short range lens

M

mr bill

Suspended / Banned
Messages
492
Edit My Images
Yes
Have just received my first l lens 70-200 f4 and really impressed, planning on the the sigma 120-400 as most my photography will be nature but i do want something for indoor/family pics don't need to go l lens but something thats high quality. I've seen the nifty fifty but want something better built and good value for money, thanks guys
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
Have just received my first l lens 70-200 f4 and really impressed, planning on the the sigma 120-400 as most my photography will be nature but i do want something for indoor/family pics don't need to go l lens but something thats high quality. I've seen the nifty fifty but want something better built and good value for money, thanks guys
Click to expand...

What body are you using and are you planning to add a flash?
 
Then the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is the one you're looking for :)
Very happy with mine. Nice and sharp, f2.8 through the range allowing plenty of light for indoors. Only (slight) negative I've got with it is the focus motor being a little noisy when compared to my almost silent 70-200mm f4 L and Sigma 50mm f1.4.
 
My favorite crop sensor lens was the 17-55 2.8 canon. This lens stands alone. It's tack sharp and fast. The only down side is that it's not cheap (you get what you pay for). It is an EF-s lens and that is the only reason I sold mine. I went full frame so I had no choice. I used it for a year and sold it for almost the same price I paid for it. check it out, you won't be sorry.
 
The Canon 17-55 IS if funds allow, the Tamron 17-50 gets a good following if funds are more restricted.

If you like the 50mm F1.8, but want a better build - what about the 50MM F 1.4 ? or a 35mm prime ?
 
The Sigma 120-400 OS will be great for your wildlife and nature shots, the wife has one and I occasionally pinch it for the day when I'm shooting wildlife with 2 cameras. I have a70-200 and I wanted a 24-70 f2.8 to go with it.

I wanted a Canon MkI but couldn't afford it at the time so I got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM and I'm so pleased with it that I'm not going to bother even looking for another. That was to go mainly with my 5D3 (full frame) but it does still get a lot of use on my 7D, and 60D previously, and I'll be trying it out on my 1D MkIII this weekend. It's a fantastic lens, very sharp but not too heavy and the IQ is fantastic.

For a crop sensor camera though a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM would give you a great range but if you're not too bothered about wide angle the Sigma 24-70 would be great.
 
I think I'd rather have a lens that will go on ff as after the 60d that's what I'll be getting.
 
Canon 24-70 F/2.8 MK1 it is then :)
Pricey but this lens will last a life time if treated appropriately, you won't regret it at all :)
 
In that case the Sigma, Tamron or Canon (if you're rich enough) 24-70 f2.8 would probably be the best bet. The Sigma is now the cheapest of the bunch (between £500-600) but is a damn good lens (the newer version though), the Canon is by far the most expensive (MkII goes for around £1400, MkI goes for around £750-800 second hand) and the Tamron is the middle ground and the only one to come with vibration reduction (Tamron VC is a very good system) and comes in around £700.

If you're not set on getting a f2.8 lens there is always the Canon 24-70 f4L IS which runs in at around £900-1000 but is getting some very good revues. Whatever budget you have, withany of these lenses you will get a solidly built lens capable of giving you some fantastic quality images.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention I'd like a lens that will go on. A FF as thats what I plan on getting after the 60d
 
mr bill said:
I forgot to mention I'd like a lens that will go on. A FF as thats what I plan on getting after the 60d
Click to expand...

A couple of things. All things considered, the new 24-70 2.8 mark II is a superior lens. It's pricey but extremely good. I have it and was a little worried about no I.s. but really haven't even missed it. As far as a all around lens that's the one if money is not an issue.

On another note, I rented the canon 24mm 1.4 and had some issue with it. In good light I got some nice shots but not at 1.4 (no surprise) stopped down to around 2.3 was much better. However, this lens had awful vignetting. It messed up so many of my picture with a hired model I was shocked. I did some research and much to my surprise I found many others have experienced the same problems. I just through this in in case you were considering this lens.
 
shaylou said:
A couple of things. All things considered, the new 24-70 2.8 mark II is a superior lens. It's pricey but extremely good. I have it and was a little worried about no I.s. but really haven't even missed it. As far as a all around lens that's the one if money is not an issue.

On another note, I rented the canon 24mm 1.4 and had some issue with it. In good light I got some nice shots but not at 1.4 (no surprise) stopped down to around 2.3 was much better. However, this lens had awful vignetting. It messed up so many of my picture with a hired model I was shocked. I did some research and much to my surprise I found many others have experienced the same problems. I just through this in in case you were considering this lens.
Click to expand...
thank you ruled that one out:) do like the 24-70 but its a tad expensive, its going to be the zooms i'm going to useing the most so don't really want to spend so much on the walkaround
 
Last edited:
I was looking at the canon 15-85 but not so it would be that great in low light, no problems knowing what I want zoom wise but this is much harder,our lack of bright sunny days doesn't help
 
Last edited:
just spent a couple of hours looking at reviews and opinions other forums and where as the reviews with zooms seems pretty consistent, with the shorter range lenses its mind bogglingly different even photozine have some l lenses with 3 star optical performance and some standards with 4??????????? then i keep reading good/bad copies mainly with sigma, anyone "HELP" lol. The last 2 lenses iv'e been thinking are the sigma 17-70 and the l 17-40 but i really dont know........


.
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
just spent a couple of hours looking at reviews and opinions other forums and where as the reviews with zooms seems pretty consistent, with the shorter range lenses its mind bogglingly different even photozine have some l lenses with 3 star optical performance and some standards with 4??????????? then i keep reading good/bad copies mainly with sigma, anyone "HELP" lol. The last 2 lenses iv'e been thinking are the sigma 17-70 and the l 17-40 but i really dont know........

.
Click to expand...

I think even Canon has had issues with bad copies on certain models.. What I found though is that the aftermarket lenses seem to have more of an issue with inconsistent quality overall. this is just*** my opinion*** on the hundreds of articles i have read (please no debates). For this reason I have stuck with canon lenses and so far have not been disappointed.
 
mr bill said:
thank you ruled that one out:) do like the 24-70 but its a tad expensive, its going to be the zooms i'm going to useing the most so don't really want to spend so much on the walkaround
Click to expand...

I've just noticed the sigma 24-70 no hsm version still has great reviews but much better priced
 
what about the 24-105 canon ? perfect for when you move to full frame and usually pin sharp (if you try to find one from the pre kit days )
 
urban_muppet said:
what about the 24-105 canon ? perfect for when you move to full frame and usually pin sharp (if you try to find one from the pre kit days )
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. The 24-105 is a good lens for walk around and there should be plenty of them around. The new 5d came with it as a kit lens.
 
Personally, I wouldn't recommend a lens that restricts you now just so you can use it later.

All the compromised shots you take before you go FF can't just be recaptured later. Buy a 2nd hand fast zoom and when you need to sell it to go FF you'll have lost very little.
in fact if you're happy with the 2nd hand route, you'll be able to get a much cheaper mk II 24-70 than you can now.
That said, I know nowt.
 
Phil V said:
Personally, I wouldn't recommend a lens that restricts you now just so you can use it later.

All the compromised shots you take before you go FF can't just be recaptured later. Buy a 2nd hand fast zoom and when you need to sell it to go FF you'll have lost very little.
in fact if you're happy with the 2nd hand route, you'll be able to get a much cheaper mk II 24-70 than you can now.
That said, I know nowt.
Click to expand...
Thanks anything you'd recommend? It will be a year or two before ff but then I've said things like that before lol
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
Thanks anything you'd recommend? It will be a year or two before ff but then I've said things like that before lol
Click to expand...

The Canon 17-55 is the best bet, but the Tamron is cheaper and optically on a par (don't get me started on why the Canon is worth every penny).
 
No ok I won't ask , is there anything on par with slightly longer reach ? That's why I was looking at the sigma 24-70 even on crop 24 would be wide enough for me and I'd everything covered to 400 or more crop
 
If 24 really is wide enough, go for a 24-70 or even the 24-105. Personally, on a crop I need my 10mm and I could go wider.
 
mr bill said:
No ok I won't ask , is there anything on par with slightly longer reach ? That's why I was looking at the sigma 24-70 even on crop 24 would be wide enough for me and I'd everything covered to 400 or more crop
Click to expand...

24 is not wide at all on a crop. If you have a kit lens 18-? Put it on 24 and try some landscape shots. Then try it at 18 and I think you will agree, 24 is not wide enough.
 
Yes appreciate what your saying but would do for me and if I decided I do need wider I can always get a wide angle later on
 
Would a prime be a better option ? A few good options at good prices,I'd rather have the better iq even if I have to move around a bit more
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
Would a prime be a better option ? A few good options at good prices,I'd rather have the better iq even if I have to move around a bit more
Click to expand...

We been talking about this for so long I forgot what your original question was so I went back and read it over. Lol. You want indoor for family in such then speed should be one of if not the most important part aside from focal length. A prime may serve you well. Canons are very sharp but once again I think you should put yourself in the situation that you will most likely be shooting in and lock your focal length to 24, then 28, 34, 50 etc and see which length serves you best. You might fall in love with the 50 and that's that. Or you may realize you really like multiple focal lengths and go back to zoom. I'm in the same situation now. I tried a 24 (full frame) and I think I am going to try 35 next.
 
Thanks guys i really dont know what to go for :thinking: this is a hard choice i'd rather go L but dont want be spending too much i'd rather save that for my 400mm just want good IQ ,build quality, there just seems to varied opinions on the sigma 24-70 and some of the others all very confusing:shrug:
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
Thanks guys i really dont know what to go for :thinking: this is a hard choice i'd rather go L but dont want be spending too much i'd rather save that for my 400mm just want good IQ ,build quality, there just seems to varied opinions on the sigma 24-70 and some of the others all very confusing:shrug:
Click to expand...

My Sigma 24-70 has great IQ, and it's a bargain price. But it can't hold a candle to the best Canon lenses when it comes to focus performance.

Once you're used to the better USM lenses in fast glass, it's difficult to go back to anything else.
 
Phil V said:
My Sigma 24-70 has great IQ, and it's a bargain price. But it can't hold a candle to the best Canon lenses when it comes to focus performance.

Once you're used to the better USM lenses in fast glass, it's difficult to go back to anything else.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil whats a usm equivalent? i think i'd rather stick with canon, think there's less chance of a bad copy
 
Just been looking at the 24-105 L not that much more than the sigma, how good is it. Dont mind paying that bit extra if its worth it?
 
mr bill said:
Just been looking at the 24-105 L not that much more than the sigma, how good is it. Dont mind paying that bit extra if its worth it?
Click to expand...

It's a great lens on a FF, but I personally wouldn't be happy with f4 on a crop. But that's personal choice - I can't cope with a minimum of 24mm on crop either, but my wife is happier with 24-70 than 17-55:shrug:.
 
Phil V said:
It's a great lens on a FF, but I personally wouldn't be happy with f4 on a crop. But that's personal choice - I can't cope with a minimum of 24mm on crop either, but my wife is happier with 24-70 than 17-55:shrug:.
Click to expand...
I think i'm with your wife on that one:lol: i'd rather have the longer reach than the wider, merely a personal choice but as you mention i'm not so sure about f4? so maybe back to the sigma:help:
mind you the f4 on my 70-200 hasn't given me any problems,that said i do want better for low light
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top