Ideal Collcetion

[dcstep]

<p>Mark, I think lens reviews is one place where a picture is definitely worth 1,000-words. Since Photozone doesn't seem to take and keep test images, all I see is words. Flawed as it might be, I prefer the side-by-side comparison that The-Digital-Picture provides. Galleries of random shots don't really help you with judging the performance, unless a lens is really bad and you can look at 100% comparisons.</p>

<p>I'd love to see a reviewer that provide the test images like TDP does, but also dates their reviews, tell us how they obtained the lenses, gave us the serial # and production date. TDP's test method is elegantly simple and repeatable, the only unavoidable consistency issue is the constantly changing bodies that DO have a part in IQ.</p>

<p>Looking at TDP samples (I have no other reference) the Canon blows away the tested Samyang. It's costs way more and the Samyang is pretty darn good, if you can live with its weaknesses. I think that many can, particularly if they don't use it for architecture shooting. </p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>When I compare price vs quality vs distortion Samyang/Rokinon looks better decision. Because I will use it only for astrophotography...<br>

Investing so much money for a lens which I will use only several days/times a year doesn't look logic.</p>

<p>So I've ordered a Samyang/Rokinon.<br>

Thank you all for your inputs...</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Sami, my only question is, why would you only use it for astrophotography? It can really give unique perspectives in landscape, travel and even street photography. Why wouldn't you try to stretch your vision. Also, astrophotography will be more critical that some of the other uses, so you'll lose more potential than with travel, for instance.</p>

<p>Did you see the comparison at The-Digital-Picture? If you're never would try to use the lens to its full potential, then I can understand compromising on quality, but the total that you've got invested in body and lenses would indicate to me that you're going after ultimate IQ. If not, then why not just go to two good zooms and one prime?</p>

[matthijs]

That 100/2.8 is a macro lens I presume.

If not you might want to add one.

[sami_palta1]

<p>@ David: Yes I am after the ultimate. The reason I decided for Samyang/Rokinon is, I am not sure if I will use this lens too often. So investing to Ef 14mm is useless. <br>

Indeed I like primes more.</p>

<p>@ Matthijs : 100/2/8 is a macro but also a portrait and general use lens. It is the lens I like and use most. Already have one. Thx.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>If I had as many lenses as you do I'd be adding a second body at this point. Using two cameras and two lenses at same time is fast and efficient. Or, perhaps lighting gear. Or spending money on travel. Honestly you have all the lenses you need. Remember the most important lens is the one on your camera. All the rest are just extra weight when you're out photographing. Good luck with your photography.</p>

[natures-pencil]

<p>My <em>actual</em> EOS collection is:<br>

<strong>Zooms</strong>: 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS<br>

<strong>Primes</strong>: 35 f/2 EF, 50 f/1.8 EF II, 100 f/2.8 USM Macro, 300 f/4 L IS<br>

<strong>Other</strong>: Canon 1.4x extender II<br>

Everything was bought second hand at bargain prices, and everything looks good and works perfectly. I am very happy. With these and a pair of EOS 1-series DSLRS (one full 35mm frame, the other APS-H) there is nothing that I want to photograph that I cannot photograph. I don't envisage adding to this lot, or disposing of any of it, for many years to come, if ever.</p>

 

[natures-pencil]

My actual EOS collection is:

Zooms: 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS

Primes: 35 f/2 EF, 50 f/1.8 EF II, 100 f/2.8 USM Macro, 300 f/4 L IS

Other: Canon 1.4x extender II

 

Everything was bought second hand at bargain prices, and everything looks good and works perfectly. I am very happy. With these and a pair of EOS 1-series DSLRS (one full 35mm frame, the other APS-H) there is nothing that I want to photograph that I cannot photograph. I don't envisage adding to this lot, or disposing of any of it, for many years to come, if ever.<

 

How wrong can you be! I have gotten rid of most of it. Only the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 1.4x extender remain. The hardest thing was deciding whether to keep the 24-70 or the 16-35, but a quick check in LIghtRoom confirmed that the 24-70 would be by far the more useful, especially as it doubles as a Macro lens ... not in the same league as a dedicated Macro, but it does save on weight.

 

The remaining zoom has been joined by two new primes: Sigma 50 f/1.4 DG EX and EOS 135 f/2 L. In my case less is more. I expect that before I am done with photography I will go full circle and end up using a single Prime lens, as I did when I started out over half a century ago.

[JDMvW]

With some bashfulness (I have something like 200+ lenses), I'd just say that your list has a lot of overlap. Too many and too similar from one to the next, as far as I am concerned.

[sami_palta1]

With some bashfulness (I have something like 200+ lenses), I'd just say that your list has a lot of overlap. Too many and too similar from one to the next, as far as I am concerned.

 

Can you be more spesific please !

 

For example ? 70-200 and 100-400 II ?

16-28mm 14-70 mm ?

[JDMvW]

Can you be more spesific please !

 

At the end of the film only era, and before zoom lenses were half-way decent optical quality, most people would have a basic kit for shooting of

 

Wide-angle = ca 28mm

Normal = 45 to 58mm, depending on design

Telephoto = 135mm

 

For portrait and street use an 85mm would be substituted for the 135mm.

 

As zooms became better, the basic kit was often a wide to short telephoto (say 24-105mm) and a circa 100mm to 300mm telezoom.

The focal lengths for APS-C would be adjusted for the smaller format (1.5-6X)