Lens question for Canon's
 

If I was to buy a canon, what would be a good 'all around' lens?
Shooting nakkid girls, shooting food for a recipeblog of mine, shooting pics of my yet unborn child, shooting myself in the foot, shooting whatever I feel like?

I do NOT aspire to become the next Dean Capture here, but I have 0 experience with SLR's and I was thinking of buying a package (or then something like EOS 50d and some lens).

Also I noticed that 'non-canon' lenses are a lot cheaper than Canon's own. Are something like "Sigma"-lenses a lot poorer than canon's own? etc?

Anyone have something worthwhile to say on this subject matter?

All advice will be appreciated.

Yes the Canon lens' are superior. The L series being the pro version of them. Get a zoom. I believe they have a 40 to 105 L series 4.0 ...if you can afford it I hear it s fantastic!

I'm not looking to spend a fortune on something that's not going to be part of my business (ie. I'm not going to become a professional photographer anytime soon).

canon's lens are great

Whats your budget?

Spend more on the lens then the body

I just got my first Canon D50 just a few days back.

It was suggested that we get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for taking photos of our kids.

I'm about to sell an old truck we have sitting in the garage to start building a nice lens collection.

Here's a nice article with some suggestions, which has the lens I picked up as a recommendation as well.

http://gizmodo.com/5331109/the-3-dsl...re-youll-crave ( i a lot of info from the comments too)

I was thinking a total of around 2000 euros. Then again that's like 1500 USD worth of equipment if I was to buy them from the states. :1orglaugh:(

How much is the sigma 24-70 2.8? thats a sweet lens.

The 50d I just picked up used (only had 100 actuations on the unit) for $625 on eBay. I was actually going to pick up a 40d to but this was actually less than those I'd been watching on eBay.

I'm guessing that's a good deal, as Best Buy (big box electronics) has the body on sale this week for $1199.

You can get them for around $500 new, if I'm not mistaken.

I have the Canon 7d and love it, yes it is a bit pricer than a 50D and I also have a collection of L-Series lens. I find the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM as a very good all around lens. For portraits that show the absolute best then you need to go with the L-Series 100mm Macro. Camera and lens are going to run you around $3,500 a bit more than you want to spend, but in the long run you will not be sorry. YES there is a difference between cheap glass and expensive glass, go with the best you can afford and have no regrets later.

There is the definitive answer. I went through a few lenses with my 5D That lens is the one that will serve you well in almost any situation.

Excellent lens, I have two of these babies:2 cents:

If your not going to do that much photography why go SLR route?

I have canon SLR with loads of lens, but have ended up using a Canon g9...

I hear the more modern G11 is even better, as it has a wider angle lens and flip out screen....

So.. I have saved you ?1600 with that bit of advice... can I have a bonus please or at least a blow job??:1orglaugh

I have two of these babies, excellent lens:2 cents:

The 18-55 it comes with works pretty well for most of my shooting which does include food and people.

I use the 55-250 zoom for special shooting, but the standard 18-55 should cover most of your needs.

Agreed, the 18-55mm "kit lens" is pretty decent, especially for the price. It's a good starting point, from there you can figure out if you need to go wider or longer. Probably at least the former if you're chasing around a little tot. :)

You guys are fucking crazy. The kit lens sucks donkey balls. Let me put it in simple terms: The kit lens will not get you by because when you extend the focal length, it automatically reduces the size of the aperture, thus completely fucking your exposure. I can't think of anything that will make you want to smash your lens into a million pieces like variable aperture kit-lenses.

Go with the Canon (NOT SIGMA) 24-70 2.8. Sigma makes some serious garbage. Clunky motors, mechanisms that are flawed, etc. Sigma is like the lens equivalent of a Yugo.

Maybe go with Sigma if you like their trademark "SCREEEEEEETCH, SCREEEEEEEEETCH" when you focus.

1) I doubt Jakke will be using manual exposure, at least at the start

2) Who sets exposure first (to the widest possible aperture no doubt) THEN changes the zoom length?

100% non issue... zoom, half press, full press.

I make due pretty well with the 18-55. Plan to upgrade but it works for what it is and for coming with the body.

Who sets the exposure and then changes the zoom? Uh, I do it... about 300 times during my shoots. And I absolutely cannot have my exposure change for any reason. That's fucking bullshit.

Imagine this... you're shooting at 2.8 and now because you zoomed I'm shooting at F5, and I have to bump the power on my lights and re-meter everything. Come on. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Anyone who says "Who sets exposure first (to the widest possible aperture no doubt) THEN changes the zoom length?" isn't a fucking photographer.

You really think someone who is just about to buy their first SLR will be using studio lights and meters?

I don't use studio lights or manual metering (apart from in camera), but I consider myself a photographer...

Show me your checks. :winkwink:

Seriously though, you're not a photographer. You may have a camera, and that's fantastic. But anyone who would spew that sort of nonsense is a fool that needs their head checked.

You absolutely cannot fuck around with variable aperture zoom lenses if you even give a fraction of a damn.

Tell me again... why is this an issue for someone buying their first camera?

I'm going to leave it at that because you're either trolling, or you're just an arrogant prick. :error

Most people don't realize it's an issue until you're in a low-light situation like the lights are dim and you're kid is blowing out the birthday candles, and your Rebel T1i only has an ISO 1600, and you don't have a photo because you're shooting F5.6 zoomed. The moment is completely ruined.

Nobody understands that until you're actually in that situation. Then it all becomes clear to you that you need a real lens, not some foney pretend lens.

Now, if you actually made the investment to begin with you'd never have to worry about said situation. But you're right, it's not something you're going to realize right this second. As long as the sun is shining you'll be fine... sort of... there's still the issue of major sun flare issues with cheap lenses, not to mention the lack of contrast and saturation that is also part of buying a cheap lens. With any L lens, I can shoot right into the sun and sun flare isn't really much of a problem. But with any kit lens, you'll just simply not have an image.

There's lots of issues to consider, and a lot of issues a newbie can't even comprehend YET because he hasn't been shooting past Day 1. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't plan for the future.

Edit: The house I live in has all halogen lighting, and I've got the lights turned all the way up and I'm metering F2.8 here. And these lights are pretty bright by my standards. So if you want to even take any sort of any adequate photo indoors without using flash, you can't have anything less than a 2.8 lens.

Oh please. Read the original post again.

:Oh crap

Actually, you are wrong. 100 to 3200.

Well, I will be probably doing 'a lot of photography', just not professionally. :)
I already have a 'good' non slr-cam but it's lacking.

I most likely will actually, it's one of the features I'm most interested in. I'll probably play around with it a lot, spend countless times fucking it up and then hopefully learn to use it.

Damn. I was actually looking at that. Price difference is rather huge. Canon is 1000?+, Sigma is around ?500. After reading this http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl I have no idea why I should pay more than double the price for Canon, if I'm not going the "Professional"-route.

Now, which would be better.. Canon "Kit"-lense, or the Sigma 24-70?

Oh, forgot to say. I red a bit about the Sigma lens, and for 'non-professional' work, I think it should be enough?

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...report--review

That for example doesn't seem to be saying it's shit.

You glue sniffing mother fucker.

Sigma is a GREAT choice for this guy based on his needs.

I'll also add that I've worked camera retail and have had training by Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc....I've sold a SHITLOAD of each and recommended Sigma lenses to friends and family for YEARS without issue. If you are not going to spend the money for Canon then buy Sigma.

This bullshit you say about Sigma...Well, it's just that...Bullshit.

A decent combo would be Canon eos-50d + sigma 24-70 2.8 USM?
That would fit into my pricerange. I don't see the point in getting EOS 7d, or?

For you...Based on what you say you are wanting....There is no point in a 7D or better.

That's what I figured as well. Thank you :)

And the 24-70 f2.8 is also not the best choice for an "all around" lens. Not a bad choice...Good lens and all but not the best choice...again, for your needs.

In build quality alone, none of the Sigma lenses I've ever used compare even slightly to the standards of Canon lenses. For this reason, I only buy Canon gear.

I just don't buy crap. How do you feel about that screeching noise that they emit when they focus? I'm not cool with that.

I don't think that qualifies me as a glue sniffing mother fucker... but that's rather amusing.

I've had a couple of Sigma 12-24mm lens... they use ultrasonic focusing so it's fast and near silent. I think they're still the widest rectilinear lenses available for full frame cameras.

BTW, the lower end Canon lenses don't use ultrasonic motors so they also make a screeching noise...

Any better suggestions I might look into?

Sigma are not crap lenses and I have no clue WTF you are referring to with the screeching.

I don't recall saying they were as good as Canon. All I own are Canon L series lenses but when people ask what he has asked then they deserve a better answer than somebody who just wants to be a prissy little bitch as if he owns nothing but gold.

We get it....YOU'RE "too good" for Sigma. Fortunately for Sigma, there are plenty of people like Jakke who are not.

I'm off to bed but hit me up tomorrow and I'll show you some options and discuss how they differ. We'll figure out what's best for you. :)

ICQ 130-823-758

Xenigo seems like the Photo worlds version of Mac douchebag.

Bump and sorry for not contacting you. I wasn't trying to be rude to a guy who was kind enough to spend time to chat with me without any 'need to do so'.

I just became very very ill, some serious flu and I can't even sit up right.
So, sorry for snubbing you when you tried to help out. :P

I know you're a busy guy as we all are, but if you have some lens suggestions that you want to share, feel free to do so in this thread or even send me mail at TGF at porngreen.com. If you can't be bothered to, I fully understand. :)

Now..I'm back to bed to cure my fucking illness.

The Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di is far superior to the Sigma.

The Tamron image quality is just as sharp as the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L just not built as well.
The Canon is also USM which is the fastest focus lens system to date.

Canon 24-70mm 2.8L USM is $1300 USD

Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di is $400 USD

I would recommend on your budget to get the Tamron lens

Agreed. This is called 24-70 2.8 EX DG. Used it a lot in the studio and out on location.
:thumbsup

After doing a lot of reading on the subject yesterday, I saw lots of positive reaction to the Tamron (as well as the Sigma).