ken munn

<p>I too have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Actually on my 40D at the moment. It's f2.8 all the way through the zoom range. The on-lens typography describes it as:<br>

Sigma DC 18-50mm 1:2.8 EX Macro.<br>

If that's the lens the OP has, it should go to f2.8 throughout.</p>

I tested both, couldn't see any meaningful difference, and bought the Sigma.

An example, at 10mm, here:

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7031114-lg.jpg

Best bet might be the Canon 70-200 f4, with optional tripod ring. An off-the wall suggestion;

Sigma's 180 f3.5 macro, complete with tripod ring.

Boring bird, boring background, boring light, but there's not much wrong with the exposure -

maybe a half stop over - nothing that couldn't be put right in RAW in about 5 seconds.

I had a trip to Rajahstan earlier this year. My 'standard' zoom is f2.8, and I was glad of it because quite a

lot of the charm of architecture there is the interiors, and they are not brightly

lit - the priority was to keep the sun out, not let it in. However, 50mm would be long for interior

shots - perhaps you could look at a 20 or 28mm f2.8?. The longest lens I had (on a 40D) was

105mm but it was used very infrequently - I could have got by with just an ultra-wide zoom and

a standard zoom, and not missed much that I wanted to photograph.

Just bought a used 350D with a new 18-55 IS lens as a first DSLR for a member of my family, and it'll be

going on a low-rent trip around South America. I'd like to add a short(ish), light, cheap tele-zoom. Don't

mind buying used or third party. IQ should be reasonably good, but I'm not expecting pin sharp at 1000

feet.

I've discounted (well, not entirely) the 28-105 from Canon as having too much overlap with the standard

zoom, and not going quite long enough, and the 28-135 for much the same reason. Sigma has a 55-

200mm f/4-5.6 DC / HSM which is moderately priced - anyone know what it's like? Have any other 3rd

parties got anything similar.

Your suggestions welcomed, but please no L lenses, or manual lenses with adaptors, or a range of primes.

Seems to me he is lambasting the digital Leica, which is something that many Leica fans have

also done. However, he gives praise to 35mm Leicas, which have helped him earn his living

over many years.

The lesson would seem to be that Canon (et al) have embraced digital technology and

perfected it, whilst Leica has only just made the move from film, and is still on a steep learning

curve.

My inclination would be to stick with a crop body and benefit from the 1.6 x 'magnification'

factor that gives your lenses - thus a 300mmm becomes the equivalent of a 480mm on a full

frame body, but costs you considerably less (and is much more portable) than a 500mm lens

would be.

The best of the crop bodies at the moment is the 40D. Only if you want to produce really big

blowups would I suggest going for the ID Mk111, where the extra pixels will make a difference.

OP says:

1. I need an ultra wide lens to complement a Canon 24-105 on a 40D.

2. I guess I really don't need to be ultra wide,

I guess he's entitled to change his mind.

You need a fast, wide lens. Not cheap. Best for you might be the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

Can the business buy it for you?

If I were you I'd seriously miss the wide end, and would suggest getting a 'standard' zoom for

the camera. This would be either the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (expensive but very very good) or

the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (much cheaper and very good). I'd live with that lens for a few

weeks before deciding what else I needed.

Are you sure the lens is broken? Many photographers put a separate detachable filter of clear

glass on the front of the lens. Generally these have a slightly roughened front edge to the

mount, and will have an inscription around the side with the filter maker's name. If this is the

case, then the filter can be easily unscrewed, and replaced.

I shot some interior natural light portraits at the weekend at ISO 800 and f 2.8 on a 40D and I

simply can't see any noise. Most impressed.

That's not softness, that's out-of-focus (and movement blur on the leaves). You're asking

more of the lens than physics will allow.

If you want shots like this that are sharp front to back you'll have to shoot at smaller apertures

and work out hyperfocal distances.

Alessandro,

In my view the two lenses are so dissimilar in application that making a comparison

between them is pretty meaningless.

I'd say the 85mm f1.2 is a very specialist tool, ideally suited to full-frame posed portraiture

unless used at smaller apertures when, frankly, you might as well start off by buying the

85mm f1.8.

The 70-200mm f2.8 is an excellent medium-to-long general purpose lens which has an

enviable reputation in a whole range of photographic situations.

If you need the 85mm f1.2, it will be to meet very specific needs, and you'll know exactly

why it has to be that lens and no other.

On the other hand the 70-200 lens (in whichever of its manifestations) is a lens that most

photographers could use for a high percentage of their photographic time, in a variety of

situations.

Older Sigma lens often won't work on newer Canon bodies - it's to do with changes Canon

has made to the electronic interface since the Sigmas were designed. Contact your local

Sigma office and ask if the lenses can be rechipped. You may be in luck.

Arie, at 28mm on a crop box (45mm full frame eq) Teresa might struggle to get everyone in on

the classic wedding group shots.

I'd second the suggestion of a 17/18-50/55 f2.8 lens as the main weapon in your armoury.

These are available from Canon and the third party manufacturers. It will be wide enough for

group shots, and long enough for head and shoulder portraits. At f2.8 it is fast enough to

allow you to work in most interiors without flash. However, adding a flash unit like the 430EX

or the 580EX might be a better investment than another lens.

I love the 50mm length on a crop box, for portraiture. I also enjoy manual focus in portraits

so that you make sure the part of the sitter YOU want is in focus. I don't enjoy manually

focusing the 50 f1.8. All I'd do, in your shoes, is trade up to the 50mm f1.4.

Simple.

But, if you're into candid portraits you could use something longer. Stand up the 70-200

f2.8, whether from Canon or a third party. For candid work, a third party lens may be better, because it won't be attention-grabbing white.

Looking at its levels shows that it is underexposed.

Tweaking levels improves things somewhat, and adding a touch of saturation and sharpening

does a bit more. In truth, though, it's not an inspiring scene.

RAW shots let you do a lot of work on manipulating the image very easily - it would be good

for you to get hold of a book on RAW to find out how to optimise shots at taking time in order

to make the most of them later.<div></div>

You'll have guessed that those of us who hang stuff on walls think your requirements are a

little elementary.

But on the assumption that you too might become a wall hanger one day, I'd say the 5D and

the 17-40 were the better bet. Stuff that the 40D does well, like high frame rate and

telephoto-multiplication don't matter for landscapes, whereas IQ does (when you get to wall

hanging) and the 5D/17-40 seems to win that contest.

Yes there is a big difference.

Next question - is there much difference (except price) between the f1.2 and the f1.4. Not in

dof terms, no. Quality? I'll leave someone else to comment as the only 50 f1.2 I've seen has

been in a shop window..