Canon 350D Lens

nolimit · 4 Mar 2008 at 23:22

yak.h'cir said:
If you read around photography forums/mags a lot then you'll soon see that the vast majority of people find that 24mm (38mm) is not wide enough on a crop body for an average day out shooting.

and the very same people complain 50-55mm isn't long enough!!

and your average photographer will usually use compact camera with a 35mm-105mm range!

Aod · 4 Mar 2008 at 23:57

cleanbluesky said:
The kit lens is underrated. It's optics are okay, its construction is poor.

If you're gonna spend £200 on a lens, my suggestion is to buy one that doesn't cover the range of a lens you already have.

nah. the kitlens is rubbish. half a days worth of shooting wasted because its unacceptably soft at anything less than f/7.1

yak.h'cir · 5 Mar 2008 at 00:00

nolimit said:
and the very same people complain 50-55mm isn't long enough!!

50mm equates to 80mm FF which is long enough for portraits and most everyday use, then you go down to around 17mm (27mm FF) and you have a wide enough lens to give you a good scope for landscape. If you need a longer lens buy a telephoto!

If you want to buy one lens that covers a huge range (like 17mm-100mm) then you have to compromise on glass quality. Since the OP is looking to replace a lens due to low quality it seems a bit silly to suggest replacing it with another low quality lens, only this time with a slightly larger zoom range.

nolimit said:
and your average photographer will usually use compact camera with a 35mm-105mm range!

I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that the rest of us are talking about SLR users, obviously I was wrong.

yak.h'cir · 5 Mar 2008 at 00:02

Aod said:
nah. the kitlens is rubbish. half a days worth of shooting wasted because its unacceptably soft at anything less than f/7.1

I read that as 'kittens'

You had me wondering why kittens were rubbish and unacceptably soft!

nolimit · 5 Mar 2008 at 10:07

yak.h'cir said:
I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that the rest of us are talking about SLR users, obviously I was wrong.

SLR or Non SLR at the end of the it is camera! and in the photography world the 35-105mm zoom range is the preffered walk about lens!

WHY?

so it doesn't overlap - 10-20/12-24 | 24-70 | 70-200 | 200-400 etc!

I find it hard to believe that you claim the 24-70mm is not a walk about lens! lol

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=297266

maybe those people bought the wrong lens if you claim the 24mm is NOT walkabout lens!

Nick307 · 5 Mar 2008 at 11:08

sorry for the late reply

my budget would be about £200

Does Canon have one of the Beige style lenses that are in the 17 - 55 mm range? i know the beige lenses are normally very expensive

also would it be worth me getting a wide angle lens if i do a lot of landscape pics or night time shots??

33L · 5 Mar 2008 at 11:14

The beige lenses are whats denoted by L series lenses. The smaller lenses are actually black but have the same red collar at the end of the lens. And yes there are L lenses in that sort of range however they are not cheap.

nolimit · 5 Mar 2008 at 11:32

if you want Pro quality lens for lanscape shots then Canon 17-40 is the cheapest at around £400, bust since you need something with bit bit longer end and cheaper your only choice is Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70, (im not too keen on the latter).

The Tamron 17 - 50 build quality and autofocus is not upto Pro level but the image quality it produces is great, in addition it is f/2.8 therefore it will be decent indoor.
Have a look at the FlickR Group or Photography on Net's lens archive - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

FreeStream · 5 Mar 2008 at 12:57

nolimit said:
if you want Pro quality lens for lanscape shots then Canon 17-40 is the cheapest at around £400, bust since you need something with bit bit longer end and cheaper your only choice is Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70, (im not too keen on the latter).

The Tamron 17 - 50 build quality and autofocus is not upto Pro level but the image quality it produces is great, in addition it is f/2.8 therefore it will be decent indoor.
Have a look at the FlickR Group or Photography on Net's lens archive - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

Agreed, the Tamron 17-50 is the only way forward at the moment.

yak.h'cir · 5 Mar 2008 at 16:58

nolimit said:
SLR or Non SLR at the end of the it is camera! and in the photography world the 35-105mm zoom range is the preffered walk about lens!

WHY?

so it doesn't overlap - 10-20/12-24 | 24-70 | 70-200 | 200-400 etc!

I find it hard to believe that you claim the 24-70mm is not a walk about lens! lol

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=297266

maybe those people bought the wrong lens if you claim the 24mm is NOT walkabout lens!

Why do you think the kit lens offered with just about every crop DSLR body is around 18-55mm? Simple, because it covers wide to short-tele.

Very few serious photographers would be concerned about lens overlap. You shouldn't be thinking "i must have every mm covered", it's pointless. You should be thinking which lens would be perfect for what you want to photograph.

I'm a long time member of that forum and took part in that thread, I can tell you that a huge amount of people there have full frame cameras, for which 24mm is actually 24mm as you don't have a crop factor to consider. We're talking about good walkabout lenses for the 350d which has a 1.6x crop factor

If you actually read the thread you'll see they allowed multiple thread votes so people could list on for a crop and one for FF amongst other reasons. Even if you just read the first page you'll see numerous references to the 17-40 for crop, 24-70/105 for FF. You should always check your link actually backs up what you are saying before posting