anthony_hicks

<i>"Barrel distortion is only important on websites that show pictures of brick walls."</i>

<p>

You obviously don't take landscapes with tall buildings or chimneys etc in the shot!

<p>

Having said that, barrel distortion isn't exactly a problem on my 50/1.8 (unlike my 24-105L at the wider end, where I notice it all too frequently).

The 17-55/2.8IS comes close... presuming of course that you are using a 1.6x crop camera. I guess Canon might yet add IS to the 24-70/2.8, but IMHO that lens is heavy enough and expensive enough already!

I used to own a 20-35. I found it a good performer without being outstanding, i.e. a typical good value mid-price zoom. I recently used a friend's 17-40L for a few shots, and whilst I didn't get the chance to evaluate it fully, it was definitely sharper than my 20-35 was. Considering this and the handy extra focal length range, I would say the upgrade is worthwhile. For an L zoom, its nicely compact too.

In that case Juliet, I would second Travis's suggestion of a 135/2L.

 

BTW its a lens not a lense :o)

<i>"Maybe I should just get a 2x Teleconverter for the 70-200 which gets me 400mm reach and go with that for now."</i>

<p>

That does seem logical - and still faster than the Sigma at the long end. Also, a 2x converter would take up minimal extra weight/space in your bag. I'm not sure I'd want to lug around a 24-70/70-200/100-400 combo at the same time :o)

Josue, I've done a bit of gig photography, firstly using a 10D and more recently a 400D (the same camera as your XTi). The lens I use most is the humble 50/1.8, with the camera set at 800 or 1600 iso. I suggest you try this first before shelling out on more expensive gear.

Stephane, I should have said "best of an <i>otherwise</i> mediocre bunch". I find the 28/2.8 ok, but nothing more than that, and not really a "must-have prime recommendation" that is the subject of this thread. Its sharpness away from the centre is simply better than the main alternatives, the 28/1.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4, but thats all.

<p>

I just get a bit baffled at generalised comments that it "doesn't matter" if lenses are not sharp away from the centre. That might well be the case if, for example, you only take portraits, where I guess only the centre sharpness really matters. But remember different people take different subject matter, and have different requirements. Personally I prefer to have my shots sharp right across the frame. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this point too. :o)

<i>

"I have the 28/2.8. That lens is much maligned because the extreme corners on full frame are soft. They are indeed. So what? For 99% of pictures it does not matter."

</i>

<p>

Maybe it does not matter to you. It does to me. I occasionally use one as a 'standard' lens on my 400D when I have to, not because its a great lens, but because I find it to be the best of a mediocre bunch at that focal length.

Harry, I would suggest an 85/1.8 or a 100/2. Both get great reviews - I opted for the 85 and its fab.

Will, I swapped from Mamiya gear to a Pentax 645Nii 3 years ago and have not looked back. I can strongly recommend this camera - it handles superbly, the viewfinder is big and bright, the autofocusing is spot on, and the 4 lenses I have are all superb. Regarding the difference between the 645N and the 645Nii, the latter also has a back that can be switched between 15 and 16 frames for photographers like me who take a while to finish a film (do a quick search on film flatness). The back is not changeable, but as I live on Provia 100F all the time that doesn't bother me. The prism is fixed.

 

The Pentax 67 is also a fine camera, but is substantially bigger and heavier. I know several photographers who used it, however all but one of them have swapped to 645 or full frame digital as they found the larger frame size did not justify the extra size and weight.

Another vote for the Pentax. I have had a 645Nii for three years and it is a superb camera in every way, far better than the Mamiyas I used before. I use the 75, 80-160 and 200mm (all AF) and the 55mm (MF) lenses and all are first rate. The camera has been 100% reliable and autofocus is accurate. I cannot speak for its flash capability though because I have never taken a flash shot with it.

Witold, I presume you are referring to the original P645 only. It obviously isn't a myth on the 645N with its 16 frame set up, otherwise Pentax wouldn't refer to it as a known issue, and wouldn't have added a switchable 15-16 frame custom function on the Nii.

 

It all depends how you shoot - a wedding photographer who gets through a film in a matter of minutes is unlikely to ever experience the problem. I do not know anyone with a P645N, but I have seen this problem on other 645 cameras, especially a friend's Mamiya 645AFD where the affected frames were only fit for the bin. Like him, I shoot selectively and a film can be in my P645Nii for weeks, so mine is permanently set to 15 frames.

I'm with Sinh and Paulo on this one.

 

Keith - if you can show me a 1DS at the same price level as a 5D, I'd buy one today! ;-)

Another vote for the Canon 70-210/3.5-4.5. I bought mine in 1990 when it first came out, and although other lenses in my collection come and go, I would never sell this one because it is sharp, focuses fast, and weighs little. Its a shame Canon seems to have largely forgotten how to make mid-price range lenses of this quality.

<i>"24-90mm F2.8 IS"

<p>

</i>might be a bit heavy...

<i>"31mm F1.8 Micro USM (the new budget 'normal')"

<p>

"31mm F1.4 Ring USM non-IS/IS"

</i>

<p>

YES!

I guess it comes down to personal preference. I went for the 55mm and I'm really happy with my choice. The fact it is manual focus doesn't bother me at all, I don't feel I need AF for travel/landscapes.

I used to have the Tamron. It is a great lens, but is let down by its focusing, which is nowhere near Canon USM standards in terms of speed, noise or first time accuracy. I sold mine and bought the 24-105L you already have. For portraits I recently bought the 85/1.8.

The Sigma is a mighty fine lens, I used to own one. But 200mm can be a bit short for wildlife.

Shouts 70-300IS to me.

I have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 and I'm happy with both. If I had to make the choice of one or the other, I would go for the 50mm because on a 1.6x crop it gives the 'classic' 80mm portrait lens length.

A 15mm lens is a lot more difficult and therefore more expensive to make than, for example, a 28mm or 35mm lens. Buy a Canon 10-22 and be happy - as pointed out above, its still cheaper than upgrading to a 5D.

Agreed those are great resolution figures, but there is far more to a good lens than just this aspect. Personally I wouldnt be happy with that amount of barrel distortion and vignetting. Still encouraging to see an improvement to the original kit lens though.

</b>I used to own the Sigma. Contrary to the other Anthony above, I found the IQ to be superb, and the equal of my friend's Canon 70-200/2.8. It had no IS though...

Crazy indeed, but it proves there is still demand for an affordable standard lens with decent build quality. Canon take note.