damian_rees

<p>If both were exactly the same price which would you choose for a crop sensor? I really love my primes and the new 24mm fits my needs rather well but there are very few reviews. I like what I read but I'm a little cautious especially as much of the feedback suggests its too expensive for what you get. <br>

So the other lens I've had my eye on for a while is the 10-22mm. Obviously these are different lenses, but my concern here is that I want a good wide walk around lens and I'm worried this might be too wide and of course its not a prime. The added dilemma is that should I take the step up to a full frame, this one wouldn't come with me.<br>

So what I'm after is a high quality wide lens for a crop body. I can't afford an L and I don't want to go higher than 28mm really.<br>

What would you buy?</p>

<p>Thanks for responses. I guess I should have been clearer. I'm after a light and portable lens, ideally a prime to give me a wide(ish) frame as the widest I have is 50mm on a crop body (not really wide at all). So suggestions for 17-55 or 15-85 don't really fit the light and portable criteria.</p>

<p>I'm getting quite confused with choosing a good lens fit for my requirements:<br>

- portable and light<br>

- sharp, good image quality<br>

- good in low light<br>

- wide (ish)</p>

<p>I say wide ish because I have a crop body which limits my choices somewhat anyway, but essentially the lowest prime I have is 50 mm. I do love my primes, so I'm looking for something wider for everyday & wider situations.<br>

I've been looking at the 28mm 1.8 and the 10-22mm as options. Obviously there is a price variation there but both seem good lenses. I was a little worried the 28mm isn't wide enough compared to the 50mm.<br>

Any suggestions between these two or others I should consider?</p>

 

Thanks for the responses. So what are my options if there is something wrong with this lens? Not had to send anything to

canon or anyone else before

So I've had this lens for nearly 2 years now. It was the first investment I made in a quality lens. Since that time I've got a few more lenses

and I've been wowed by them I.e. 85mm, and the 125mm. The 17-55mm has never had that effect on me.

 

I read reviews even now of people saying how good this lens is, but I find the shots I take with it lack sharpness, particularly in the middle

of the lens. I've tried a variety of different settings and also different camera bodies with the same results.

 

So as far as I can tell these are the conclusions:

1) I'm setting my expectations too high for this lens

2) I have a dud one

3) All my other lenses are Prime so I'm not comparing apples with apples

4) I'm doing something wrong

 

My feeling at the moment is to get rid and replace with something like the 10-22 mm to give me something wide as I already have a

50mm prime for that range. But before I get rid of this lens I want to gather opinion on whether I can do anything to rectify it

<p>Ok, so I've booked a studio. I have a canon 60d and some good lenses. But I've never used a studio before<br /> My girlfriend has kindly agreed to model for me, so I want to use the session as a learning experience and also I have a few shots in mind I want to get.<br /> <br /> However, I realise I have no idea how to set up lights, how triggering works or anything. I guess I've jumped in assuming I'd pick it up but now I realise there's a whole bunch of stuff I need to learn and its quite overwhelming<br>

<br /> Can you guys help me out with the absolute basics so I can grow from there. Perhaps point me in the direction of a tutorial, or maybe explain them on here?<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance</p>

Thanks for all the great advice. Thinking about what I can't do atbthe moment that I'd like to be able to do is to have a

longer zoom (but I don't think that too often) and to get much closer to the subject. So answering that question

suggests that maybe the 100mm macro might be a good shout. Trouble is I can't quite afford that, so maybe the

60mm macro.

 

Although I would really like the 50mm prime I think what people have said here I probably don't really need it.

I have a 60d and both of the above lenses. I'm thinking of an additional lens to add to my kit and I keep looking at the 50mm 1.4

longingly. The extra portability and the even lower light capability is attractive, but I then worry that I already have the 50mm covered

with the 17-55 and wonder if another lens may be a better fit to complete my range.

 

Am I over thinking things here? What would you do?

<p>Looking at the dimensions. My 400D with the 17-55 and hood on measures 23.5 cm, but external dimensions say the height of the 4 million dollar is 21cm and width 20.5cm. Which suggests it wont fit</p>

<p>The 5 million dollar's external height is 22cm and width 24.5cm. Not sure what the internal dimensions are. This would suggest I might get it all in width ways in the 5 million assuming I can move around the internal compartments but this may mean I can't get in my other stuff.</p>

<p>Anyone have the same bag? can you confirm the internal dimensions? and if you can move the padded compartments? Could you post pics of your bag?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Thanks all for your wise advice. Think I'll hang on to my cash for a while and save for the 85mm 1.8 instead. It offers the portability with an additional aspect I don't already have with my 17-55 and by all accounts it looks like its a great performing lens for more than just portraits.</p>

<p>Strategically as Dan suggests, this will give me more versatility to grow my collection before investing in a bigger zoom later down the line</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the great advice</p>

<p>Wow, what started as a simple innocent question really has stirred a hornets nest eh? :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No one's asked which body your using</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm using a 400D</p>

<p>I guess I'm still drawn to the 50mm because of the portability aspect, but I am having second thoughts based on the advice offered here. Saving for another lens which offers me something different is a good idea but I think the Mrs will flip after spending so much on the 17-55mm. I have some cash left over which will just about cover the 50mm but funds run dry for a while after that.</p>

<p>As I'm still in the early phases of my photography and I'm still very much learning and experimenting I wanted to use the cash to give me something else to experiment with but for that budget there's not much to consider apart from some filters or perhaps a close up attachment. While the 50 doesn't necessarily offer me anything different it may encourage me to take my camera places I wouldn't with the 17-55. </p>

<p>Hi, I'm very keen on the Crumplers. I've had them before for laptops and point and shoots and have always liked their quality. I also like that they are not obviously camera bags</p>

<p>Unfortunately its not too easy to find a store in the UK who stock them. Ideally I need to take my kit and see which fits best, instead I have to rely on the internet and advice from people who already own them. Thats where you come in :)</p>

<p>What I'd like to include in my bag:</p>

<p>Canon 400D with 17-55mm mounted and lens hood attached (not reversed ideally)<br>

Plus another compartment for odds and ends i.e. extra battery, possibly the 50mm 1.8, lens cleaning stuff but not much more</p>

<p>I've had my eye on various bags like the muffin tops and the million dollar home bags but I'm not sure which one would be a good fit for the equipment above. I want to avoid ordering one form the internet only to find its too small, but equally I don't want to pay more for a bag that's too big. Anyone have a bag which would fit nicely?</p>

<p>I have the 17-55mm 2.8 and I love it. Before getting it I had read so many positives about the 50mm 1.8 that I was determined to get it afterwards. But I'm wondering if it really will offer me much more than I already have with the 17-55. Obviously there is a weight and potability difference, but aside from that will it offer me anything significantly different from my current lens?</p>

<p>Thanks for all your help. I am less confused but I'm still struggling to make a choice, but I have narrowed my choice to 3 at least:</p>

<p><br /> As I said, my main areas of photography are landscape, architecture, street scenes and portraits. I am looking to sell my 18-55 and get a replacement in that sort of range. Essentially I want a good solid versatile walk around lens that will not leave my camera. I can get specialist lenses to cover other ranges at a later date so this is the one I'd like to spend the money on now that will keep me content for a couple of years to come.</p>

<p>So, I have narrowed to 3 choices and I'm struggling to make a call between them. I was hoping you might be able to help:</p>

<p>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1755EFS/index.shtml">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1755EFS/index.shtml</a><br /> Has a wide-ish capability for landscapes with the cropping of my sensor and also allows for lower light shooting at smaller DOFs which is quite attractive. It is a bit short on the other end though</p>

<p>The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon24105mmL_with_400D_XTi/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon24105mmL_with_400D_XTi/</a><br /> It's an L lens which is attractive and has some excellent reviews. Not quite as wide but quite long. A great all rounder by the looks of it and a very strong contender for a walk around lens</p>

<p>The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EF-S_15-85mm_IS_USM/">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EF-S_15-85mm_IS_USM/</a><br /> Another good quality lens which falls somewhere between the two above. It gives the width and the length, but something is stopping me from making this my top choice</p>

<p>Thank you all again for your help. You guys rock! :)<br>

<br />But just so I am clear, because I'm struggling to fully keep up. The 17-85mm IS will give me a good all rounder lens which is a significant improvement on my EF-S 18-55mm IS. It will give me a wide-ish lens due to a 1.6 sensor.</p>

<p>The reason I might not choose the slighly more expensive but L range 24-105 lens is because with the cropping its actually not a wide angle lens and therefore not so great for landscapes or architecture.</p>

<p>And finally, the 17-85mm is a good lens for portraits etc. and is a better performer than the EF 28-135mm IS</p>

<p>Is that right?</p>

<p>Thank you. Could you explain or point me to something that explains the crop factor or 1.6 that I have seen mentioned and how this effects the choice of a wider angle lens?<br>

I do have the EF 18-55mm IS lens at the moment, the new lens I buy will replace this and hopefully give me sharper images with a bit more versatility</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all your advice. I think there are some excellent points here which make me question my choice of lens in the first place, so I set up a different thread here to focus more on the <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Xo7D">actual choice of lens</a>:</p>

 

<p>Thanks to the fantastic advice I received in a previous thread, I decided to go back to the drawing board and really carefully re-consider my choice of lens. So I'm back with a new question.<br>

If I want to shoot landscapes, architecture, street scenes and portraits is there a good single all rounder lens I should consider? I think my previous selection of the 70 - 200mm was incorrect and perhaps I should be looking more in the range of 24 - 105 or 28 - 135.<br>

I have an EOS 400D and I have to say I am quite confused :) I have around £500/$800 in my budget.<br>

So, I'm now looking instead at the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens (which is just above my budget), or the Canon EF - 28 mm - 135 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (just below my budget)<br>

Is this the right sort of lens choice for me? Do you have any recommendations based on my requirements?</p>

<h1 ><strong><br /></strong></h1>

<h1 ><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6/dp/B00006I53S/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"><br /></a></h1>

<p>Thank you for all your advice. The 70-300 is this the canon model?<br>

While we are talking of alternatives, can anyone suggest a lens capable of rivaling the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM that doesn't cost quite as much? Perhaps a solid third party alternative?</p>

<p>Hi All<br /> <br />I'm still a relative beginner when it comes to photography, but I'd like to step up and take my photography more seriously so I have decided that with a recent bonus from work I will invest in a new lens and I've had my eye on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. I am a bit of an all rounder and like to take lots of handheld shots, but I also enjoy taking a tripod out and shooting architecture and landscape too.</p>

<p>I can afford the £500 for the lens just. But then I look at the IS version of the lens and see that a lot of people say to save up for longer and get that instead. It is however another £350 which is a hell of a lot of money. So my question is whether I will find the non-IS version is just not quite right. But to be honest I am nervous of spending £850 on what is essentially a hobby.</p>

<p>Can anyone offer any advice on whether the non-IS version is likely to be good enough for me?<br /> <br />Thanks</p>

Thanks David, I appreciate the note of caution on this. In this example with people with boxes on their heads please eductae me on what would constitute copyright infringement and would wouldn't. As discussed above we are attached to the idea of box heads, but thats pretty much it. Having green, white and grey in the shot would be nice as it goes with the rest of our brand, but this is a nice to have.

 

Just to be clear, in my orignal post I was hoping that someone would provide me an approximate quote for an orignal piece of work which touches on this concept and not for someone to 'rip-off' the work.

I've just started up a business and have designed my own website. Trouble is, I

bought the main image on the site from istockphoto and am seeing it pop up

everywhere, but we have gone on to use the concept quite a bit and are now

attached to it.

 

So, I need someone to create an orignal version of people with boxes on their

heads - see this for what I'm talking about : www.experiencesolutions.co.uk

 

As I start up I'm very short of money so I wanted to see what sort of ballpark

I'm looking at before I start worrying about how to get it for less somewhere

else

 

Also, can anyone advise on how best to find a photographer? I'm assuming

distance shouldn't matter with a shoot like this?