 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 6
I use the 17mm Ts-e and the 24mm Ts-e but would never recomend them to inexperienced photographers, the 17-40 is a superb lens to learn on and in contrast to what has been said previously I love it on my FF 5DMKIIs (ever heard of post prosessing? it can cover a multitude of our photographic sins)
I didnt know any amount of PP can help improve the 17-40's awful corner softness and smeared details on a full frame.....might have to go back to using the ancient 1Ds body for its very sharp sensor thenthe 17-40 is a superb lens to learn on and in contrast to what has been said previously I love it on my FF 5DMKIIs (ever heard of post prosessing? it can cover a multitude of our photographic sins)
Helpful thread.
So do I understand correctly that there isn't really a lens under the $400 mark that would suffice?
It's not even worth having a look if you're thinking a $200 price range, is it? Maybe I'll just want until Christmas or my birthday or something...
Originally Posted by Geoff79
The answer is "NO" You maybe able to pick up a second hand Siggy, I got mine 3yrs ago for $450 , All my earlier shots at Landscapes were taken at 18mm and were'nt to shabby , That said next time I go out for a Sunrise shoot , All I'm taking is the 24-105 for a different perspective on things , That'll be interesting
Canon : 30D, and sometimes the 5D mkIII , Sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8, Canon 24-105 f4 L , On loan Sigma 120-400 DG and Canon 17 - 40 f4 L , Cokin Filters
I don't own one myself and I am waiting for a chance (that missus is not looking at the credit card statement) to get one myself....
The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 suppose to be a very, very good alternative for just under AUD$400 shipped to door due to strong AUD. But it's all manual (no AF, manual aperture etc)
Last edited by andylo; 23-06-2011 at 1:10pm.
Thats a good price has anyone tried it that we know on this site ?
This is what Ken Rockwell thinks of the Samyang !!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm
Last edited by William; 23-06-2011 at 1:22pm.
Who cares what Rockwell thinks
Go and buy it , And let us know what you thinkWho cares what Rockwell thinks
I wont be in a hurry
Last edited by William; 23-06-2011 at 2:29pm.
In general, I'd agree, Andylo, but in this casse ... well, even Ken Rockwell would find it hard to be this wrong about a lens. That is a truly shocking review. Possible the worst review of a lens I have ever read.
Photozone, on the other hand, says that it is very sharp ("outstanding resolution figures") but also that it has "massive" barrel distortion.
Not a lens I'd be racing out to buy, that's for sure!
So just to get a final answer for this, and something for me to really aim for... what is the perfect lens one would purchase in an acceptable price-range - not more than $500 (I couldn't do it again). That one lens to fruitfully capture the best from mostly sea(beach)scapes, as well as landscapes?
The ones I was a bit excited about were the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24.
Flick a coin geoff, I have a Sigma, Excellent lens if you've seen my Sunrises, Maybe the Tokina as well , The reason I say these two lens is the price difference , The Canon is nearly double the price , So in your price range , You'd have to go with the Sigma IMO , Heard some good reports on the Tokina/Tamron as well tho , But have'nt seen or tried it , Maybe Tony can enlighten us
Last edited by William; 23-06-2011 at 3:32pm. Reason: Added Tamron
I am also looking at a WA zoom for my Canon DSLR in particular the Sigma 10-20 but i am not sure which model i.e
10-20 F3.5 EX DC HSM or 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM also the Canon 10-22 any views on which lens would be the most suitable for landscapes.
Thanks ....Bathy
Kindly explain this astonishing comment. Details please.
(I'm thinking of buying the thing, so any informed comment would be valuable.)
^ Nothing to explain.
Rockwell isn't all that well-regarded - the conventional wisdom is that he is a genuine buffoon , but he nevertheless does have some credibility when he isn't grandstanding for the gallery, and he gives this lens a shockingly bad review, absolutely crucifies it. Why not just read it for yourself? Won't take you more than 90 seconds.
Bathy, most people here say to go for the Sigma 10-20 either because it's cheap, or else perhaps because they are cheap. It also gets votes because it will fit on a Nikon or a Pentax (assuming you buy the right version).
I have never owned one, but the quality reviewers seem to agree that it is good, but not nearly as good as the Canon 10-22. It has inferior finish and build quality (which is no big deal) and it is 2mm shorter. Now that may or may not matter to you, but I find those extra few mm really, really handy - certainly now that I'm using multiple bodies and matching it with either a 24-105 or a set of primes starting at 35mm, but even before, when I was using a single body and a 18-55 with significant FL overlap. Even in the latter case, it was still very handy and saved a lot of tedious lens swapping.
On the other hand, it costs more.
I'd like the Tamron 10-24 even more, but apparently that is a bit of a dog, with significant image quality issues. End result, I reckon the Canon 10-22 is still the one to have. If I remember correctly, the newish Nikkor ultra-wde is a good 'un also.
I read it. Rockwell isn't a buffoon, he's pretty sharp and well informed.
He does arse about a bit*, but usually makes sense when read carefully.
His review is very dismissive, but the only concrete thing I see in it that differs from other reviews is his opinion that the lens is soft. And as he says this might well be explained by sample variation.
Not "shocking" in my view.
*Ok. A lot.
There's also an in-depth review of the Samyang in Photozone in Germany.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/53...ng14f28eosapsc
They seem to like it for the money and the test photos look remarkably good.
The problem is that many people would be frightened off by the fact it's purely manual, but for those from the old school, like me, it could be fun.
Haven't used a manual lens for many years!
All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.
I prefer the Canon 15-85 its as good as the 17-40 if not better.
Also its reasonably priced and a nice carry lens.
Regards
Bodies : Canon 450D, Canon 7D
Lenses : Canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 100mm F2.8 Makro USM, Canon 24-70 L F2.8 USM, Canon 70-200 L F4, Canon 100-400 L F4.5-5.6L IS USM
Editing : Photoshop CS5
I'm just going to pop my head in here as it's also one I'm looking into for my next purchase.
I have a 7D so I'm looking at the 10-20mm but it's so hard to decide why can't we try before we buyhaha
I'm also struggling to decide which UWA to go with when I move to full frame shortly... 16-35mm or 14mm or TSE 17mm... tough decision, all so expensive...
Richard
Canon 5D4 & 7D2 | 11-24 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L | 100-400 L II | 85 f/1.2 L | 35 f/1.4 L II | 100 f/2.8 L macro | MP-E 65 f/2.8 macro | 1.4x | 580EX2 | MT-24 Twin Lite | Manfrotto
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
