So I got a new wide angle lens... Advise wanted!!

[sp3ctre]

Thanks Tom, Most of this camera stuff is gooblygook to me but inspired by some of the photos on this site, yours included I want to start making more use of mine, My last attempt at trying to take some photos away from the auto settings resulted in overexposed white screens of nothing so lots to learn.
The lens you highlight is another $300 but still works out cheaper than the one I had been looking at in the Uk.
Oh lummee, all this on top of Z4-itis................................Damm this Forum....Damm it all to hell.

Best advice I can give would be to tackle "Av" mode first. Read up on it a little so you understand how it works. It is what an awful lot of photographers (even pros) use day-to-day and suits a lot of people very well. You can usually get the result you want using Av unless you are in very tricky conditions such as sunsets etc.

 

[aquazi]

Wow thanks guys a whole wealth of info here for me to digest. Some smashing pictures too... Wish i had those skills That's great stuff, especially from Tom which I will have to admit some went well above my head

Yep its the EFS lens So basically the 7d and my 550d should be both the same 16-35mm? The pictures certainly had a wider aspect on his camera over mine.

I thinks at my problem is that I took a pic of the garden and the fence was curved .. Around the end... Which from what I am reading is unavoidable to some degree.... Unless I get my camera calibrated for it which may minimise it slightly? What about my other lens then? ... Or i may just swap the lens with another in the store in that case.

I was planning on using this lens and my zoom and leaving my 18-55 standard lens at home.

What are people's views on Sigma lenses, the 8 -16 caught my eye... Around the same price as my canon one... But has a much more spherical lens, which I guess means a lens filter won't go over it.

Yes it is the full frame equivalent of 16-35mm. If you take a like for like image with both cameras from a tripod there wont be any difference. Having the lens and camera calibrated will only help if the lens is noticeably soft in certain areas.

The distortion as said is hard to get away from, but can be combatted, you can either zoom in a little or recompose or try not to compose straight lines unless they are moving away from you like in PVRs image. If you are after a standard lens then I would sugest buying a 15-85 or the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm the 10-22mm is more a speciality lens for landscape not so great as an every day lens the short focal length is limiting. Or if you can keep it and buy a standard lens to accompany it.

Sigma lenses IMHO are worth keeping away from it is very hit and miss to get a sharp one, their manufacturing process is not as good as canons also because they are third party they may not always be compatible with your camera if you upgrade as canon continually upgrade their type of auto focus the lenses wont understand the new language it has happened on quite a few of sigmas lenses.

I suppose the best question to ask is what do you want out of the lens?

Unfortunately super telephoto lenses (covering a huge range so you don't have to switch lenses) like a 24-300mm are often very very soft, suffer from awful vignetting and chromatic aberration so you have to carry multiple lenses to achieve quality images. I usually carry:

10-22mm
17-55mm
50mm 1.4
70-200mm L
100mm 2.8 Macro L

then leave the rest at home unless I specifically need them. If i want to go light then i carry the 17-55 and the 70-200 to cover most situations.

I dont use the 10-22mm very often more for landscape or interior shots where things are tight. Like I said it is quite a specific lens, not really a standard lens.

Ah cool... Yeah I was thinking for my holiday I would take mainly scenic shots... But then I would also like group pics... So maybe I will also need my standard lens. I also have an 18-250... But I find it noisey... And slow.

I was thinking of getting the 18-135... To replace my 18-55 and my 18-250... But from what you are saying maybe I should keep my 18-55 and get the 70-200.

Thanks again Tom the advice is much appreciated.

 

[aquazi]

Thanks Tom, Most of this camera stuff is gooblygook to me but inspired by some of the photos on this site, yours included I want to start making more use of mine, My last attempt at trying to take some photos away from the auto settings resulted in overexposed white screens of nothing so lots to learn.
The lens you highlight is another $300 but still works out cheaper than the one I had been looking at in the Uk.
Oh lummee, all this on top of Z4-itis................................Damm this Forum....Damm it all to hell.

I am pretty hopeless also... When I first got it I asked a lady to take a pic of me and my friend... It was on auto... And she told us off for using it in auto mode :lol: but gave us a few tips on aperture and when settings to run it on.

I have got a lot of my camera gear from http://www.onestop-digital.com/ I find them cheaper then b&h in NY even. Shipped from HK but everything comes in literally 2 working days!

 

[RichardG]

I have got a lot of my camera gear from http://www.onestop-digital.com/ I find them cheaper then b&h in NY even. Shipped from HK but everything comes in literally 2 working days!

Good call a tiny bit cheaper than the US, do you get stung import duties etc when ordering via them.

 

[tomscott]

True... problem I had was not wanting to spend ££ on EF-S lenses, as it made the jump to full frame that much more expensive (had to change my lenses at the same time!).

Let us know how you get on with the 5DIII though, might follow suite as it does look rather good. The next 1st world problem I have is trying to convince myself not to hang onto the 5DII as a 2nd body

It depends because there isnt really a definite need to go full frame. Unless you are either in need of a low light camera (cleaner noise), pixel peeping, blowing up bigger than A2 or are in need of the 'perfect bokeh'. Or you are a professional who makes his money with the camera.

I have to admit for portraiture/wedding full frame has the essence of film so I also understand from that perspective.

Yes it does give better quality but if you print two A3 images with an APC and a 5D at F8 with equivalent focal lengths you wont see barely any difference to the eye now if you blow the same image to A1 then there is huge difference. you will on screen but you dont print more than 300dpi anyway and wont look at the image 1:1 more like 6:1 standing away from it.

Going full frame means you reduce the length of telephoto lenses, the price for the camera almost doubles and the lenses are a 1/3 more expensive. The new lenses designed to be optimal with these sensors are double the price of the old ones the 24-70mm MKII is £2000!

If you are not making money with the camera and are starting from scratch then you need £5000 to get started. Its hard to justify especially if you are an amateur. But if you can afford it then I would say without doubt go for it!

I make money with my images, but don't go more than A3 generally or half a newspaper spread so A3 again natural progression is to go to full frame for me but will cost a huge amount but it is offset by the money made with the images. I spend all my money on lenses, I have a 5 year old 40D which is falling apart must have hit well over 150,000 actuations but still produces amazing images arguably better than the newer XXDs and the 7D which is why I haven't gone with a new camera.

The main reason I use APC is the reach and the FPS before the 5D MKIII the only way to go was the 1D with an APH sized sensor with is a 1.3 crop factor so just made lenses silly lengths and you didnt get as much reach for your money. Also it is the size of the images my library is 6TB consisting of around 750,000 images. Now if I used a 5D MKII I would only be able to fit 375,000 in the same space. A 6TB raid Array is more than £2k so atm I have 12TBs of data and only shoot with a measly 10mp camera

The costs add up.Not just in photographic terms, its the processing too. A lot of pros switch to APC because of this.

When I do finaly bite the bullet and go for the MKIII I will make a post

I mostly shoot motorsport, automotive, landscape, flora and fauna.

A lot of people have probs already seen these but here are a few:


BMW Z4M Coupe by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_5504colour by tom_scott88, on Flickr


320si BTCC by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I dont really like putting stuff of my proper work on flickr but these are a few of my faves that I have put up

 

[tomscott]

Thanks Tom, Most of this camera stuff is gooblygook to me but inspired by some of the photos on this site, yours included I want to start making more use of mine, My last attempt at trying to take some photos away from the auto settings resulted in overexposed white screens of nothing so lots to learn.
The lens you highlight is another $300 but still works out cheaper than the one I had been looking at in the Uk.
Oh lummee, all this on top of Z4-itis................................Damm this Forum....Damm it all to hell.

Best advice I can give would be to tackle "Av" mode first. Read up on it a little so you understand how it works. It is what an awful lot of photographers (even pros) use day-to-day and suits a lot of people very well. You can usually get the result you want using Av unless you are in very tricky conditions such as sunsets etc.

Great advice! Work a lot in AV makes things quicker

 

[tomscott]

Ah cool... Yeah I was thinking for my holiday I would take mainly scenic shots... But then I would also like group pics... So maybe I will also need my standard lens. I also have an 18-250... But I find it noisey... And slow.

I was thinking of getting the 18-135... To replace my 18-55 and my 18-250... But from what you are saying maybe I should keep my 18-55 and get the 70-200.

Thanks again Tom the advice is much appreciated.

Well if you had the money I would get rid of the 18-55mm and the 18-250mm, and get a 15-85mm and a 70-200mm but that is a fair amount of money.

70-200mm F4 is £470
70-200mm F4 IS is £825
70-200mm F2.8 is £919 (I have this one because I have a steady hand)
70-200mm F2.8 IS MKI is £1100 (These have been discontinued so that is second hand price)
70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII is £1600

These are also very big lenses and are heavy. 1490g 200mm in length

The 15-85mm is £485

The 17-55mm F2.8 is £700

The 18-250 is not a bad traveling lens but is very noisy and slow im slightly spoilt because I use good glass all the time and I suppose my advice is to buy the best you can afford.

There is another option the 70-300mm DO lens is fantastic people dont rate it because of the DO element you do get a slight halo on highlights but is tiny because of the diffractive optics (they reduce the size of the lens) they have one at london camera exchange (http://www.lcegroup.com) second hand for £550 they are over £1000 new.

The standard lens will be attached to the camera 90% of the time so that is the most important, 15-85mm is the most obvious. Most people upgrade this first then buy a telephoto to cover a good range usually a 70-300mm so you have a range of 15-300mm then a wide angle like the 10-22mm and when you get used to these you might crave some bokeh which you get from large aperture lenses like 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.4. Then more specific like a macro etc etc depends what you like to shoot.

As Sp3tre was saying the 18-200mm is not a bad compromise at £385 it has Image stabilisation and is a good range.

Really for traveling you want to cover a good range and not be weighed down so the 15-85mm and the 70-300mm DO is a good travel kit I think but not to everyones tastes.

If you just want to have fun with photography and be able to take a good range of images the 18-200mm would be perfect. Cheap, cheerful, light and covers a good range.

In your case the 10-22mm is a great lens but I would have got a better standard lens first. The kit you have is not bad if you wanted you could just take the 18-250mm it covers a large range. but if you wanted to upgrade those are the options I would suggest.

 

[sp3ctre]

70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII is £1600

Awesome lens though 8)

 

[tomscott]

Epic.. but £1600!!! there new prices on lenses are ridiculous!

 

[sp3ctre]

Epic.. but £1700!!! there new prices on lenses are ridiculous!

True, the 24-70 2.8II is priced as if it was IS, but it isn't. That's the missing link in my set at the moment but the price is insane

 

[tomscott]

Ye I have no idea why they didn't add IS its not necessary but if they have the tech then they might as well! Even with IS is it worth twice the amount the MKI is??

No chance as long as you get a good one, its pretty hit and miss.

Whats nice about the 5D MKII&III is the ISO performance 2-3 stops means the 24-105mm is a good lens to use in most situations ISO 400 on my 40D is probs equivalent to 800 on the 5Ds so you could shoot at F4 no problem in tricky light. Although I do much prefer 2.8 lenses and shooting at lower ISOs. My 40D is a pig over ISO1250 1600 is completely unusable and 3200 isnt worth looking at. Lightroom 3&4 is a saviour most of the time im in desperate need of upgrading lol! Moneys there just need to pull the trigger bring on March 22nd!!! haha

 

[aquazi]

Good call a tiny bit cheaper than the US, do you get stung import duties etc when ordering via them.

I have ordered 2 or 3 times from them, never had to pay tax... But they also guarantee they will cover any tax charge if you get billed.

Well if you had the money I would get rid of the 18-55mm and the 18-250mm, and get a 15-85mm and a 70-200mm but that is a fair amount of money.

70-200mm F4 is £470
70-200mm F4 IS is £825
70-200mm F2.8 is £919 (I have this one because I have a steady hand)
70-200mm F2.8 IS MKI is £1100 (These have been discontinued so that is second hand price)
70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII is £1600

These are also very big lenses and are heavy. 1490g 200mm in length

The 15-85mm is £485

The 17-55mm F2.8 is £700

Eek this could turn out very expensive!!

Ok stupid question alert... How much better is the 15-85 over my 18-55? Looks to have the same number of f-stops... Or is there more then just this?

Based on your recommendation I think I will go for the 15-85 instead of my 18-55, but keep my 55-250 as I have only used this a hand ful of times... And its nice and light for travelling.... 1.5kg for the 70-200 lens... I would need to pay excess baggage :lol: And no way can I shell out that level of cash on a lens

 

[ASW28]

70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII is £1600

Awesome lens though 8)

The Mk1 is also a fantastic lens, bought mine from the states a couple of years ago.
Sharp and fast.
Also bought a 100-400 4.5/5. 6 L, better results than 70-200 + converter.
Just don't use them as much as I should.

 

[sp3ctre]

The Mk1 is also a fantastic lens, bought mine from the states a couple of years ago.
Sharp and fast.
Also bought a 100-400 4.5/5. 6 L, better results than 70-200 + converter.
Just don't use them as much as I should.

Which converter? The combi of the 70-200MkII + 2x MkIII extender has a really good write-up

 

[ASW28]

Mk1 70-200 2.8L is + MkII converter.

 

[tomscott]

The 100-400mm is def better than any of the 70-200mm with a 2x extender how ever good the new one is even with the MKII and the MKIII extender. But it is much more convenient to carry a 2x extender than a 100-400mm, you can't add a 2x extender to a 100-400mm anyway unless you have a 1D because it needs an F8 AF system. Like I said it is a trade off, the 100-400 is a F4.5-5.6 lens so is very slow in comparison to the 2.8 of the 70-200 but for connivence you can add the extender. Unless you are shooting for national geographic the trade off is a good one

I do love the 100-400mm and do intend to buy the MKII just hope its weather sealed and gets rid of the push pull design.

The 15-85mm is much much better than the standard kit lens, It has USM (ultrasonic motor) which is ridiculously quiet, it is much better built, has IS, has more range, doesn't have a rotating front lens element. It has a distance window for calculating your hyperfocal distance. The lens elements are also much better it is sharper. Put it this way the standard lens is like a toy in comparison £120 compares to £400. It does make a huge difference.

 

[bigdog]

Has any one tried DXO software? I haven't sprung for it yet $175USD as I'm just buying dslr gear for the first time and the wife is wondering when it will end or whether we will have anything left for retirement, DXO is a company out of France that does extremely detailed camera/lens distortion tests and produces DXO software that takes care of any barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, Key Stoning and other prospective issues. I would think this is a good way for the novice/amature that does not have a multitude of time to set up 100% spot on shots to get away with a few sins. I'm using a D5100 with the very budget kit 18-55 which stays in the bag most of the time. I usually use a Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 as I find my self quite often in tight spots while in the old city centers, Castles, And Churches.

 

[aquazi]

The 15-85mm is much much better than the standard kit lens, It has USM (ultrasonic motor) which is ridiculously quiet, it is much better built, has IS, has more range, doesn't have a rotating front lens element. It has a distance window for calculating your hyperfocal distance. The lens elements are also much better it is sharper. Put it this way the standard lens is like a toy in comparison £120 compares to £400. It does make a huge difference.

Dammit Tom... the advice i was after wasnt meant to get me a new lens

But thanks for the advice.... just ordered a 15-85 today... i'll let you know how i get on with it... the rotating front bit sold it for me.. i hate how my petal hood rotates on my current standard lens.