A set of Lenses?

[alp_hizal]

Hi all,

 

My current gear only consists of an EOS 20D and Canon 17-85 IS USM.

 

I am planning to buy these lenses,

 

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP

 

Canon 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8

 

Canon 50mm f/1.8

 

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L (not to soon, i think its price will drop)

 

If you have any of these lenses, can you please give some information based on;

 

* price/performance

 

* your experiences (good/bad:)

 

Thanks!

[g dan mitchell]

May I suggest politely suggest that you'll get better info faster by taking a look at some of

the lens test sites and doing a bit of searching on those specific topics?

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[alp_hizal]

Dear Dan,

 

I did extensive, deep and looong search on each of these lenses and can say that i am full of technical details from each one :)

 

I just wanted to acquire hands-on experience information from users...

 

Thank you.

[bueh]

I can only comment on the EF 50mm f/1.8. Price/performance: Excellent! My experiences: Stellar lens. Very useable wide open, and I rarely stop down past f/2.2 unless I need a larger depth-of-field. Tiny and light. I hear rumors about its built quality but actually the lens is much better than its reputation in this regard. I had both the older metal bayonet (Mk. I) and the current Mk. II plastic version. I like the later one more because AF performance seems a bit better, while Canon's repair service told me that front/back-focusing issues of the older version cannot be corrected (hard-wired focusing points).

 

I have none of your other lenses (besides the EF-S 17-85mm, which I hated).

[alp_hizal]

Dan,

 

if my language is a bit inpolite i am sorry about that, really.

 

i wrote that in hurry.

 

thanks.

[alp_hizal]

i also hate the 17-85 but it's my workhorse :) i am going to get rid of it!

[m_barbu1]

For the 70-200, why the f/4, instead of f/2.8?

[colin carron]

The 70-200 f/4 L is a great lens.

 

Nothing wider? what about the Canon 10-22 or similar?

[alp_hizal]

Colin,

 

i looked at the sigma 10-20 dc, maybe that one...

 

thanks

[alp_hizal]

Barbu,

 

since f/2.8 is much more expensive and i don't shoot at dim light very often, i want a telezoom for bright days :)

 

also its very very heavy!

[danield]

> Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP

 

My most used lens. Sharp, sharp, sharp. Great contrast. Nicely built, feels quite solid and substantial. Some distortion and CA at wide angle but otherwise I can't fault it in any way. I'd like a ring USM and IS, but then I also don't have the money for the Canon 17-55.

 

> Canon 50mm f/1.8

 

Nice cheap lens, useful to see how f/1.8 looks like. Quite sharp with excellent contrast and color rendition. Mine's front part simply came off after it took some knocks while in the bag. I managed to manually force it back in, but it's still working now and IQ is still good. It's a bit of a toy, really, but it's great for exploring shooting in low-light. For the price, it's worth buying.

[m_barbu1]

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM is only 408.2 grams more than the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. The cost is only $90 more. If you compare the IS versions of both, then yes, it's heavier and more expensive. Since you don't shoot in dark situations, the f/2.8 will give you the option of shallower depth of field than the f/4 IS version.

[JDMvW]

It's always surprising how many people (Bueh especially) find fault with the 17-85mm, but in the end so many people (not Bueh ;) come to something like this conclusion from the Photozone.de review:

 

<<The key feature of the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS remains its versatility. While this may sound a little sceptical I should note that I preferred the lens compared to other higher quality options during testing - it is simply a darn convenient lens and despite the flaws it can produce very decent images as you can see from the samples - at least with a little tool support.<<

 

fr

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=2

[trebor_navilluso]

First a comment for M Barbu.

 

I have the 70-200 2.8IS. Love that lens, will never part with it, but man is it heavy if you are lugging it all day. So, I know at some point I'll also pick up a 70-200 F4IS as well. I had the non IS versioin of that lens and sold it to upgrade. Now I miss the lighter weight in certain circumstances but would only have it with IS as I am now hooked on that. There is certainly a place for these lenses especially if you have some fast primes for those shallow DOF and low light needs.

 

Now to Alp's quesition.

 

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP Tried it in the store, prefered the Canon version for faster AF (much faster) and IS.

 

Canon 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8 I have the 85 great portrait lens get it. Very very sharp and beautiful bokeh.

 

Canon 50mm f/1.8 Excellent IQ but a bit slow focusing, nice portrait lens also for $70 you have to get this.

 

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L, I had the non IS version, and will be getting this one with IS soon again. Outstanding IQ, light, quality build/feel to it. A must have lens.

 

You will have a killer kit but I'd just consider adding a 1.4TC to get to 280mm F5.6 when you need some more reach.

[ken munn]

Go to the pixel peeper web site. You'll find real life examples of shots taken with those lenses

on your body - well, you know what I mean.

 

www.pixel-peeper.com

 

Incidentally, I'd recommend adding the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22, but then I've

always been a wide boy.

[pjmeade]

Hello AH, I've got the 50/1.8, which I like on the 20D as a portrait lens. I think I like it better at f2.8-f4 than at 1.8, it's sharper and the background blur seems nicer at f4. The 70-200/f4 is a delight, although I've just replaced mine with the 2.8 IS, I still think it's excellent. The 85/1.8 is my next purchase.

 

I don't know the Tamron, so I can't comment on that one.

 

As pointed out by someone else, you may find you're lacking a wide option, but you have the makings of a very capable setup in your list.

 

P

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

There's a direct comparison of the 50/1.8 II vs the 50/1.4 here on Photo.net, if you search for it. From about 2003 I think. The author did a good job illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.

 

The image examples provided will clearly show why I choose to use the 50/1.4 instead. It's sharper, much more flare resistant, faster/quieter focusing, offers nicer background blur and out of focus highlights, is more durably built and is simply all around a noticeably better lens in terms of image quality.

 

On the other hand, the f1.8 is very inexpensive, small, lightweight and will serve quite well in many situations.

 

Whether to get the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.8 Macro USM largely depends upon which is more important to you: macro work or portraiture. Along with a 50mm, the 85mm is an ideal portrait companion on any of the 1.6X crop cameras. It can sort of double as a macro lens with one or two extension tubes attached, but expect some light fall off and softer edges and corners using it that way.

 

The 100/2.8 is a super macro lens, very sharp and fun to use. It can double as a portrait lens, but is slightly long for that purpose and can be overly sharp in some situations (such as feminine portraits). Of course, you can either use filters or Photoshop to reduce the sharpness of images.

 

The 85mm is a bit faster focusing, but the 100/2.8 *USM* (not the earlier non-USM version) is not all that slow focusing so long as you use the focus limiter switch when doing non-macro shots with it.

 

70-200/4 IS is a great lens from all I hear (I don't have it, I use the f2.8 version, and yes it's larger and significantly heavier). Ff you were to get the 100/2.8 Macro and used it as a moderate telephoto, you might be in a better position to delay getting the 70-200 for a while. At least, the 100mm would serve in place of the 70-200 a little better than the 85mm would.

 

Others are correct, your planned kit doesn't have any particularly wide lenses. 17mm is not all that wide on a 1.6X crop camera. You might want to look at the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24/4, if you like wider lenses too.

 

I am not familiar with the Tamron 17-50/2.8, but have used other Tamron lenses in the past. Someone commented about it's AF being slow in comparison to Canon lenses. That might steer me toward the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, but of course it's significantly more expensive. An alternative might be to hang in there with the 17-85 for a little while longer.

 

In some respects, it's often better to add lenses gradually, one or two at a time, and only when you identify an actual need that's not filled by what's already in your kit. Adding too many too fast can make it hard to get comfortable with any of them very quickly, and to thoroughly explore their capabilities.

 

With relatively few lenses, it's usually okay to have some gaps in focal lengths, too. Avoid overlapping focal lengths as best you can, until you are sure the lens you already have covering it cannot do what you need to do, or just a little zooming with your feet won't accomplish the same thing. In fact, doing this can actually encourage you to work around and explore your subjects more fully. Historically, some of the most renowned photographers only used one or two or three lenses, even back in the days before zooms.

[alp_hizal]

I would like to thank all of you very much!

 

I don't get this informational and good replies even in Turkish forums, and this soon :)

 

For wide coverage, actually i do not use wide lenses that much and probably will buy one

later :/

 

I think i decided to get the 85mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 non-is.

 

But the zoom comes first! I'll keep the old 17-85 IS and buy the telezoom for this summer

:)

 

In my opinion, all 70-200 's by Canon are very versatile and good lenses in optical quality.

But we photographers must choose one that suits our style and fulfills our needs...

 

For indoor shooting at venues,bars etc... 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 will do the job for

me,thanks to high ISO settings available here :)

 

Later comes the 100mm macro.

 

Tamron? Oh yes, i will buy it for sure, but not soon :)

 

A teleconverter? here comes a question, 1.4x or 2.0x ? not to compare their optical

quality, we all know...

 

Fast aperture--->1.4x, focal length ---> 2.0x

 

i'd go with the 1.4x

 

Again thanks for your kind comments!

[William Michael]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP:

 

 

Is the odd man out in the set of lenses you are considering: I understand the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR LD:

 

 

1. has an image circle which is suitable only for APS-C bodies. (confident my memory is correct, but open to correction or confirmation? )

 

 

2. and the MF ring turns counter to the Canon lenses. (very confident my memory is correct on this one)

 

 

I considered the Tamron lens for our Wedding Kits, the two reasons above are the main reasons why I did not choose the Tamron lens. The reason I looked at the Tamron was the price, it is much cheaper than the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS: the cost is the lens`s major attraction IMO.

 

 

 

I also considered the EF-S 17 to 55 F2.8IS, if we were to have only APS-C bodies in the studio, I would have chosen this Canon lens. Overall it is superior to the Tamron lens and presents better value for money, mainly because of the IS, for my purposes.

 

 

The EF-S17 to 55 F2.8 IS is the staple lens of many pro Wedding Photographers using and APS-C system

 

 

 

Canon 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8:

 

 

Are two different lenses and it seems implicit to me that the inclusion of the EF100mmF2.8 Macro shows a desire for macro work. If this is the case then it should be understood that this is a macro lens first and secondly can double as a reasonable sports / portrait telephoto, but F1.8 is much better for both these applications.

 

 

Also, the design of a macro lens in some ways is restrictive for other uses: there has been much discussion upon this issue.

 

 

 

The 85mmF1.8 is IMO one of the best value for money EF lenses Canon makes, it is a cracker.

 

 

 

I own the 85 and the 100 macro is on my `to buy` list.

 

 

 

Canon 50mm f/1.8

 

 

 

I own the EF50mmF1.4, the main reason I bought the F1.4 is because of FTMF, the extra speed has been handy too, sometimes.

 

That is not to imply that the F1.8MkII is a slouch in the image stakes, its simple design produces good images: I was prepared to pay for a bit more in the F1.4, but not for the F1.0L (which was the only other option for speed, at the time of my purchase).

 

 

 

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L:

 

 

In consideration of your criteria: ` i don't shoot at dim light very often, i want a tele zoom for bright days`

 

 

 

I agree with the suggestion of M Barbu: you should consider the EF70 to 200F2.8L USM, it is not that much heavier than the F4L IS and not that much more expensive either.

 

 

I own the EF 70 to 200 F2.8L USM and IMO it is NOT heavy to carry and I do that for a good eight hours and with second body as well.

 

 

But `heavy` is a personal opinion.

 

 

What is fact, however, is that F2.8 is one whole stop faster than F4 which is relevant for shooting in daylight for both bokeh and stopping subject motion.

 

 

As a general comment, for a comprehensive lens kit with a 20D, I feel you are short of wide angle coverage.

 

 

There are two methods of addressing this:

 

 

1. A second body, being either APS-H or 135 format

 

 

2. The EF-S 10 to 22 (or third party equivalent).

 

 

I chose the former, adding a 5D to my personal kit and the studio kits are 30D & 5D.

 

IMO, that choice gives better value for money and flexibility in a light weight comprehensive kit rather than relying on the present range of EF-S / APS-C specific lenses.

 

WW

[William Michael]

>>> A teleconverter? here comes a question, 1.4x or 2.0x ? <<<

 

If you buy a 70 to 200, F4 version, I suggest the x1.4MkII is the better converter to use with it: F8 is slow and DARK and I think your AF goes too.

 

F5.6 (i.e. the x1.4MkII on an F4 Lens) is also dark, but manageable on a 20D.

 

I have both tele converters, and a 20D, (which I did not mention earlier, sorry).

 

WW

[dogbert]

I have the 100 f2.8 and it is a great lens - nothing but good experiences. It's wonderful for macro and can do portraiture well. But if your primary application is portraiture you are probably better of going for the 85/1.8 or 100/2 for the extra speed. The 100/2.8 is significantly bigger and heavier than the other two.

[markonestudios]

I will ALWAYS be quick to praise the 50 f/1.8 :) All that about build quality is probably unfounded and largely based on tactile/visual analuysis. I've dropped mine, TWICE in the same week, once on tarmac while moving at speed and another time on concrete from about 5.5 feet. Optics are still perfect. I don't even see any scuffs on the body.

<p>Two drawbacks are its lack of full-time manual focus (FTM) and slightly noisy focus due to lack of USM.

<p>With that in mind, for quality per dollar, this whips all other lenses.

[nigel_rothery]

Being a total novis, my wifes 40D came with a 17-85 IS USM lens, I thought that the range of this lens would have been a great mixture, why do some of the commentators hate it so much?

[m_barbu1]

For me, primarily because it doesn't have a fixed maximum aperture, but also because it's maximum aperture is not f/2.8 or faster.

[ken munn]

Just so the paean of praise for the 50mm f1.8 is not totally over the top, it's worth

mentioning that it's not an easy lens to manual focus. The focus ring is tiny, and right at the

front of the lens. That said, it still produces cracking images once you have focussed it. Or just leave it on AF.