mvw photo Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I have a 5D with a 24-70 f/2.8L, and a Digital Rebel XT with a prime f/1.8 lens. I would like a second lens, either for the 5D (verywide angle, or above 80 mm) or for the XT (wide angle). What do you all recommend? I am looking for - EF (not EF-s, since for both cameras) - Small, light - Cheap - SHARP (I really do like "L" glass) - Fast (f/2.8 or better) or IS - Used, since the above are not really combinable, are they! Any advice, so I know what I can look for on ebay? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_j_m Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 "Small, light - Cheap - SHARP (I really do like "L" glass)" That's self contradictory, there's no lens that would fall in that category. Take your pick: (a) small, light, cheap or (b) L, sharp, expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Sounds to me like you are buying a lens for a buying a lens' sake. You really need to identify what need you have and then buy a lens to fill that need. Don't let that put you off; I am not averse to "retail therapy" myself. Small, light, fast, sharp, and cheap are not mutually incompatible, many of Canon's "consumer" primes qualify. You don't say what your prime lens is but I will guess it is a 50/1.8. Consider maybe a Canon 20/2.8, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 Macro, or Canon 135/2. If you are will to go with manual focus and an adaptor then there are a number of other manufacturers lenses that will serve. The 17-40/4L might serve a useful purpose on both cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nam_nguyen Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 In the old days (and even true now) a 24, 50 and 85 are enough. Which is even less than what you have. Go shoot. Then if you feel you need more tele, then get a longer lens. 24 is my fav wide focal length because with anything shorter than and you'd start to get the unnatural deep perspective stretch that looks rather obvious. But if that's what you must have, get the 16-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 IN addition to those lens mentioned above, I recommend the canon ef 100mm macro lens. Macro lens can focus closer than any of those mentioned lens. That lens is sharp , but not small. sometimes , we have to be realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlos_miami Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 My recommendations (all will cover a full-frame sensor): Sigma 20mm f1.8. Not small compared to the 20mm f2.8, but relatively cheap at around $300, very useable at f1.8 and extremely sharp past f2.8. If you can live without AF for 80mm and over, I'd suggest: Nikon 105mm f1.8 AISNikon 300mm f4.5 AIS ED-IF These can be used with an f-mount to EOS adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 The real question is probably what specific photographic need are you hoping to meet with the new lens? Not knowing that, I'll make some wild guesses about which direction to go. Unless you are into _very_ wide angle work, the 24mm lens on the 5D is actually pretty darn wide. Are you finding that it isn't wide enough for shots you are trying to take? If not, no need to get wider for this camera. If so, you might consider something like a 20mm prime to expand the wide end. The 17-40mm f/4 isn't overly expensive and it is an L lens. An added advantage of the latter lens is that it works as a good normal zoom on the XT. If you need longer - e.g. you are finding that you don't have a long enough lens for certain types of photography that you do - you could go a few different directions. The crop sensor on the XT will give a greater telephoto effect on a given lens, so perhaps one of th 70-200 zooms would work - but 2 out of 3 of them are quite expensive. Your least expensive L option is the f/4 model. To get equivalent telephoto on the 5D you are going to need a lens that is longer that what might work on the XT... and likely fairly expensive. You could also think about a prime and reduce the cost and still get a high quality lens. (Though this strategy is also workable on the XT.) If I were in your shoes, I'd want to have a strategy for lens purchases based on my needs as a photographer. This takes a fair amount of research and careful consideration... and resistance to gear lust. This is probably even more important if you are going the eBay route. As others pointed out, your goals of L quality, EF, small, fast (!), IS, and cheap are mutually exclusive on several levels. There are choices to make here, and you are the only one who knows enough about your approach to photography to figure this out. Take care, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_le1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Try to pick up a Canon 80-200mm f/2.8 L. Its old, but its tack sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuyeah Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Canon EF 28-135mm. Its small, light weight & very affortable in used market. The problem is...since u hv 24-70mm u prob will feel most other non L recommandation are sharp or sharp enough. Not exactly fast enough. But...L don't come cheap, don't usually come in small size & light weight. You might want to try a different lens that is not in 24-70mm range. I will say 100mm Macro. it's fast 2.8! Sharp, very sharp for its price. Build quality ain't bad. But, draw back is AF not as fast as other lens but workable. Macro work the best in MF. These are 2 lens come in to my mind. Strongly suggest 100mm macro 2.8 With it, you gain a on working distance also giving you a chance to explore the small world. It is a lens with L quality, but no red line around the body. Best, not in sky high price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 Thanks, some good advice there. BTW, I was not really clear: a) I know cheap, good, small, and sharp are incompatible. Question was what was the compromise YOU chose. b) I do know what I want: - a very wide angle lens - a longer tele lens - a general purpose zoom for the DRebelXT I need both of the first two and the third would be nice. Wide angle for the cityscapes I love, and tele for the people/travel I do a lot of. I often think "I wish I had a 18mm lens here", or "if only I had a 200mm now". But I live in the real world and cannot afford both now, so I am going to be driven by the best I can afford. So am interested in what you all would do in the same situation I am in... Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_wu6 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Amount those criteria, �sharp� is the most important one and any thing else can be compromised. If you have a budget constrain, then it�s the second factor you have to worry. Based on the information given, you may start with thinking 50mm 1.8 first and go from there based your particular needs (probably wants). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 85/1.8 is probably a good choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 Indeed. Sharpness is tops (which is why I like the 24-70 f/2.8L so much). I now have the 50mm f/1.8 on the DRebelXT. That 85mm lens sounds good, except of course it would only add to the DRebel, and not much to the 5D, where I now have 70mm already. Ideally, I;d get a lens that would add to either camera. I don;t want much, do I? It is "want" rather than "need", except I do find myself in situations where more tele would be good. Thinking it over, more wide angle is mroe "want", while more tele is more "need"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 The advice above has been very useful. I shall let you all know what I ended up doing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Well, like you said it is a hard issue. The emphasis you put on sharpness leaves few non-L options, the constraints about price rule out just about any L prime, and the 70-200/4L will not fit your speed and size requirements. If you feel that the 85/1.8 is too close to your 24-70 (and you're probably right), its sibling the 100/2 might be more appealing. Other options that would reasonably fit within your requirements could be the 135/2.8 (expect the image quality to be on par with your L zoom) or the 15/2.8 (very significantly wider than your 24mm, but a fisheye can be hard to use). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 1200 f/5.6 L. There clearly is no other lens that's right for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 <p><i>BTW, I was not really clear:</i></p> [...] <p><i>But I live in the real world and cannot afford both now, so I am going to be driven by the best I can afford.</i></p> Well, that's another area where you were not really clear. What <i>can</i> you afford? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 You are right; I am not being clear, am I. I can afford $1000, but I would like to keep it down to $500 (used price).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 You may want to consider either a 70-200/4L (it's neither small nor light, but then again neither is your 24-70), and it's not an f/2.8, but it has the L construction and sharpness. Another option is the new 70-300 IS. Construction is certainly one notch below, but it's smaller and lighter than the 4L, image quality is said to be good, and it has an image stabilizer of the latest generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 New, on B&H, the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=91680&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">70-200 f/2.8L USM</a> is $1,139.95. If you find it used, should definitely be under $1,000. I know that's at the high end of what you're looking to spend, <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=13&sort=7&thecat=27">but this is a really nice lens</a>, even without the IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 29, 2006 Author Share Posted July 29, 2006 Well, I went for a 17-40 4L. Hope that was the right decision: I do love those ultra wide angles. 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