Canon DSLR Lenses
Submitted by jay_burgess on Wed, 2011-07-13 06:31
Depending on how generous the tax man is with my return I'm thinking of finally upgrading my Canon 1000D with something a bit more proffessional. Probably going to get the 7D for it's 8fps shooting capailities. Just after suggestions on what lense/s would be good for it from a fishing perspective (98% of my camera use is fishing related).. was thinking a 18-200mm might be suitable for now and later on I would like to get a wide angle. Any suggestions?
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
I would look to the 70-200
I would look to the 70-200 F2.8 EF if I were looking at something up to the 200 range. Then look at a 14mm F2.8 EF for your wide angle std shots. Both lenses will do wonders for you. Then I might get a 50mm F1.4 EF as one to leave on the camera for other things.
Not sure this helps but hey its what I would buy...if I had a canon 5D or 7D
alfred
Posts: 3097
Date Joined: 12/01/07
Have to agree with your
Have to agree with your choices there.
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
The 5d and 7d have different
The 5d and 7d have different sensor sizes though. I'd agree with the choices for the 5d, but not as much for the 7d. The 14 2.8 is a lot of money for something thats not that wide on a APSC sensor. (Full frame is a different story).
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
I always wondered about
I always wondered about this. I noticed when I looked at UWA lenses before that most L series UWA lenses (which I assume are designed more for FF cameras) had a focal length around 14-16mm and I figured this wouldn't really be that wide on a APSC image sensor. I take it wouldn't be very practical using an L series UWA on a 7D and be better off going for something around 10-12mm?
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
There arent any L lenses (or
There arent any L lenses (or non-macro primes :s) specifically for EF-s (Though some lenses are close) so all others are designed for FF. A lot are good on crop, but UWA's just get turned into WA's. Think of it as the same design, but a different end purpose. At 15mm, it corresponds to a FOV of a 24mm equivalent lens on FF, which is about the standard wide angle for most zooms (24 on FF, 17 on crop). Take any consumer compact camera or DSLR with a kit lens and you practically always start off at this range. So the L series UWA are quite practical on something like the 7D and great lenses, but only as WA's, not UWA's. So a UWA is the one situation where you really NEED a crop specific lens. Whether you need a UWA is a different question ;) Better off depends on your wants/needs. Simple question though: do you want a UWA or is WA fine?
I love mine, it takes great photos and you can get some really interesting perspectives. So I would strongly recommend a proper UWA. 10-22 canon, 10-20 sigma or 11-16 tokina. I went the 10-22 after a lot of deliberation/research/test shooting. My most expensive lens but I dont regret it one bit!
Remember: UWA's arent just for 'fitting things in'. Ken Rockwell is a bit of a ummm, self important tool? But he does write some interesting articles: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
Brad S
Posts: 39
Date Joined: 28/05/11
Lense
Talking to a mate at work he thinks the Cannon 10-22 EFS Wide angle lense would be the go.
Myself dont have alot of knowledge on this but if you have any other question you want me to ask him fire away.
Cheers Stevo
jeremy-j
Posts: 336
Date Joined: 31/08/09
I agree also on the 10-22
I agree also on the 10-22 lens. When i get back from the states ill be purchasing one for myself.
The 5d is my next upgrade however i dont think it has the same FPS as the 7d.
timvb
Posts: 88
Date Joined: 07/07/10
Get yourself a 50mm F1.8 -
Get yourself a 50mm F1.8 - will cost you around $100 and by far the best bang for your buck. I've bought a fair bit of stuff online, typically saved at least 40% off retail price (make sure you don't go over the magic $1000k mark to avoid import duty). The site I've used most is: dwidigitalcameras.com.au
Cheers,
Tim.
wazzbat
Posts: 977
Date Joined: 19/01/10
Any problems with DWI? I'm
Any problems with DWI? I'm thinking of getting a D5100 from them?
I fish for the future - Cause I can't bloody catch anything!
tailor marc
Posts: 2979
Date Joined: 27/09/06
Yeah 10-22 is killa but i
Yeah 10-22 is killa but i found 22mm wasnt to "zoomed in enough. I sold it to fund the 17-55 is usm. Image stableized with L series glass, such a killa lens. I have to admit i miss the 10-22 for wideness but i make up for it doing panoramas. Highly recomend the 17-55 f2.8.
The zoom lens i had was really good 70-300. Sold that and im saving for 100-400 L
My photography pictures... http://westernhorizonsmedia.wordpress.com/
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Hence why its a UWA..... ;)I
Hence why its a UWA..... ;)
I practically only ever use mine at 10mm anyways. At 22 its still fine for fish shots on boats though (30 gets a little cramped but is managable). I'd much rather something that can go to 10 than a prime in the middle. Keep in mind, UWA's are not just for 'fitting more stuff in'. They allow you to get super close to things which can give you interesting angles and proportions.
I would recommend a 70-200 F4 IS over a 70-200 F2.8 in this case. IS is useful when you're handholding (like on a rocking boat) and its a fair bit lighter. Chances are you wont need the extra stop of light anyways (IS gives you 3-4 btw). 2.8 gives you the option of a shallower DOF, but jumping billies you might not want to shoot wide open anyways. Of course, a 70-200 F2.8 IS II would be even nicer ;) (but still, remember they're big and heavy, which can get annoying in some situations)
17-55's are also great lenses and fast. The 18-200 doesnt really touch them for image quality. Its not as fast as other lenses either. One of those lenses you would get only if you cant have two covering the range. Some reviews say compared to the 70-200 its closer to 175mm too.
Most of the time I use my 30mm prime as it corresponds to the 'natural' lense size on a crop body of 50mm. Though the 50 1.8 (or 1.4 preferably) are good lenses to have.
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
Thanks for the suggestions
Thanks for the suggestions guys... made my decision even harder!
Sounds like the Canon 17-55mm EF-S f/2.8 IS USM Marc suggested might be a good option... and then save for a telephoto zoom for later on.
kaney68
Posts: 401
Date Joined: 29/07/08
A couple of other options Jay
If you have the cash and want L series lenses....
for wide .... 17-40 f4/L
zooms .... either the 70-200 f2.8/L or the f4/L, 28-300 f3.5/L (I've shot with one in a helicopter - superb !) or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L
cheers,
Paul
Fathom
Posts: 619
Date Joined: 18/04/08
Dont buy EF-S lenses
If you end up with a FF cam these lenses will be useless, they will actually smash the mirror on a 5DmkII if you mount one.
The best UWA is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 IMO brilliant. Ideal for video as well as stills
My recommendations for a 7D and fishing :
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Canon 16-35 f2.8
Canon 50 f1.4
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
If you buy second hand/gray
If you buy second hand/gray you can always sell them at almost no loss. But if an EF-S lens is better, then you're better off going that now instead of something you may or may not do in the future. Many good EF lenses, but no point discounting EF-s ones if they will suit the purposes better for the next say 2 years. If Jay wants high speed photos, he would have to be betting the 5DIII can match the FPS anyways before upgrading anyways (unless he goes 1 series). If you're using the limits of the 200 anyways, then a crop sensor could be more of an advantage too. FF isnt always superior for all photographers requirements (but sure is nice :p)
Had a play around witht the tokina, and I went the 10-22 instead. The tokina was a lot heavier, was a lot more clunky, had worse AF performance and critically had a dismal MFD compared to the 10-22 (one of the main reasons I wanted a UWA, although the numbers dont look that different on paper they are pretty obvious when comparing the two in person). Though, its 2/3rds of a stop faster and it supposedly has better optics in some situations (how many you'd notice i'm not sure). Theoretically, the wider lens should give a smaller DOF for background blur of close subjects, but the MFD means you cant get up close to anything which minimises the effect. It is a rather good lens though, but didnt suit my purposes as well. So best is subjective ;) Pure image quality I think it wins, but not everything else :p (and how often do you shoot landscapes wide open?)
Also, Fathom, the tokina is a DX lens, which means it wont work properly will full frame anyways. Doesnt that go against your rules ;) lol
Fathom
Posts: 619
Date Joined: 18/04/08
works on a FF but vignettes
works on a FF but vignettes upto 14.5mm, so it is basically a prime lens on FF. (14.5-16mm zoom) This lens is being used by some of the best DOP's around the world shooting feature films. Duclos "de-click" them whatever that means and sells them for US $3500, perfect for the RED 1 and EPIC M...the Canon 10-22 isn't and would be considered a toy in comparison.
nickyau2
Posts: 225
Date Joined: 11/05/06
I had a few of the mentioned
I had a few of the mentioned lenses...
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8... best UWA you can get for a crop camera, amazing image quality on it
Canon EF-S17-55mm f2.8 .. its as good as the Canon L lenses in terms of picture quality, though pricey and plastic built isn't great, but its probably the best "if I could only have one lens for a crop camera" lens
I wouldn't bother with a 50mm for fishing photography, esp if you're in a boat as the crop factor makes its 88mm which is a serious portait length so good for taking photos of your face and not much else.
I've got the 70-200 F2.8 and its a beast of a lens... save the money and get the F4 version as its half the price and weight and just as sharp.
Can't comment on the Canon 18-200 as I've never used one but if you're looking for a superzoom lens look at the Tamrom 18-270mm... thats had probably the best reviews of the superzooms.
I'd spend the money on the lenses and not the camera first as its the glass which makes all the difference to your photos especially if most of your shooting is outdoors when the lighting is good. just time pressing the shutter button at the right time and you won't need to blast away at 8fps to get a good shot, and evenstill if you want to do sequences 3-5fps is more than enough as things need to move very fast to get a good sequence at 8fps.
Here fishy fishy....
kaney68
Posts: 401
Date Joined: 29/07/08
the f/4 version
I doubt very much the 70-200 f/4 version is anything close to the new 70-200 f/2.8 series II !!!
The new version 70-200 f/2.8 absolutely eats the old version hands down, which I am assuming would have similar optics to that of the f/4 !
Ultimately it comes down to how much people can spend and what equipment best suits their budget/best equipment in that price range...
As for UWA.... if I was in the market for one AND if if you could actually get hold of stock.... the Canon 8-15 f/4L would nail it !
cheers,
Paul
www.allsports.photoshelter.com
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
At lot of reviews say the
At lot of reviews say the optics are pretty similar at the same aperatures. Thats comparing the F4 IS not the F4. F4 is a diff story. The F4IS was still released over 5 years after the F2.8IS and has the advantage of not requiring as much compensation due its aperture.
Considering the large weight and price difference, if you dont need the wider aperature, the F4IS might be a better lens and deliver practically the same image quality. Of course, the F2.8IS is still better, but if you're shooting past f4, optically you usually dont get enough advantages to outweigh the weight. They're both excellent, and the 2.8 doesnt eat the 4 for breakfast :p Any differences arent much at all (ignoring speed of course).
kaney68
Posts: 401
Date Joined: 29/07/08
trust me..
trust me... the new series 70-200 2.8 wins hands down !
I've got both the series 1 and 2 lenses and have been using the series 2 since October last year....the difference is like black and white !
But you pay the price for the quality.
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Not disagreeing with you on
Not disagreeing with you on the diff between series 1 and 2 of the 2.8, just that the f4IS isnt light years behind the f2.8IS II (Even if you really care about pixel peeping). For how close the optics are past f4, weight, speed and price are much bigger factors in a decision IMO. I'd rather a 2.8 just for the aperture though :p
The 8-15 will be an interesting lens, particularly on full frame. Keep in mind its a fisheye not a UWA (straight lines will be curved). But its zoomable between a full circular picture and a fully covered picture on FF cameras. Also, fisheyes are adjustable to rectilinear in PP, but harder to shoot if you dont know what you're doing.
nickyau2
Posts: 225
Date Joined: 11/05/06
The new 70-200F2.8 II is
The new 70-200F2.8 II is good... question is that much better you'd spend the $$$... both the version 1 F2.8 and F4's are pretty darn good already. When you compare these lenses to Non-L versions they're a mile better already and for most people more than good enough, how often are you going to print something out billboard size to see the difference in sharpness. Its the classic problem that us blokes have of wanting the best we cna afford.
really depends on the application as to whether you really need F2.8 too, I'd say for outdoor stuff and to have to carry camera gear and fishing gear too i'd settle for a lighter bag and get the F4, got a few friends with the F4 that love it and their pics are amazing. Assuming this lens would be shooting jumping Billies or something like that and you wouldn't need to shoot F2.8 anyway.
But if someone offered to swap me my F2.8 I for the F2.8 II i'd take it in a flash
8-15mm... well that'll be really interesting when it hits the market
Here fishy fishy....
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
Great discussion guys.
Great discussion guys. Think I may have narrowed it down.
Canon EF-S17-55mm f2.8 for general use around the boat.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for shooting jumping billies/barra, GT strikes etc..
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for wide angle work.
Unsure whether it's worth having the wide angle and if it'll get enough use??
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Consider a prime in the 20-35
Consider a prime in the 20-35 range too. I have a sigma 30, and apart from some focus issues, its pretty much my only boat lens, if a little tight. Zoom with your feet :p
UWA's are awesome if you know how to use them and use them right. Good for fish to exaggerate, and billies to get them in the shot/for interesting perspective. It would be awesome for any side of the boat billies. Great for landscape shots too. Again, usage matters. E.g. frame a plant in the bottom of the frame with the sand extending out from the bottom of the frame. Centimeters matter massively. Dont just shoot eye level or UWAs are boring. Dont get a tokina until you've at least played with that and the canon. I was all set to walk out of the store with a tokina until i tried the canon. Its a more usable lens IMO (particuarily MFD and ergonomics). I prefer FTM instead of the clunky heavy MF/AF switch anyways. Less distortion, hardly any CA, accurate infinity scale for at night.
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
Thanks for the info Hlokk...
Thanks for the info Hlokk... given that I may only be able to afford one lense before my next trip (and it's probably one that I would want to retain, not have to sell afterwards), what would you recommend?
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Going where, shooting what?
Going where, shooting what? Also, any existing camera/lenses?
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
Monte Bello islands, shooting
Monte Bello islands, shooting fish mainly (from boat), some panorama (maybe) and just general shooting around camp etc.
Existing lenses are just the basic Canon kit lenses that came with my 1000D, 18-55mm and 70-300mm.
Also is there anywhere in Perth you can get pelican cases?
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
Any lens with an L in the title
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
*thumbs up* for camera
*thumbs up* for camera electronic. I've been to some 'house' stores and they suck. Camera electronic actually know their stuff, are friendly and they pricematch happily too.
Goatch
Posts: 1011
Date Joined: 03/07/07
Hey Jay
One thing to consider with having the 17-55 and 70-200 is once you go out on the water with one or the other lense attached you get mighty hesitant to open the camera up to the ocean air to change lenses , so either you keep your old camera as a 2nd body to mount say the 70-200 onto and put the 17-55 on the new one or have a good look at one of the superzooms ,I have heard good things about the Tamron 28-300 and others I know with the Canon 18-200 latest model swear by them on the crop sensor , mainly for ease of use and still with a good telephoto reach
Just my thoughts ,
Just one more cast , honest !!!
Goatch
Posts: 1011
Date Joined: 03/07/07
Hey Jay
One thing to consider with having the 17-55 and 70-200 is once you go out on the water with one or the other lense attached you get mighty hesitant to open the camera up to the ocean air to change lenses , so either you keep your old camera as a 2nd body to mount say the 70-200 onto and put the 17-55 on the new one or have a good look at one of the superzooms ,I have heard good things about the Tamron 28-300 and others I know with the Canon 18-200 latest model swear by them on the crop sensor , mainly for ease of use and still with a good telephoto reach
Just my thoughts ,
Just one more cast , honest !!!
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
How would the Canon 17-40mm
How would the Canon 17-40mm EF f/4L USM compare with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8?
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
You'd probably want to go the
You'd probably want to go the 17-55 IMO. Slightly more reach for jumping billies if you dont have time to change the lens, but mostly because of the speed. f2.8 being a full stop faster will give you better 'background blurring' than a f4 lens. In fish portrait photos I think this can really make a difference. Shooting sunsets from a boat, or in low light conditions the 17-55 is going to be a better lens too, again due to the aperture, but also a few stops thanks to IS. The 17-40 would be great on a FF camera (compensates with shallower DOF) though, or for landscapes (or particularly, both).
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
Once you decide what you are after Jay
send me a pm and i will ask Saul what he can do for you when i go past his place next week or at the next Leica meeting.You could always go an M9 with a 35mm on it for the closer stuff and get the canon for the rest.I travelled for a month and only used an m9 and a x1 the poor old canon didnt get a run at all.
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
I think if he has funds for
I think if he has funds for one lens, that a M9 might be out :p. It's worth more than my car, lol.
Fathom
Posts: 619
Date Joined: 18/04/08
M9 lol
Hahaha, need to wear flaired pants and hippy beads to operate those antique looking things........Leica though, make some of the best glass
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
I had a few comments when we were away about my
old camera.Got some strange looks when you flip it over and tell them that i got it converted to digital.
Great fun to shoot with though.
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
Michael Yoni
Posts: 604
Date Joined: 02/01/11
Are you sure you want to take
Are you sure you want to take such an expensive camera on a boat exposed to the salt air...... personally I wouldnt. Dirty hands etc can make the smell stains etc difficult go get off camera. The person holding the camera taking a photo of you with the catch - will they be able to use it to its ability??
Very nice camera indeed. (I've got the standard 400D combo)
Just the other side of the coin. Thats all
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
I know heaps of people who
I know heaps of people who take expensive DSLR's on boats, including expensive full frame Canons and Nikons. I think it comes down to how well you look after it. Realistically 98% of the time it will be stored in a waterproof case, which is then stored in a dry area like a cabin etc.. only coming out when there's the need to take a photo/s. Even if someone taking a photo can't use it to it's ability, I've found that just regular shooting in auto mode makes for much nicer photos than your usual point and shoot.
alfred
Posts: 3097
Date Joined: 12/01/07
Just keep the 5D for land use
Just keep the 5D for land use and take the 7D on the boat.
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
I'm not buying a 5D as well!
I'm not buying a 5D as well!
Paul Cunningham
Posts: 103
Date Joined: 14/07/09
Hey gents, I have got myself
Hey gents, I have got myself a 7D and Tokina 11-16 in the last year. I love the combo but am not 100% stoked with the lens. Would you mind posting up a picture or two from that lens if you have them handy so I can compare them to what I have been getting?
Cheers
Paul
hlokk
Posts: 4294
Date Joined: 04/04/08
How so?
How so?
alfred
Posts: 3097
Date Joined: 12/01/07
If you want the Tokina, the
If you want the Tokina, the 10-17 is the lens to get.
Paul Cunningham
Posts: 103
Date Joined: 14/07/09
It is softer than I
It is softer than I expected. Generally the shots are sharp and the focus is spot on and every now and then it produces a few shots that are soft.
Paul
nickyau2
Posts: 225
Date Joined: 11/05/06
tokina 11-16
I never experienced the odd soft shots with the 11-16... they were tack sharp consistently off my 40D even when shot at 2.8 (well maybe not as sharp as if you stopped down). No one I know who's go the same lens has that issue either
you'd think since you're using a 7D you couldn't blame the camera missing the autofocus given its such a good system.
Here fishy fishy....