Lenses for canon rebel T1i
ransley
looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar, and
would it even make a notable difference. How would a Canon EF 20mm
f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron. I would
like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
John Navas
<Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> wrote in
<b4a52cd5-c1e1-4918...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
> Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
>looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
>about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
Yes. It's a superb lens.
>and
>would it even make a notable difference.
Depends on the final image and how critical you are. Won't make a
difference in a 4x6 snapshot or Web image, but might well be notable to
you in a mural size print. In other words, you need to first decide on
the type of final image.
>How would a Canon EF 20mm
>f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
smoothness of operation, and durability,
>I would
>like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
>photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
>be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >How would a Canon EF 20mm
> >f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
>
> I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
> often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
> because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
> smoothness of operation, and durability,
some tamron lenses are outstanding. but of course if you discount the
lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
used in another thread.
> >I would
> >like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
> >photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
> >be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
>
> Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
> on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
> compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
yep, too many people do that.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<ft4i355a2uji060ls...@4ax.com>:
>Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
>on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
>compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
In other words, first choose the glass, then the body.
In computers, first choose the application software, then the OS and
hardware. Most people go at it backwards, just like in photography.
What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital cameras
were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses, unmatched
in the SLR world even at many times the price.
If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
than on the body.
John Navas
in <170620090918371124%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <ft4i355a2uji060ls...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
>> often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
>> because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
>> smoothness of operation, and durability,
>
>some tamron lenses are outstanding.
Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
being spent. ;)
>but of course if you discount the
>lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
>used in another thread.
Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens. The moment is
priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
David J Taylor
[]
> What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital
> cameras were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses,
> unmatched in the SLR world even at many times the price.
The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
limiting factor on their creativity. (I recently asked someone why they
changed from a top-end Panasonic to a DSLR).
> If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
> than on the body.
Agreed, if you want to make the most of your DSLR.
[Caveat: I would say "more" rather than "far more" as you may not need as
many lenses today with the quality zooms which are now available.]
David
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
> >> often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
> >> because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
> >> smoothness of operation, and durability,
> >
> >some tamron lenses are outstanding.
>
> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
> being spent. ;)
you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.
> >but of course if you discount the
> >lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
> >used in another thread.
>
> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.
oem lenses fail too. the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
who makes them. canon/nikon make crappy lenses too. sometimes the
third parties are better, sometimes not. the label on the barrel is
not the only indicator of quality.
and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
would have backup lenses and cameras.
> The moment is
> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<dh9_l.43737$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital
>> cameras were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses,
>> unmatched in the SLR world even at many times the price.
>
>The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
>the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
>limiting factor on their creativity. ...
The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
As always, YMMV.
John Navas
in <170620091052217473%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <qg6i35hfh2vqke3rf...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
>> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
>> being spent. ;)
>
>you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
>third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.
Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
samples, and don't reflect things like durability. That said, the best
OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.
>> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
>> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
>> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
>> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.
>
>oem lenses fail too.
Sure, but much less often.
>the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
>who makes them.
Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.
>canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.
Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
You tend to get what you pay for.
>sometimes the
>third parties are better, sometimes not.
Almost always not in my experience.
>the label on the barrel is
>not the only indicator of quality.
But arguably the best one for typical users.
>and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
>would have backup lenses and cameras.
I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
frontend money. But as always, YMMV.
>> The moment is
>> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
>> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
>> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
>> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
>
>yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
>magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
> >> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
> >> being spent. ;)
> >
> >you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
> >third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.
>
> Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
> samples,
how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?
> and don't reflect things like durability.
build quality is usually mentioned
> That said, the best
> OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.
depends on the test and on which lens.
> >> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
> >> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
> >> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
> >> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.
> >
> >oem lenses fail too.
>
> Sure, but much less often.
depends on the lens.
> >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
> >who makes them.
>
> Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.
it's not really that hard, and the typical user is not anal about the
differences anyway.
> >canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.
>
> Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
> I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
> You tend to get what you pay for.
true
> >sometimes the
> >third parties are better, sometimes not.
>
> Almost always not in my experience.
your experience is not the only one
> >the label on the barrel is
> >not the only indicator of quality.
>
> But arguably the best one for typical users.
sometimes yes, sometimes no
> >and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
> >would have backup lenses and cameras.
>
> I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
> prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
> frontend money. But as always, YMMV.
if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
stupid.
> >> The moment is
> >> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
> >> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
> >> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
> >> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
> >
> >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
> >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
>
> Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.
which means that some pros do.
Bob Larter
> Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
> looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
> about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
I have that lens, & it's pretty damn good.
> and
> would it even make a notable difference.
Compared to what?
> How would a Canon EF 20mm
> f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
In general, Canon primes are excellent.
> I would
> like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
> photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
> be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas
in <170620091753384093%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <4jhi35dm2tssn119j...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
>> samples,
>
>how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?
Has nothing to do with reviews.
>> and don't reflect things like durability.
>
>build quality is usually mentioned
Mostly guesswork, and nothing to do with durability.
>> That said, the best
>> OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.
>
>depends on the test and on which lens.
I stand by what I wrote.
>> >oem lenses fail too.
>>
>> Sure, but much less often.
>
>depends on the lens.
What lens?
>> >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
>> >who makes them.
>>
>> Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.
>
>it's not really that hard,
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>and the typical user is not anal about the
>differences anyway.
The typical user all too often makes poor choices.
>> >sometimes the
>> >third parties are better, sometimes not.
>>
>> Almost always not in my experience.
>
>your experience is not the only one
True, but is yours that different?
>> >the label on the barrel is
>> >not the only indicator of quality.
>>
>> But arguably the best one for typical users.
>
>sometimes yes, sometimes no
Usually yes.
>> I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
>> prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
>> frontend money. But as always, YMMV.
>
>if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
>better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
>stupid.
Whatever you say.
>> >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
>> >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
>>
>> Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.
>
>which means that some pros do.
The ones being paid for endorsements.
ASAAR
>> The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
>> the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
>> limiting factor on their creativity. ...
>
> The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
> As always, YMMV.
IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
Robert Coe
: Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
I still recommend the Sigma 18-50mm constant aperture f/2.8. My wife and I
both have it, and it's been a reliable workhorse. We have five other lenses
between us, but those two Sigmas and her 60mm Canon macro get most of the use.
It won't work on your putative 5D, but what do you care? If you win the lotto,
you'll give all your current equipment to your grandchildren anyway.
You don't want a 50mm lens as your walking around lens. On a 1.6-crop camera,
it's just too long.
Bob
Robert Coe
: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley
I think John overstates his case, although his basic point is valid. You can
do well with 3rd-party lenses if you're careful. Never buy any lens without
soliciting advice from those who already have it (as you're doing now).
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas
: <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
: <ft4i355a2uji060ls...@4ax.com>:
:
: >Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
: >on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
: >compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
:
: In other words, first choose the glass, then the body.
: ...
:
: What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital cameras
: were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses, unmatched
: in the SLR world even at many times the price.
:
: If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
: than on the body.
Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.
Bob
Robert Coe
Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
that's all that's required.
Bob
ASAAR
> : IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
>
> Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
> to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
> that's all that's required.
John may know what his needs are, and topmost is the need to never
appear to be wrong. You apparently don't know John very well, and
here I thought that you were also an ace. Say it ain't so, Coe. It
would really be terrible if you were nothing more than a photo dood.
:)
nospam
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> : If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
> : than on the body.
>
> Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
> statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.
actually, most people only own one or two lenses.
Robert Coe
Welll, I guess you have a point. I first met John in the cell phone
newsgroups, and it's true that he was a self-acknowledged expert over there.
But I have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's not claiming
that a particular camera is better than any other, just that it works for him.
Bob
Robert Coe
: In article <g2vq351l2iv9297nk...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
In the general population I don't doubt that you're right, but I wouldn't
expect it to be true of the denizens of this newsgroup. My wife and I, for
example, have three DSLRs and seven lenses between us, and I'm tentatively
drooling over the new Sigma WA, if they ever manage to get it into production.
But there are many in the photography newsgroups who are better photographers
than we are, and I doubt that we fall near the high end of equipment
ownership.
There are, of course, a few oddballs here who probably own no cameras or
lenses. We all know who they are, and there's no reason to let them skew the
statistics. ;^)
Bob
John Navas
<g2vq351l2iv9297nk...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:18:35 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>: If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
>: than on the body.
>
>Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
>statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.
I fail to see why.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
John Navas
<tmuq35das8h6tc44j...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>: Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
>: on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
>: compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
>
>I think John overstates his case, although his basic point is valid. You can
>do well with 3rd-party lenses if you're careful. Never buy any lens without
>soliciting advice from those who already have it (as you're doing now).
I respectfully disagree -- those who own the lens have a clear bias,
typically a need to justify their purchase, and you don't know whether
they even have the lens or not, or have any idea how to check the
optical quality.
John Navas
<5stq35p1ej7hpof0g...@4ax.com>:
>I still recommend the Sigma 18-50mm constant aperture f/2.8. My wife and I
>both have it, and it's been a reliable workhorse. We have five other lenses
>between us, but those two Sigmas and her 60mm Canon macro get most of the use.
>It won't work on your putative 5D, but what do you care? If you win the lotto,
>you'll give all your current equipment to your grandchildren anyway.
>
>You don't want a 50mm lens as your walking around lens. On a 1.6-crop camera,
>it's just too long.
That all depends. Back in my 35 mm film days one of my favorite walking
around lenses was my tack sharp Canon 100 mm FD, which gave me enough
extra reach for unobtrusive photographs. But then I prefer tight crops
to the usual wide angle get-everything-it photos of a barely
recognizable Aunt Millie standing in front of the Eiffel Tower.
John Navas
<5stq35p1ej7hpof0g...@4ax.com>:
>I still recommend the Sigma 18-50mm constant aperture f/2.8. My wife and I
>both have it, and it's been a reliable workhorse. We have five other lenses
>between us, but those two Sigmas and her 60mm Canon macro get most of the use.
>It won't work on your putative 5D, but what do you care? If you win the lotto,
>you'll give all your current equipment to your grandchildren anyway.
If you're happy with that lens then more power to you, but I'm
disappointed in images a good friend of mine takes with his --
considerable wide angle distortion and softness wide open.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
> looked at DPs reviews ratings.
A google for >>rate canon lenses<< turns up
www.photographyreview.com
Adapting the google search to >>canon lens review<< turns up
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.canonlensreview.com/
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45
http://www.eflens.com/i.cgi?order_by=min&order=123
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html
http://www.photodo.com/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/
http://www.dcviews.com/lenses/Canon-lenses.htm
http://www.olegkikin.com/lenstests/
...
There should be enough sites that actually rate the lenses
amongst them.
> Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
> about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
That very much depends. It wouldn't be very sharp at 135mm
or 35mm or 28mm, for example. It also depends on the
aperture and the camera shake ...
> and would it even make a notable difference.
... and on the enlargement.
> How would a Canon EF 20mm
> f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
That depends.
What do you want the lens to do for you?
-Wolfgang
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<jobph6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
>> about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
>
>That very much depends. It wouldn't be very sharp at 135mm
>or 35mm or 28mm, for example.
Try reading what he wrote a bit more carefully. ;)
>It also depends on the
>aperture
True, but not enough to matter. The Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM is excellent
at any aperture.
>and the camera shake ...
Has no effect on sharpness.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:07:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
>>> about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
>>That very much depends. It wouldn't be very sharp at 135mm
>>or 35mm or 28mm, for example.
> Try reading what he wrote a bit more carefully. ;)
Try understanding that anyone who asks for "sharp" and
nothing else has an ill defined problem. The f/1.8 isn't
bad, optically, and matches the sharpness of the f/1.4 at
medium apertures --- all for a much lower price.
>>It also depends on the
>>aperture
> True, but not enough to matter. The Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM is excellent
> at any aperture.
It's not very good at f/1.2 or f/1.0.
And according to
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/159-canon-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp
and others it's not excellent nor tack sharp wide open, much less
at the borders. Photzozone reports it as only 'very good/good'
(center/border) wide open, versus 'ex/ex' at f/4 to f/8, for
example.
Dpreview reports Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 to be much better, from
center to corner at wide open, even though it's reported as still
slightly soft.
Of course, the EF-S 60mm at f/4-5.6 was even sharper at the center
according to photozone than the best the 50mm f/1.4 could produce.
>>and the camera shake ...
> Has no effect on sharpness.
If you define images blurred by camera shake as sharp, then yes,
camera shake has no effect on sharpness. Personally, I have a
different point of view regarding sharpness.
-Wolfgang