What lens to get with 30D

SDK^ · 10 Mar 2007 at 09:54

Sticky-Ring said:
so if its a canon lens it realy needs to be an L?

Sleepyd said:
People on here recommend them readily because they're very good quality, and they assume you don't want to compromise with your purchases.

That is pretty much it.
There are some superb non L Canon lenses - Canon 70-300 IS and 50mm 1.8 to name a couple

Gregeff · 10 Mar 2007 at 10:42

I would go for Tamron 17-50 F2.8 over the Canon 17-85 IS. However I'm still waiting on th Tokina 16-50 F2.8

Psilonaught · 11 Mar 2007 at 12:23

Sleepyd said:
L lenses are good if you have the money, want to make huge prints, and have edge to edge sharpness. People on here recommend them readily because they're very good quality, and they assume you don't want to compromise with your purchases.

Realistically there are some great alternatives from third party lens manufacturers.

If you're going to print average sized prints then what does it matter about it being less sharp than the L lens which doesnt have IS and doesnt have the focal range?

what the hell are you talking about!?!?!?!?!?!

Even on a small printed image a 17-85 @ 24mm compared to a 24-105 L is completely different, you obviously have used neither.

And in any case, a normal 10x15 print is more than able of showing the capabilities of a lens, it's about detail that is picked up, not just resolution.

Lordy.

growse · 11 Mar 2007 at 12:27

Matt Harper said:
also don't forget about the sigma 24-70mm F2.8 (a lot cheaper then the Canon)

My daily walkabout. Love it. Cheap to boot.

Psilonaught · 11 Mar 2007 at 15:55

growse said:
My daily walkabout. Love it. Cheap to boot.

how much? A colleague at work has a 10D and wants a single lens for snaps to replace an aging canon kit lens but her budget is quite low.

Sleepyd · 11 Mar 2007 at 16:18

Psilonaught said:
what the hell are you talking about!?!?!?!?!?!

Even on a small printed image a 17-85 @ 24mm compared to a 24-105 L is completely different, you obviously have used neither.

And in any case, a normal 10x15 print is more than able of showing the capabilities of a lens, it's about detail that is picked up, not just resolution.

Lordy.

Wow, the 17-85 must be such a dog of a lens to tell the difference on a small print

Geffen · 11 Mar 2007 at 18:59

Psilonaught said:
what the hell are you talking about!?!?!?!?!?!

Even on a small printed image a 17-85 @ 24mm compared to a 24-105 L is completely different, you obviously have used neither.

And in any case, a normal 10x15 print is more than able of showing the capabilities of a lens, it's about detail that is picked up, not just resolution.

Lordy.

You must have very good eye sight or be very picky as for normal sized prints at middle appiture i dont think you notice much difference between a cheap kit lense and L Glass. If however you want to use the lense wide open or printer larger picture or are selling your work then clearly L Glass is worth paying for. Even then there are some really good non L lense out there. The 17-55mm F2.8 is meant to be as sharp as the 17-40mm F4.

Worth having a look at this comparion of the kit lense with 24-70mm F2.8. http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

ElDude · 11 Mar 2007 at 19:18

I've got the 30D and lens wise I've got:

Canon 50mm 1.8 (I use this as the walk around lens, but I always take all my kit if I'm taking the camera out)
Sigma 12-24 (great lens)
Sigma 105 (macro len which is rather nice

)
Sigma 70-300 (honestly can't remember the last time I used this)

growse · 12 Mar 2007 at 12:32

Psilonaught said:
how much? A colleague at work has a 10D and wants a single lens for snaps to replace an aging canon kit lens but her budget is quite low.

I got mine for £295 from everyone's favourite high-street retailer - you could probably get it cheaper than that on t'internet.

FranchiseJuan · 12 Mar 2007 at 12:46

I would like to say that I have shots form my 17-85 IS (now sold) printed A3+ that look as good as any shot from my 17-40, or my 28-70 F2.8 (at the same rages ofcourse).

If you say that the 17-85 IS is a complete dog then you:
1) Had a really bad copy that needed to be calibrated
2) Did not post process the shot properly
3) Are sprouting BS due to the fact that you need to justify the money you just spent on L lenses.
4) Are a Canon fanboy that wants to help them push the marketing line that all L lenses must me 100 times better then anything that does not have a red ring at the end.
5) Look at all your prints with a 4X loupe.

Or any combination of the above.

Psilonaught · 12 Mar 2007 at 13:48

FranchiseJuan said:
I would like to say that I have shots form my 17-85 IS (now sold) printed A3+ that look as good as any shot from my 17-40, or my 28-70 F2.8 (at the same rages ofcourse).

If you say that the 17-85 IS is a complete dog then you:
1) Had a really bad copy that needed to be calibrated
2) Did not post process the shot properly
3) Are sprouting BS due to the fact that you need to justify the money you just spent on L lenses.
4) Are a Canon fanboy that wants to help them push the marketing line that all L lenses must me 100 times better then anything that does not have a red ring at the end.
5) Look at all your prints with a 4X loupe.

Or any combination of the above.

if you can't tell the difference why did you stop using it then. Your statement also seems to suggest that @17mm the quality is identical to a 17-40 L.

Frankly that's laughable - aside from the sharpness or lack of, @ 17mm the pin cushion distortion of the 17-85 makes it a waste of time for urban/architectural photography. I would accept however that at 50mm+ the 17-85mm is pretty decent and a lot sharper, at least mine was.

FranchiseJuan · 12 Mar 2007 at 14:06

Psilonaught said:
if you can't tell the difference why did you stop using it then. Your statement also seems to suggest that @17mm the quality is identical to a 17-40 L.

Frankly that's laughable - aside from the sharpness or lack of, @ 17mm the pin cushion distortion of the 17-85 makes it a waste of time for urban/architectural photography. I would accept however that at 50mm+ the 17-85mm is pretty decent and a lot sharper, at least mine was.

I sold all my croped frame lenses in a move to full frame (about to get the camera), and I was in NY so I thought I may as well buy the lenses while I was there.

The main differance between the 17-85 IS, and the 17-40, in the same rages is that the 17-40 needs less processing overall to achive the same results as the 17-85 IS. Distortion can be fixed with PT lens, and a little bit of highpass sharpen before printing and a large print looks fine.

I did not say that the quality was identical (where did I say that?), I said printed A3+ it looks as good as my other lenses. For me photography is currently about the end print, so this is how I measure image quality.

Quite honestly if I was not changing to full frame, I would have kept the 17-85. The 17-40 is just too short for me most of the time, and I find myself carrying a 70-200 or 28-70 to complement it most of the time.

If you are serious about architectural photography you should be shooting with a tilt-shift lens, or medium/large format right?

SDK^ · 12 Mar 2007 at 17:49

FranchiseJuan said:
The main differance between the 17-85 IS, and the 17-40, in the same rages is that the 17-40 needs less processing overall to achive the same results as the 17-85 IS.

There is a difference in image quality between the 17-85 IS and 17-40 and of course the L lens offers a LOT more than just improved image quality.