klfi

Thanks Neil,

 

Frank, I am getting this lens mainly for stiched panoramas. Not so much for controlling perspective.

 

Kev

Has anyone used this combination. I plan to use the lens with a

cameraquest adapter. I just wnated to make sure there was no problems

with the lens hitting the mirror on 5D or other such issues.

 

Cheers

Kev

Thanks for the link to the castleman site... The 17-40 won in his test. Anyone else with similar observations?

How much is the Leica?

I forgot the 24L-TSE.

Anyone out there compared the various lenses that cover 24-28mm on

full frame. I am looking for the best one for that focal range

stopped down to f/8+ for a 5D or 1DsII. Contrast, colour,

sharpness, flare, CA are important, corner performance is

important. Distortion doesn't bother me as much and I am happy to

remove with PT lens.

 

I have Tamron 17-35Di and 28/1.8USM in that range but haven't tested

them of FF. (I have 10D currently and can't be bothered testing on

film).

 

Others to consider are...

EF 24/2.8, Sigma 24 and 28, 24L, 16-35L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L.

Exotic zeiss etc lenses.

 

Any thoughts? I know they are all quite similar at f/8. I wonder

if any one shines above the rest. Can the 24/2.8 compete with the

L's when stopped down.

 

Cheers,

Kev.

The Kirk website has some pretty good reviews of the BH3. Some of the pros are using it with quite large lenses.

 

The longest lens I will use on mine is a 200/2.8 which is really quite lightweight.

Thanks Mike,

The BH3 is my first choice at the moment too. I'll wait to see what RRS have to offer because I want some of their other stuff too and would rather not double up on shipping costs and customs fees by buying from 2 different vendors.

 

Kev

Why not contact RRS??

 

I'm in Australia. I need to call them between midnight and 8am our time with an international call. I guess I'm just lazy.

 

I thought someone else here may already have the information. I will get round to calling them if I stay up late one weeknight.

 

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Cheers

Kev

Hi,

Has anyone contacted RRS about their new BH40 ball head? It's

supposed to be availabe middle of this year.

 

I'm wondering about price and specs. I'm assuming it will be a

little brother to the BH55 ( a bit like the BH3 is to the kirk BH1).

 

Any news would be appreciated.

 

Cheers

Kevin

Yep. The 28/1.8USM is GREAT!

But I am still curious about the Sigma 30/1.4.

 

From what I hear, the Tamron is also a great lens.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about image quality when deciding between these lenses.

 

What is more important for what you want to shoot. Zoom or f/1.8?

You already have a fast 50mm. For baby shots I would get the 28/1.8.

 

Kev.

Another happy user here although my 28/1.8 is in the Canon hospital after taking joint 5ft fall onto paving attached to my 10D which is recovering on the same ward.

 

The 28/1.8 produces some very pleasing images. Sharpness is not the only image quality that one should consider when assessing a lens although it is probably the easiest to describe and compare.

 

The 28/1.8 is sharper than my tamron 17-35 at all appetures although they are quite close at f8. It has similar images to the 50/1.4 - about the same softness wide open improving as you stop down but not quite as sharp as the 50 if you are looking carefully at 100% pixels. Pretty close though - and the lens looks almost identical to the 50/1.4.

 

For my shooting, the sharpness is more than adequate. There are quite a few options in the wide prime group. 28/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2, the sigmas, the f/1.4L's. I chose the lens for it's build and focus ability which the other reasonably priced lenses lack (the sigma 30/1.4 HSM looks very interesting though).

 

The extra speed and focus ability in low light are extremely useful and the sharpness has never caused me to wish for a different lens. These qualities of the lens are what you pay for and will result in many more keepers than an insignificantly sharper f/2.8 without HSM. I suppose I don't have to preach this to you Brian seeing that you chose the 50/1.4 over the f/1.8 even though they can produce similar sharpness.

 

Sure the 28 f/2.8 is a great lens if you are on a budget but I feel the f/1.8 is worth the extra cash.

Andy,

 

What is your budget?

 

The "best" lens for these dance performances for 10 rows back would probably be the 200mm f/1.8L.

 

Realistically, a 200/2.8, 135/2, 100/2, 85/1.8 would all be great. Depends on the focal length you want. The 70-200IS might be just a little too slow and the IS would not help you freeze action.

 

have fun choosing

 

cheers

Kev

Great lens. Did you see Mike Johnston's review on the photo.net homepage.

 

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column63/

 

The lens is very sharp and nice to use. Really great value. I have just bought a 20/1.8EX prime and 28/1.8USM lens. These are better than the zoom but not by much. In fact, you have to look at 100% magnification very carefully to spot the difference. All of these lenses get better as they are stopped down.

 

Even though the primes are a bit better, I really don't find much difference in real life shots. In fact, I usally have the 17-35 with me as it is more useful. I rarely wish I had my primes unless there is low light. I am happy to use my 17-35 for landscape knowing that with my current skill level, the same shot with the 20mm prime would not be significantly better.

 

The primes are used specifically for indoor group shots and street photography respectively.

 

The 17-35 is a fantastic landscape and walkabout lens. Looking forward to Bob's review.

 

Kev

What about a sigma 30/1.4?

What Boris said. 28/1.8 is a great lens.

Hi Simon, this is a dilemma which took me a while to sort out in my head. <br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00An7O">Here</a> is a thread which helped me decide.<br><br>

 

I ended up getting the 28/1.8USM for the USM, build and filter size. It is definitely useable at f/1.8 and gives a lovely bokeh. Very sharp when stopped down. Beats my Tamron 17-35 at all appertures.<br><br>

 

These lenses excel in low light and that is when USM comes most useful. I rarely use f/1.8 although it is nice to have the lens that is bright for AF.<br>

<br>

Cheers <br>

Kev

I just got my 28/1.8 a couple of days ago. The f2.8 version is supposed to be just as sharp. You will be very pleased with the image quality.

 

I chose the f1.8 for it's build, filter size, and USM - same as why I chose the 50/1.4 USM over the 50/1.8.

 

Good luck with the purchase.

Thanks guys,

Just what I wanted to hear.

 

Unfortunately, I do not get to try most of the lenses I buy. Lenses in Australia are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than I can get them for at B&H online (and that includes shipping and import tax).

 

Bob - I wish there was a shop I could try out lenses at. I live in a small town 5h out of Perth - I've only ever seen one SLR for sale in this town - the canon 3000v with 28-80 kit lens.

Even in perth, most of the shops do not stock many primes. The canon guy at one of the pro shops in perth didn't even know the 200/2.8L existed when I asked him about it (he thought I was talking about the big zoom.)

 

Thanks again guys

Kev

Thanks Mike,

 

Good to hear from someone whose work I admire so much.

 

I've had a feeling for quite a while that the 28/1.8's rep for inferior image quality was mainly rumours.

 

Anyone else with good (or bad) experiences with this lens?

Hi,

 

I'm after a near "normal" FOV of view on my 10D for street scenes.

28mm is a good focal length for me but I could easily get by with

35mm or 24mm which are just a step back or forward from the 28mm FOV.

 

The 28/1.8 USM would go sweetly with my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 and I am

hoping for something with a similar quality.

 

The 28/1.8 is a pretty "unfashionable" lens, when compared to others

like the 28/2.8, 35/2, and 50/1.8. Even the sigma 24/1.8 has a

strong following. It seems to have a bad reputation which stems

from it's photodo rating and couple of bad reviews - there really

aren't too many review out there.

 

On the other hand, I have read a couple of comments from users who

swear by this lens and the samples i've seen on pbase look very

good.

 

I like the idea of this lens - focal length, build, USM, fast

f/1.8. I need to hear from a few more people who use this lens and

can vouch for it's image quality - especially against it's f/2.8

brother, the sigma 24/1.8 and the 35/2. If you have this lens and

like it... please let me know.

 

Cheers

Kev

I have the Tamron and have used 2 different copies of the Canon L. The images are very similar - I wouldn't be able to tell which image was from which lens.

 

Tamron is cheaper and has lighter and faster at f/2.8 although a little soft.

 

I would also consider the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX depending on your camera. It came out after I bought the Tamron and I think it is a better option for 1.6x cameras.

Canon have been good to me too. I sent my 50/1.4 in for repair as there was a distint focus issue with the lens. Canon service department said the AF stepping motor needed replacing for AU$300. I decided not to go ahead with the repair as it was about the same price as my lens cost me. I picked up the lens ready to pay the repair quote fee, however this charged was waived as a gesture of goodwill. As a BONUS, the dismantling and reassembling of the lens has fixed the AF issue!

Hi Geoff,

 

Joe at pbase has an interesting review on his site at

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/sigma_1850__28

 

He has some samples and a direct comparison with his EF 35/1.4L which is an awesome lens. Seems the 18-50 holds up pretty well.

 

I have the Tamron 17-35 which is fantastic. I think it compares well to the 17-40L. Mike Johnston gave it a great review in his SMP column a while back.

 

I have read many good reports about the 18-50. I will be getting one myself soon. I am confident it will give me results as good as my 17-35. It is the same price as the Tamron 17-35 - faster, better range but does not work on full frame.

 

Please post your opinion on the lens once you have got one.

 

Cheers

Kev

Ideally, I would get both the 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L... but more likely I am headed for the 35/2 or Sigma 24/1.8.