trothwell

<p>I largely agree with the initial remarks...<br>

Best: not every shot I took was awesome, because I make mistakes, but I was pretty consistently impressed with the output from the 135/2.<br>

Worst: my first SLR lens, the 18-55 EF-S that came with the Canon 650D in 2005. I did get some perfectly acceptable pictures with it, given ample good lighting, but on the whole the results looked about like what I got from much cheaper point-and-shoot cameras.<br>

But that said: I would guess that half or more of the pictures I've taken on Canon SLR cameras since 2005 have been with a 50/1.4 lens. I've owned a variety of "consumer" and "professional" lenses from 15mm to 300mm (including the much-talked-about 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 zooms), and for what I do, I keep coming back to the 50mm over and over. Obviously, if you need the reach of 300mm, a 50mm lens isn't going to cut it, but the point is, you don't necessarily need a full complement of focal lengths and expensive equipment to do good work.</p>

<p>I've learned a lot about how camera equipment works from Greenspun's articles, and more on topic with this thread, I personally really like his photos. No, they aren't breathtaking Photoshop-enhanced art, but they capture a photographic style that I much enjoy. And personally, as someone who enjoys photography for my own artistic expression rather than for money, I try to take photographs in the same style.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone!<br>

Pete, that was exactly the info I was seeking. Assuming my original link about Canon is correct, I would say Nikon's system might be different enough to make it worth a try.<br>

I tried seeing if my dog would respond to one of those ultrasonic training devices, and she did not seem to notice it at all. Those (from what I can tell) emit a tone around 20kHz, closer to Nikon's alleged autofocus system than Canon's.</p>

<p>My 18-month-old border collie goes bonkers when I use my Canon SLR camera. I have tracked it down to, she must be able to hear the USM focusing, since her odd behavior starts even when she cannot see the camera. I was hoping perhaps Nikon autofocus operates in a significantly different sonic range...</p>

<p>According to this website:<br>

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/usmlens_technology.do<br>

Canon USM lenses operate around a range of 30,000Hz. Does anyone know what the approximate range of Nikon ultrasonic autofocus lenses is? I have not yet been able to enter a search into Google that is turning up the answer.<br>

<br />Thanks!</p>

50mm on a full-frame camera has a field of view of 50mm. On a 1.6 crop camera, it has a field of view of 80mm. Either way, I find it to be a useful focal length, and either of them will give you a wider aperture than the zoom lenses.

 

For the particular lenses that I have owned, I found the 50/1.8 to be a little sharper at wide apertures, and the 50/1.4 has a more pleasant bokeh (out-of-focus blur). To wit, I personally prefer the 50/1.4 overall, but they're both good.

Extremely high quality. I agree that 135mm can be a perplexing focal length, but if you have a use for it -- portraits, indoor sports, whatever -- then this lens is sure to please.

 

You might even find that 135mmis useful to you in unexpected situations. I've used it for photographing flowers and landscapes, with great results. All depends on what you're after. But the lens itself... outstanding.

Another voice in the crowd: I have an EOS-3 and a 5D. Since getting the 5D, I have very rarely used the EOS-3, but I kept it.

 

Why? One reason is the one cited over and over: I'd probably get something like $12.50 for it, and after paying $700 (or whatever it was) it seems more worthwhile to just keep it.

 

Another reason is if I ever want to photograph something such that I don't want to subject my 5D to it -- iffy weather, white-water rafting, toss the camera in the backpack and hope it's okay later -- then I can use the EOS-3. If I destroy it, then no biggie. I'd rather buy a used EOS-3 for $12.50 that another 5D for $2000.

On a 1.6x crop camera, pretty often. I no longer have such a camera, but probably used the 50mm lens 1/3 of the time or so, maybe more. It was a little long, but had good image quality and was fast.

 

On a full-frame camera, a 50mm is definitely my most used lens. If I could only have one lens, there's no doubt in my mind it would be a 50mm.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary. :-)

In my opinion, while the 70-200/2.8 is good, the 135/2 is noticeably better. Much of the time, I am quite impressed with photos straight off the camera, taken with the 135, while photos with the 70-200 just look "fine". Not bad, certainly better than a cheap zoom, but the 135/2 just brings something special to the mix.

Wow. I didn't see that one coming at all. I'm kind of an ultra-wide fanatic, so I'm excited, but I didn't think that enough people really wanted anything past 16mm to warrant a new version of this...!

This was with a 17-40 lens, full-frame camera... don't recall what focal length along the range.

I love photography. I've collected a pretty nice set of equipment, and enjoy

taking pictures as often as I can. Friends, family, and acquaintances seem to

think I do pretty well. Eventually I was asked to photograph a wedding. I had

about six months to prepare, and in the end, with the assistance of someone who

had done a couple weddings, I think it came out all right.

 

<p>

Even so, it was clear to me that just because I knew how to use the equipment

and enjoyed taking pictures, wedding photography was a whole different kettle

of fish, and wrote down some of my thoughts along those lines:

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/writing/wedding-

photography">www.trevisrothwell.com/writing/wedding-photography</a>

 

<p>

Just sharing. :-)

http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20070526-chris-and-lori

 

Another ring-bearing dog. It actually worked just fine, and was a lot of fun.

I just did my first (and quite possibly last) wedding this past weekend. (I think I prefer photography as a semi-serious hobby rather than a very-serious business with paying clients, but that's just me... anyway, I digress.)

 

I love the 135/2 lens. It gets beautiful results. I brought it with me to the wedding, along with a bunch of other lenses. My most used lens? The 70-200/2.8. I don't find the images with the 70-200 as brilliant as those with the 135, but the convenience of being able to quickly move 130 millimeters outweighed the beauty of the 135.

 

I would definitely go with the 70-200/2.8 IS in your situation, and try to get the 135/2 later on if you can, for those less fast-paced moments.

I personally think your enthusiasm would be more hindered by the 18-55 "kit" lens than by the 30mm prime. My first journey into SLR photography was just a couple of years ago, with the RebelXT and the 18-55 lens. My initial impression? Cool camera, but the image results were only marginally better than what I got with my point-and-shoot camera.

 

I was sufficiently determined to buy some more lenses until I found the sort of image quality I was after, but in retrospect, the only real value I found in the kit lens was what has already been described here -- I got a feel for what different focal lengths were like.

 

Of course, your experience may vary.

With the 1.6 crop, I would think the 28mm would be better for street use, though I've used a 50mm on a RebelXT with fine results. Just different field of view.

 

Either way, I would say yes. I have the 24-70 on a 5D (comparable to your setup), and still use the 50/1.4 more frequently. I like the smallness and wider aperture.

I have used the 20mm on both full-frame and crop cameras. The results don't amaze me like the 135/2L, and there is definitely some light falloff (or whatever the proper term is) at wide apertures, but on the whole it's pretty good and I'm happy with it.

 

http://www.trevisrothwell.com/writing/canon-20-2.8

If you know you'll be needing to shoot in low-light often, I would suggest you spring for the 16-35/2.8, even if you need to wait a bit to save up for it. I have the 17-40 -- it works GREAT on a 5D, although I really do miss that extra stop when indoors. Yeah, yeah, higher ISO setting... that helps a lot, but an extra stop is still useful.

I've been happy with Canon's 20mm/2.8 lens, although I know some folks seem to think it's the pits...

 

http://www.trevisrothwell.com/writing/canon-20-2.8

I have the Canon 70-200/2.8. It's a fine lens, and while I have no intention of getting rid of it, I find I _mostly_ use it right around 200mm, and could probably get by nearly as well with the smaller, lighter, less expensive 200/2.8 prime.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Sorry, Bob, no complaints intended.

This would add complication, but I'd be curious to take a a step further. Of the respondents, how many ?...

 

- EF-S lenses were bad?

- L-series lenses were bad?

- Standard (non-"L") EF lenses were bad?

 

Might give some hint as to more precisely where quality control might be deficient, if there is such a statistic to be had. It's obvious that less of SOMETHING goes into the 24-85 zoom compared to the 24-70 L zoom, but does that SOMETHING include QC?

In terms of image quality, this is the finest lens I own. It's great. Wonderful color, contrast, sharpness, bokeh...

<p>

It would certainly give you excellent results for basketball, provided you can get close enough. If you are right on the sidelines, and especially if you are using a crop camera (like the 30D), you'll probably be fine.

<p>

I bought mine to use for an indoor flyball competition (a dog race sort of thing), where I needed a moderate telephoto focal length and as fast of an aperture as possible, as the dogs run very quickly. I have since used it for portraits (both dog and human) and flowers, mostly. Beautiful results all around.

<p>

My only "dislike" is that 135mm isn't the most useful focal length for me. I usually shoot wider. But this is certainly not the fault of the lens; as others here have said, if 135mm is what you need, the 135/2L is sure to be a delight.

 

<p>

Related links::

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/writing/canon-135-2">My informal review of the lens</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4488403">Photo with 135/2</a> (click "Larger" to examine the detail)</li>

</ul>

The faster (2.8) lens will let you "freeze the action" better than the slower (4) lens. If you are photographing folks and/or discs in motion, the the image stabilization won't help a whole lot, while the faster aperture would. For this particular application, I would recommend the 2.8 lens.

 

A teleconverter is a little device that you can put in between the lens and the camera, which magnifies what you see through the lens. It also reduces the maximum aperture, making the lens effectively slower.