fridrik_skulason

<p>Thanks for the comments, everyone.<br>

<br />Regarding the 17-40, I tried it, but quite frankly, I wasn't too happy with the sharpness below f/8, so that is why I included the 16-35 in my list instead.<br>

Regarding the Sigma 12-24, I didn't include it simply because I had forgotten it existed - however, after reading some reviews of it, I am not too impressed - sure it is wide - the widest of the all, but it seems it makes certain sacrifices in other areas that are more important to me.<br>

Now, there was one point I forgot to mention earlier - the Zeiss 15mm has one advantage the others don't have - it can take a regular filter, and as I did frequently put a circular polarizer on my 10-22 EF-S, this is an argument in favour of the Zeiss - but whether it is worth the cost....well...</p>

<p>Back in March I switched from my old 40D to a sparkling new 5DIII.<br>

I love my new camera - but there is one thing I am missing - a replacement for my old 10-22 EF-S lens.<br>

I have been looking at the available options, and just cannot make up my mind, so I'm looking for some assistance to help me decide.<br>

Here is my situation:<br>

<br />I need a lens for wide angle landscape photography (and just landscape, no architecture). See a typical image below.<br>

I am not overly concerned with minor distortions, but sharpness is critical.<br>

Price is not an issue, but I want to get good value for my money.<br>

AF is convenient, but I am perfectly OK with a MF lens.<br>

The alternatives I have been looking at are:<br>

Canon EF 14 mm f/2.8 L II<br>

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (convenience of having a zoom)<br>

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L (never used a TS-E lens, but it looks like it could open up some interesting possibilities)<br>

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (cheap, but looks like good value for money. Is it sharp enough?)<br>

Zeiss ZE 15mm f/2.8 (extremely sharp, but not yet shipping - and is it overrated?)<br>

Basically, I have some arguments for (and against) all of those lenses, and just wondering I I have missed something that could help me make up my mind.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4087/5002267357_e231d50dc0_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></p>

<p>I got my 5D3 a couple of days ago, however I probably would not have upgraded from a 5D2, but as my old camera was a 40D, this is a significant upgrade for me. I had previously considered the 7D and the 5D2 as upgrades, but decided against those.<br>

The 5D3 ticked just about every box on my wishlist (including as good fps as my 40d, good focus system and much improved low-light performance), so I saw no reason to wait, and ordered it early enough so my preorder got filled in the first batch from Adorama.</p>

<p>I preordered it just after the announcement. I am not a professional photographer by any means - a "semi-advanced amateur" at best, but I shoot a little bit of everything.<br>

My current camera is a 40D, bought in 2008. I have a pretty good collection of lenses (too many of which are expensive L lenses, if you ask my wife), and some would say that those lenses are wasted on the 40D. However, what bothers me most about the 40D is how bad its high-ISO performance is - and that is my primary motivation for upgrading.<br>

Now, I didn't like the 5D2 - it has a significantly better high-ISO performance than my current camera, the fps rate was not high enough for sports, and I was not too thrilled with the focus system.<br>

The 7D was not quite right either - it has the fps and the high-ISO improvement, but considering that I have all those lovely "L" lenses around, I really wanted a FF camera.<br>

So, now Canon introduced the "bastard love child of 7D and 5D2, with a bit of 1DX thrown in", as someone described it, and it just meets my needs perfectly. It has the fps rate I want, very good high-ISO performance, great focus system and is FF - as I said, everything I need. I couldn't care less about the video features, dual cards or some of the other features, but it gives me what I want, so I am happy (or will be, once I get my copy). </p>

<p>Well, I own both ... I like both - but I use them for different things. The f1.2 lens is just about unbeatable for portraits, but it just focuses too slowly to be usable for certain other things - I use the f1.8 lens quite a bit for certain indoor sports - besides, sometimes I just don't want to carry around a big, expensive lens.<br>

So, evaluate your needs and how the lenses can meet them, and get the one that is most suitable ... or get both.</p>

 

<p>Normally I would just have suggested getting a cheap Cactus set - gives you much more flexibility in the long run, but unfortunately, the Nissin is not compatible with that, uh...sorry, I don't have any suggestions for you.</p>

<p>I am new to the world of artificial lighting - more of an outdoor/nature photography guy.<br>

Recently, however, I decided to set up a small "home portrait studio" - one reason being that I have a teenage daughter who loves being in front of the camera - I guess some of you know that situation.<br>

Anyhow, I bought a decent (meaning: good enough for my needs) set of lights, but I am kind-of lost when it comes to the arrangement of the lights .... sure, I have been experimenting, and get decent results, but I need to learn more, and what I am looking for is a good guide (book, or online) that would be suitable for my situation.<br>

What I have is a set of 3 Hensel Contra 500W monolights, tripods, silver umbrella, a couple of white umbrellas, honeycomb, cup/dish, a large softbox and a set of CyberSync transmitter/receivers.<br>

So, where do I go to get some ideas on how to best use my stuff?</p>

<p>I live in Iceland and it can get pretty cold in the wintertime here up in the mountains. The problems I have had with my 40D due to cold seem to fall into two categories - battery life (spare batteries seem to get drained/damaged - I avoid that problem now by keeping them in my shirt pocket), and moisture condensation on lenses (avoided by letting them warm up slowly after coming in from the cold)<br>

What kind of problems has your 400D been giving you?</p>

<p>I have both the 85mm f/1.2 and the f/1.8 lenses - both are excellent, but for different purposes.<br>

Most of the time I use the 1.8 lens - it is lighter and focuses much faster...and the picture quality is excellent - ideal for shooting some indoor sports, for example. However, for portrait work, I prefer the f/1.2 - but only when I am using it wide open.<br>

(The same actually applies to my 50mm lenses - I use the f/1.4 almost all the time, but there are occasions when I switch to my f/1.0 lens - but again, only when I need to use it wide open.)<br>

So, if you expect to need f/1.2 or f/1.4, get the 85mm 1.2 lens - otherwise save some money and get the faster focusing and lighter f/1.8 lens.</p>

<p>Ah...is it possible to enable/disable the extender? In that case this makes sense. OK, ignore my earlier comment.</p>

<p>What I don't quite get: Why not just call it a 280-560 lens, as that is what you get? There is no option to remove the extender, so why should people care that internally it is built like a lens with a (standard) extender.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Personally I would get the Tamron 18-270 instead, for a simple reason - it has IS, and that will make a big difference.<br>

I have that lens myself, and use it on occasions like family trips and such - when I don't want to have to swap lenses, and the ability to get a picture at all is more important than the picture quality, the unreliable focus in low-light situations.<br>

Still, sometimes convenience is more important that quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I own two discontinued EF lenses, but would I recommend them to anyone - well, it depends.<br>

One is the 50mm f/1.0L lens - horrendously slow focus, and the current f/1.2 lens outperforms it in every way, except one - the ability to use f/1.0. In fact, it only makes sense to use this lens wide open, as the 1.2 (or the 1.4 lens for that matter) outperform it in every other way. But, if you really, really need the most outrageous bokeh and the thinnest focus area a 50mm lens can provide, then by all means get this one.<br>

The other is the 200mm f/1.8L lens - which is one of my favourite lenses, but again - only when used wide open, because otherwise other, current lenses will outperform it being lighter, cheaper and/or offering IS. So, again, if you have the need, and you can afford it, yes...get this one - but otherwise just get one of the current lenses.</p>

<p>There is just no way to do this. With the EXIF data gone, you can of course look at the resolution of the picture, but that doesn't tell you anything - first you can resize the pictures, and second, there are P&S cameras which create higher resolution files than the first generation of full frame digital cameras did.<br>

The rule is utterly stupid, but as you said....saying that is not going to help one bit.</p>

<p>I don't really see the problem with people having their own wishlist of what they would like to see in an ideal camera - the thing is, however, that if you ask a 100 photographers you are probably going to get 100 different sets of answers - and there is just no way Canon will ever be able to make a camera that makes everyone happy.<br>

For example, my own "wishlist" looks like this:<br>

1) Full frame - I have too many lenses that I cannot really use to their full potential on my current crop camera.<br>

2) Higher FPS rate than the current 5DII<br>

3) Similar size as the 7D or 5DII - the 1D series is just too big.<br>

4) Better AF system than 5DII has<br>

5) Built in GPS for geotagging.<br>

I couldn't care less about video capability or some of the other features Canon is busy putting into cameras - am I ever going to get my "ideal" camera? Probably not, but perhaps I might get some of my features, which would justify an upgrade for me.<br>

There is nothing wrong with wishing for a specific set of features, but don't blame Canon for "not listening" if you don't get exactly what you want - there are too many others with different wishlists.</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't say the 18-270 was a waste of money, but you need to be aware of its limitations. I own a pretty decent set of lenses (including 8 "L" lenses), but there are times when I will pick my 18-270 over any of the others, namely when the convenience of carrying just a single lens out matters more than the limitations.<br>

The primary limitations are some loss of image quality and slow/unreliable focusing in low-light situations, but if I am for example going down to the beach, in full sun, and I don't want to carry my camera bag with me, but want something better than a cheap point-n-click camera, I have found the 18-270 ideal.</p>

<p>I own plenty of "good" glass (including 8 "L" lenses), but I also own one of the "superzooms" (the Tamron 18-27, to be specific). It was bought for a reason, and there are certainly times where I will use that instead of my "better" lenses.<br>

This basically boils down to the question of when the convenience of using just a single "superzoom" lens is worth more that the difference in picture quality. A typical situation would be something like when I am on a vacation trip, walking along the beach or something, and the primary purpose is not to take pictures...but I still like to be able to.<br>

Sure, the "superzoons" have their limitations - the Tamron is not very good at focusing in low-light situations, for example, but if you are aware of the limitations, there are certainly situations where the convenience of cerrying just one low-weight lens are really worth it .... and in those situations I happily leave my L lenses at home.</p>

<p>C1) Bracketing (3 shots for HDR)<br>

C2) Mirror lockup<br>

C3 B&W</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I would get something like the 10-22 lens (or the less expensive Sigma 10-20), but the only other thing I can think of is if you are interested in low-light photography, you might want to consider a "fast" prime lens, wider than the 50mm one you have - the 30mm f/2.0 or one of the Sigma f/1.8 lenses (20mm, 24mm or 28mm).</p>

 

<p>But what if there are new and (vastly) improved versions of some of your lenses released? Will you feel an urge to upgrade?<br>

Also, do you interests and needs will not change in the future?<br>

I went through my own lens collection last week, and realized I had three lenses I hardly used any more, and one (the 100mm macro), where an upgraded version had been released which would better meet my needs. So, I sold those four, and decided to buy the new 100mm IS macro lens - and well, maybe one or two fast primes as well.<br>

My interests have changed a bit in the past few years, and those changes are reflected in the lenses I use.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Indeed - I have run into several situations where my f/2.8 lenses are just not adequate.<br>

What I will probably do (after having gone through the various reviews (photozone, lensplay, KenRockwell, FredMiranda and the-digital-picture) and considered the above comments) is to replace my current 50mm f/1.8 with the 1.4 version, and get either the 35mm or the 24 f/1.4 as well. <br>

With two /1.4 lenses and my 85mm f/1.8, I think I should be OK.<br>

Thanks, everyone.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Regarding the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, I ignored that as it is crop-only. Would be fine on my 40D, of course, but I'd rather get the 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4 as they would be usable when/if I get a FF camera.<br>

I have read various reviews of the lenses I mentioned above, but it is just not clear to me which one would be the "best" for me</p>

<p>I have a 40D, and a decent set of lenses, suitable for most situations, but lacking in one area.<br>

My backpack usually contains a EF-S 10-22, 24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS (and a 1.4 extender.) - fine for most situations when I go out and don't know beforehand what I will be shooting. I have a few more lenses, which I usually keep at home (like the 100mm macro) or bring along in certain situations (85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports).<br>

However, I have run into limitations regarding low-light situations, music events in <strong>small venues</strong> and street photography in the evenings, so I am considering adding a fast prime lens - wider than my 85mm one.<br>

But which one?<br>

50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 or even one of the f/1.8 primes in the 20-28mm range from Canon or Sigma?</p>

<p> </p>

Is it really comparable? I mean - the Tamron lens is only usable on crop cameras while the canon L lenses are for full frame as well. It makes more sense to compare the Tamron to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS in my opinion.

"...To me that shouts 24-105L..."

 

Yes, that was pretty much my conclusion too, but as I said originally, I was wondering if I was missing something. Thanks for the replies everyone.