains the strongest argument for buying a Canon DSLR. Nikon's equivalent won't autofocus on the entry-level cameras (they now have a DX-format AF-S 35/1.8 which is very good but >£200), Pentax, Oly and Sony primes are expensive, Tamron and Tokina don't make (non-macro) primes anymore and Sigma's 50/1.4 and 30/1.4 are uppity of pricee. But maybe it doesn't make any difference if you're spending all that cash anyway (but you could go on Amazon/eBay right now and have 400D+50/1.8 for about £250).
I reckon if a do-it-all superzoom is your only lens, you'll miss out on so many of the benefits of having a DSLR, so having a fast prime in the bag is sort of essential. And only Canon makes that affordable enough to be almost an afterthought when buying from scratch.
(Ledge is right, of course. Also, you cannae change the laws of physics, captain. Superzooms will always be slow in a light-gathering sense).
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:55 (eleven years ago) link
Seems to be a common misconception that you just need to choose the right lens from a selection of options, as if it were picking an engine for your car, and that's you set.
If he's IT, suggest that this is like looking for one app that does everything you would want to do on a PC, from word processing to MP3 playing. I really think different lenses make that fundamental a change to a camera.
Besides, if it's a major trip, you want the best quality, and that means primes.
― stet, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 21:24 (eleven years ago) link
Hi. I'm really stumped about which lens to buy (for a 450D). I don't know if I want a zoom one or a 50mm (leaning towards the latter right now, but then debating over f1.8 vs f1.4).
Have any of you used any Canon zoom lenses in the lower-end price range, like <$500/£250 ? I can rent a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 for $20/day from a local dealer (supposedly retails for $330 CDN), so I might try that, but I'd like other opinions.
― salsa sharkshavin (salsa shark), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 04:14 (eleven years ago) link
I'll defer to MJ when he shows up, but I think the 50mm f/1.8 is a no-brainer - at only $70 USD new I think, you can't really beat it.
among the Canon zooms at that price range, I think you can get a 17-40mm f/4L used for around $500 - I had one and it was pretty good. I'm not really a fan of Canon's budget zooms in the first place - I think they underperform for the amount of money you pay.
― 囧 (dyao), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 04:46 (eleven years ago) link
On a 450D, the 50/1.8 will be a (remarkably good) short telephoto.
It's been a while since I looked at Canon's lens lineup, but I believe they have a very good 35/2 for ~$200USD. Or there's the Sigma 30/1.4, but I believe that runs $450USD or maybe more.
The image quality on cheap zooms these days isn't bad - but you've already got a tiny viewfinder and the image will be dark (max aperture of 3.5/4.5 lets in about 33% as much light as f/1.8). But millions of people use them on the regular, so it might not be an issue for me.
― smashing aspirant (milo z), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 06:09 (eleven years ago) link
God I love the 50mm f/1.8 on my 450d. F/1.4 would be insane.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 07:05 (eleven years ago) link
There are people here who have far more experience with Canon lenses than I do, so I will, in turn, defer to them...
I will say that I'm a big fan of primes; changing focal length on a zoom is just another thing to think about before taking a photo and a bit of a distraction, really. I hired a 24-70L last year for a wedding, and it's funny just how many photos I took that are either 24mm or 70mm. It was like I had two fast-ish primes - I barely used the range inbetween. Obviously, zooms are fantastically convenient and ultimately reduce the amount of gear you have to lug about but nothing outside the pro-grade stuff really gets close to the quality and sharpness of a decent prime. The 18-55 kit never gets used now, I have an old Sigma 70-210 (which doesn't close aperture on the DSLR) which is also gathering dust, but the primes go everywhere with me.
It all depends on what sort of pictures you'd be taking. I do a lot of child photography (my own, their friends) and my 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5 are perfect for that. Once you step outside the portrait range, and you can no longer reframe by simply moving position, I s'pose it makes more sense to have a zoom (why have 20mm for landscapes when you can have 12-24mm, or 200mm for nature/sports when you can have 75-300mm? Dedicated wide or long primes are expensive too).
If I had the money to buy another lens, I think I'd still get another fixed focal length chap - probably phase out the manual Zeiss 135 and get a 100/2.8 macro.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 09:24 (eleven years ago) link
Cool, thanks everyone.
I'm debating f1.8 vs f1.4 mostly because right now I (ie, my dad, who is paying for it — please don't think I'm spoiled) can afford the difference ($120 CDN vs ~$460). If it were just me purchasing I'd absolutely get the f1.8 and save $£$£. I reeeaaally don't know if the f1.4 is that much more worth it on a 450d though, and I don't plan on upgrading this camera body for many years; I love it and I'm not a professional.
With the kit lens, I mostly play with the widest apertures, which is one reason why I'm leaning towards the 50s. I want to practice more stuff in low light (I really like taking photos at aquariums) and try some portait and closer-up stuff, maybe plants and things in vivariums, though I'm not sure if that's better left for the macros.
There are tons of zooms to choose from but it's unlikely I'd get as much use out of one over the next few months.
― salsa sharkshavin (salsa shark), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
I've got the 1.4, and while the extra speed is nice, it's really, really soft wide open. It doesn't get acceptable until about f/2.8 imo. If it were my cash I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 and ask your dad for the 35mm.
― stet, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:56 (eleven years ago) link
Er I meant the 28 that Mike has, not the 35
― stet, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:57 (eleven years ago) link
I've got a 35/1.4 and it's awesome.
Only lens I have for my D700 (which I actually shoot with) is the 24-70/2.8. It's a fine lens and useful for work, but I don't find it particularly inspirational. Canon's fast primes are much more fun.
― smashing aspirant (milo z), Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:01 (eleven years ago) link
I could have just a 28 and the 85 f/1.2L and I'd be set for life
― stet, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 21:16 (eleven years ago) link
here's a helpful real-world comparison between the 1.4 and 1.8:
as you can see it's really a "last 5%" kind of thing - I'd follow stet's advice and get a 28 or a 35. 50/1.8's are plenty and cheap, especially if you visit some photography forum's used/sales sections
― 囧 (dyao), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 01:43 (eleven years ago) link
Judging by a friend's Flickr stream, the 35/2.0 is a pretty solid lens - quite a bit cheaper than the 28/1.8 too, I think (thankfully we got ours via Amazon US at a time when it was $2=£1, PLUS it was heavily discounted).
The 50/1.4 (and the 28 and 35 primes) feel completely different to the 50/1.8 - they're all much better built. The 50/1.8 has all the heft of a child's rattle. There's nothing better for the money though and it adds almost nothing to the weight of your camera.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 08:04 (eleven years ago) link
I may go and buy the 28mm f/2.8; I think somewhere in town might have it for £170.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 11:55 (eleven years ago) link
Ah no one had one.
― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 16 December 2009 12:58 (eleven years ago) link
UK people, have any of you ever rented lenses before? if so, do you have recommendations of good places that do this?
― salsa sharkshavin (salsa shark), Sunday, 28 March 2010 13:31 (eleven years ago) link
I've only rented in the US, funnily enough - from Calumet in Chicago (who have two branches in London, at Drummond Street and Wardour Street). Pay full price deposit and then $28/day for a 24-70L (Calumet UK rather more expensive than that). I believe Jacobs on New Oxford St do rentals too (poss a bit cheaper than Calumet). Not sure about outside London.
― Michael Jones, Sunday, 28 March 2010 13:46 (eleven years ago) link
calumet is probably the best option for a day or a weekend (they treat a weekend as one day if you take it out on Friday and return by 10am Monday). for a lens like the 70-200 2.8, it's about £35 a day. the full price deposit can be eyewatering though: it's £1,500 for that lens iirc. they discount for longer rentals, but a week would still cost you over £140. they've got loads of stock thhough.
for longer rentals and if you can plan ahead a bit, these guys are worth a look: http://www.LENSESFORHIRE.co.uk. They do it by post, no deposit. a week with the same lens costs £70, but you'll end up paying about £20 for delivery and returning it.
basically hiring lenses is expensive.
― joe, Sunday, 28 March 2010 14:22 (eleven years ago) link
I didn't know there was a mail-order hire business in the UK (there are a few in the US). Now you've got me looking at a 28-300L for a week in Belgium/Germany/Denmark...
― Michael Jones, Sunday, 28 March 2010 21:42 (eleven years ago) link
Thanks, yeah, it's pricey but I don't want to spend loads on a whole new lens right now. The Lenses For Hire thing looks promising and affordable (their feedback is so overwhelmingly positive it's almost making me skeptical though). Not having to put down a huge deposit is a definite plus.
I'm going to see some fjords and stuff during first May bank hol so that's why I'm looking for a rental service. I still have enough time to do a mail-order thing so I'll look into some of these lenses.
― salsa sharkshavin (salsa shark), Sunday, 28 March 2010 22:19 (eleven years ago) link
i used lenses for hire a couple of years ago and it is legit. it worked very well for me. think it was started by some people in flickr forums who were shocked by the full-value deposit rules at existing rental places and figured they could do better.
― joe, Sunday, 28 March 2010 23:46 (eleven years ago) link
Oh well, Pam's passport took so long to come through from the US that neither of the lenses I fancied for our little Euro jaunt (24-105L or 17-40L) are now available for that period from lensesforhire. I was rationalising it as a space-saver in the Crumpler bag (more room for kids' essentials rather than carrying three primes everywhere; I could just have the 50/1.8 in a pocket). Probably for the best.
In the meantime I bought myself some camera insurance (£9/month) which seems better than maxing out our general travel insurance to cover DSLRs and the like.
― Michael Jones, Saturday, 10 April 2010 13:02 (eleven years ago) link
what's a good uk based camera online shop? i'm after a macro lens for my nikon d80
― bracken free ditch (Ste), Tuesday, 13 April 2010 11:51 (eleven years ago) link
i usually use warehouse express, prices seem competitive and they're reliable.
― joe, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:07 (eleven years ago) link
why hello again. this thread should really just be renamed 'salsa shark's yearly questions about lenses'.
do any of you have experience with either the canon 10-22mm or sigma 10-20mm? not sure the canon is worth the price difference. reviews and internet discussions seem to place the two on par with one another, so it looks like it's one of those cases where either choice is perfectly fine, but I wondered if anyone here had strong opinions one way or the other.
― salsa shark, Monday, 11 July 2011 19:00 (ten years ago) link
performance wise, likely to be no difference. canon might be easier to resell down the line. buy used, from a photography forum, stay away from ebay!
― dayo, Monday, 11 July 2011 19:25 (ten years ago) link
I have some experience with the Canon 10-22 (but only for half an hour, borrowed from ILXor Alba - so, if he ever drops by in here, he should have more to say). More experience with the Sigma 12-24, which unlike either the Canon 10-22 (EF-S mount) and Sigma 10-20 (DC designation), can be mounted on full-frame and film cameras. That's why I hired one last summer. Bit of a monster, that lens.
Great fun, ultra-wides, but I'm not sure I ever quite got the hang of it. As Dayo says, likely to be little between them.
Sigma 12-24 @12mm, 1/320s, ISO 400...http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4704178267_4b504503d2.jpg
Sigma 12-24 @12mm, Fuji Neopan 1600 film...http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/4946323720_c61bbcf93d.jpg
Canon 10-22 @10mm, f/3.5 (why? duh), 1/1600s, ISO 200...http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/3717669520_aaa15e3d66.jpg
(Taking of hiring, and I see that we were about 18 months ago, I did use lensesforhire in the end (17-55/2.8IS + 85L for a wedding, 12-24 for a weekend trip; 24-105L forthcoming) and they're great.)
― Michael Jones, Monday, 11 July 2011 20:22 (ten years ago) link
I've used that 12-24mm too! I took it on a trip to Iceland in October because the 10-22mm wasn't available for rental. I've tried a few lenses via rental (agreed on lenses for hire, they've been great each time I've used them) but the most fun I had was with that Sigma wide angle, so I'm ~finally~ looking to invest in a lens.
I know I posted it on the Photo thread already but this was one of my favs from Iceland with the 12-24mm:
Definitely staying away from ebay, though.
― salsa shark, Monday, 11 July 2011 20:46 (ten years ago) link
Going up to the scotland in a few weeks to do some landscape stuff, mayby a few night shots of the stars too. I have £550 budget for a lens and the choice is staggering. I'm completely at a loss as to what to get. Tokina 11-16mm 2.8, canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 and the 20mm 2.8 are up there in the list.
― not_goodwin, Thursday, 8 March 2012 21:58 (nine years ago) link
would probably go for the canon - half a stop is not a huge difference, probably very easy to overcome in post, and wide angles are much easier to handhold
― flagp∞st (dayo), Thursday, 8 March 2012 22:11 (nine years ago) link
I'd probably go Tokina. That lens has a good reputation, third-party AF issues are no biggie with super-wides, and that half-stop to stop and a quarter difference will make a difference in viewfinder brightness if nothing else.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 8 March 2012 22:18 (nine years ago) link
I vote the Canon, no hesitation. Those extra mm's in focal length on both sides trump the speed, easily. You don't need a fast lens to catch great night shots, you just need a steady one that can handle a bit of a longer exposure. My best night shots are taken at about f8-f11, with a shutter speed of several seconds. The more you open the aperture, the more you risk any light source in the frame becoming blurred or extremely starry.
But all that said, it's really finally about the glass -- literally the glass. If price is no object, I'd take each of these lenses in each hand, weigh them, and buy the heavier one. It sounds like bullshit, like "More expensive wines are better," but in this case it's totally not bullshit. Buy heavy glass.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 9 March 2012 02:28 (nine years ago) link
Thanks guys, my poor mind's boggled.
― not_goodwin, Friday, 9 March 2012 17:31 (nine years ago) link
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
most modern DSLRs have plastic viewing screens which don't necessarily get brighter w/ larger aperture lenses, iirc
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 9 March 2012 21:49 (nine years ago) link
Hi, I am looking for a wide-angle lens for a Canon 600D.
I'm unsure whether to opt for a prime or zoom, but I don't need a lot of range from a zoom, not this time around anyway.
I guess I am able to throw about £400-£500/$620-$775 at the most, a little less would be better though.
Salsa & Michael's lovely shots just above are the kinda thing I'd like to be able to take. Any suggestions?
― nan machine (MaresNest), Sunday, 17 February 2013 20:29 (eight years ago) link
I ended up buying the 10-22mm Canon lens and I have no regrets. The lens feels nice to use and produces good photos (by my standards, I'm certainly not a pro). Prices vary wildly for it, though. If you don't need a huge zoom range the Tokina 11-16mm might be worth looking into, it'll be less expensive than the Canon. There's also a Sigma 10-20mm which, iirc, is cheaper than both the Tokina and the Canon, but people who used it seemed to think there were quality control issues and some lenses were a bit wonky (I did a lot of research before I purchased the 10-22mm so this is just what I remember from when I did that).
Prime vs zoom, well, I guess it might depend on what you plan on using the lens for, but one of the better/more knowledgeable ILPers might be able to advise on that.
― salsa shark, Sunday, 17 February 2013 23:28 (eight years ago) link
Thanks for the advice Salsa, I ended up going for the Tokina, should have it in a coupla days.
― shouting in a bucket blues (MaresNest), Tuesday, 26 February 2013 12:11 (eight years ago) link
Man, I hate this fucking Tokina, there's a second hand 24mm f/2.8 at Aperture in London and I'm pretty certain I'm gonna head over there and part ex this sucker.
― MaresNest, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 16:13 (eight years ago) link
this is nothing to do with that but recently the focusing-circle on my lens has stopped lining up when i'm focusing on what's farthest away. like it's a little split. i don't know whether or not to be concerned
something that is a little of a downside to film photography is that it takes forever for me to get things developed, so if something goes wrong it perhaps stays that way until i months later see what's been happening & realise
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Wednesday, 19 June 2013 17:46 (eight years ago) link
how far away is the furthest away? sometimes there will still be a little split when focusing on, say, distant buildings, but there won't be when focusing on, say, the moon.anyway, I doubt you'll see any issues.
― chinavision!, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 19:46 (eight years ago) link
i am straight up waiting for the moon to come out before answering this, but: thanks! it is the case with distant buildings, & i'm only perturbed because i don't think it was previously. i'm sure it's okay, i just wondered what i'd done to make things go astray. i keep meaning to pick up a 28mm lens anyhow. thanks for the expertise.
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Thursday, 20 June 2013 01:14 (eight years ago) link
Nabbed myself the 24mm f/2.8 EF from Aperture at lunchtime, what nice guys they are in there.
Pretty happy to be rid of the TK. This new one, while obviously nowhere near as wide, checks out nicely and afterwards I wandered into the atrium of the British Museum to take some test shots. Wonder how many people do the same?
For a few mins I was acutely tempted by a 17-40mm L that they have, but I really wanted a prime as I'm going back to Japan next year and I want to take just one compact-ish lens.
So, what have I learned? Never take the advice of a friend who takes HDR shots pretty much exclusively, I guess.
― MaresNest, Thursday, 20 June 2013 13:34 (eight years ago) link
Good choice. The non-L primes are underrated. That said, I see Aperture just sold a 135L for £490. That's a steal. I like that Aperture give you shutter counts on the bodies. But if I ever sell them my 40D I'll have to include the repair letter from Sendean, cos my shutter count is still 82k+ despite the shutter being replaced.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:50 (eight years ago) link
I think for now I'm a non-L primes kinda guy.
They had a 1DX for sale with only 1 actuation, how is that possible? They must reset just before boxing.
― MaresNest, Friday, 21 June 2013 08:31 (eight years ago) link
What's the current consensus on a Canon walkaround lens? Is it still the 17-55? Or is the Tamron 24-70 the way to go?
― arbiter of sorrow (aldo), Monday, 6 July 2015 11:35 (six years ago) link
what do u shoot
― How Butch, I mean (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 10 July 2015 16:55 (six years ago) link
i mean a true walkaround lens is the pancake 40 in terms of size
― How Butch, I mean (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 10 July 2015 16:56 (six years ago) link
Do you have a crop-sensor Canon? So you mean the Ef-s 17-55/2.8? Not sure 2.8 is really necessary in an everyday zoom - that is a great lens and I've hired it in the past, but if you're never going to go full frame, I would recommend the 15-85 instead. Slower but smaller, lighter, cheaper and the image quality is excellent. Nice to have that extra reach too.
Don't know the Tamron.
― Michael Jones, Saturday, 11 July 2015 10:32 (six years ago) link
I was wrong about price. The 17-55/2.8 has come down by quite a bit since I last looked. Now about the same as the 15-85/3.5-5.6. Just comes down to speed vs reach.
― Michael Jones, Sunday, 12 July 2015 12:17 (six years ago) link
I just bought the 40mm on a whim. I'm full frame now so it's theoretically good for walking around, haven't taken anything other than test shots with it yet but I'm going to use it this week.
― MaresNest, Sunday, 12 July 2015 12:40 (six years ago) link
if you're near London, Aperture have a (Mint-) 17-55mm for £370 at the moment.
― MaresNest, Sunday, 12 July 2015 12:43 (six years ago) link
Shooting is mainly architecture and portraits (or what would have been disparagingly called 'holiday photos' at one point) I guess. I have a 10-24 and a 70-300 that I usually also carry in the bag so it's really something that I can leave in when I'm away and will be good for 70+% of shots.
I threw the Tamron in because at one point there was talk as far as I can tell through limited digging that the Canon 24-70 was the business but is out of my price range and the Tamron is the affordable equivalent.
And arse, I only left London this morning.
― arbiter of sorrow (aldo), Sunday, 12 July 2015 13:51 (six years ago) link