neil_v. Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 For shooting modern dance with my XT in very close quarters, I'd like a fast (at least f/2.8) rectilinear lens that is 20mm or wider, and approaching the image quality of my 50/1.4. Presently, I use a 17-85 at the wide end for the wide shots, which isn't fast enough, and is otherwise only so-so optically. The $1800 Canon 14/2.8L would be great, but it's 6 times my budget. I'm open to a used manual focus lens with a mount adapter, as well as to a really nice f/2.8 zoom that covers the focal length range 20mm-70mm (which would let me trade-in several lenses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 The Sigma 20/f1.8 fits your described needs, and it costs about $400. The optical quality is very good, though perhaps not quite as good as the 50. It's big, and the autofocus is noisy and a little slow compared to EOS USM lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 what about the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm 449USD at B&H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 ...or the 17-70 f2.8 lens from either Tamron or Sigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Never mind my previous post! Tamron does not have a 17-70mm zoom lens it seems so only Sigma : http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm 389USD at B&H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 If it is wide enough maybe also : Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM DC (429USD) http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 How about the new Canon 17-55? Here's one review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (hopefully that link will work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Sorry, just noticed "inexpensive". Still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gluteal cleft Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 "Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majid Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 FWIV, the Tamron 17mm f/3.5 has a good reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbrain_ronny_perry Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 A nikkor 20mm f2.8 manual focus lens with a Nikon F mount to EOS adapter off ebay, would work nicely.I Use alot of nikon glass on my Canon 10D and it works fine in the AV mode, you pick the f stop let Canon pick the shutter.KEH or Ebay has the 20mm for around $300-$400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin_lau Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I picked up my Sigma 20-40/2.8 (constant f2.8) from Cameta 2 months ago for $249-. Sharp enough, but it's not a 50/1.4. The Sigma 17-70 is a 2.8-4.5, only f2.8 at the wide end, f3.2 @ 24mm, f4.5 @ 70mm. Otherwise, there's a 17-50/2.8 from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. The Tamron seems the cheapest priced, less than 1/2 of the Canon. The Sigma's a couple hundred dollars more up here in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Don't expect too many lenses at all being as sharp as your 50/1.4. Even the best 14/2.8 would have a hard time with that comparison not to mention anything cheaper and anything in a zoom. I like the idea of the Nikon 20/2.8 but wonder if it is still wide enough so I would also look at the Nikon 18mm lens, I think it is f4 though. You will have to ask yourself if you can manually focus well enough in your given situation. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisbergeron Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I have the 20mm f1.8 and I find it shaper than the 50mm f1.8 @1.8. I buy it 300$ two year ago ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 <p>I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that Canon has a lens of exactly the focal length you mention, and exactly the speed you say is a requirement. It has a bit of a mixed reputation; some say it's very good, others only mediocre, but as has been pointed out above, asking for the same optical quality in a lens that's on the borderline of being ultra-wide as you get from a normal prime is a pretty tall order.</p> <p>Anyway, if you haven't already researched the 20/2.8, it might be worth a look to see if it fits your needs.</p> <p>Or ... since you are open to a fast zoom in roughly the 20-70 range, which obviously blows your budget of $1800/6=300, what's your budget for that zoom, based on the assumption that some of it will be paid for by selling off the other lenses?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelschrag Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 If the photozone review of the new Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR is accurate, I would say that this is a "no-brainer" with the understanding that few lenses will rival the 50 1.5. Alternatively, the 20mm Zuiko has a fabulous reputation and is said to be almost as good as the 20mm distagon. Either could be used with an adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I sent in a review of the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR to Brian a few days ago. Hopefully he'll soon post it here on photo.net. It's a good lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 In what universe is f/2.8 fast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 "inexpensive great fast ultrawide lenses" - if such things were readily available then there would be no market at all for expensive lenses! Just remember that in general "you get what you pay for"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_d5 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 f/2.8 is fast enough with a digital camera that shoots great pictures at ISO 800-1600 like the XT. I have the Canon 20 f/2.8 and love it, it is sharp and produces great contrasty images. Can't see the reason why some wouldn't like it. It is also well built like other intermediate Canon lenses. Only thing to consider is that a 20mm becomes a 32mm on the XT and anyother APS-C sensor camera. This is wide but certainly not 20mm ultra-wide. How wide do you really neeed to go? If you are fine with around 30mm then the Canon 20 2.8 is the one I reccommend based on my own experience of owning and shooting with it for almost three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickware Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Sigma 24-70 or 28-70, both have an EX model constant-f/2.8. It's fast enough for most things and they're both good quality. I think the 28 retails for around $400 and the 24mm for around $600. That might be ebay price, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Adam, Neil was looking ultrawide. 24 mm is not ultra, even on a f/f body. On his XT it's going to weigh in at 38mm equivalent. That illustrates the one major problem with the 1.6 crop bodies, ultrawide is almost impossible. There's Canon's 10-22, and Sigma's 10-20 and 12-24, and that's about it. How I'd love Canon to offer us a rectilinear lens with cropped equivalence to 20mm, say a 12mm f1.8. Dream on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 "There's Canon's 10-22, and Sigma's 10-20 and 12-24, and that's about it." plus the Tokina 12-24, Tamron 11-18. lots of zoom options. Primes, well not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now