18 55mm And A Wide Angle Or A Few Tamaron Lenses? - Topic

Qhotex

Member

Posts: 10,641

Joined: Oct 11 2006

Gold: 60.00

#11

May 31 2009 01:27am

Quote (Futurama @ Sun, 31 May 2009, 09:15)

haha

hmm I have heard that the ef 70-200 f/2.8 IS + Canon extender 1.4x are also a very good combination. I am sure most of the time you wouldn't need the extender to boost focal length then you would have one of the best 70-200 lens out there

but as usual it's not cheap lol. I am sure you can find a used 40D quite cheap unless you want to pay more for the inferior 50D

I need the long focal length. I like wildlife photographing.

I think I read somewhere about the extender, and I was not pleased with the downsides of using it.
Haha. It is more of a wish right now, I can not afford to buy an extra body.

Futurama

Member

Posts: 11,814

Joined: Feb 4 2006

Gold: 8.09

#12

May 31 2009 12:18pm

Quote (Qhotex @ Sun, May 31 2009, 01:27am)

I need the long focal length. I like wildlife photographing.

I think I read somewhere about the extender, and I was not pleased with the downsides of using it.
Haha. It is more of a wish right now, I can not afford to buy an extra body.

I think the real downside of those extenders is that they would make your lens slower.

Quote

For example, the Canon 1.4x makes a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens into a 98-280mm f/4 IS lens - and yes, IS still functions normally. A Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L Lens mounted over a 1.4x becomes a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens. A Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens becomes a 420mm f/4 IS lens.

Extenders do not affect the MFD (Minimum Focus Distance) of the lens they are mounted behind, thus the MM (Maximum Magnification) of the lens is also multiplied by 1.4x. Do you need more macro magnification from your Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Lens? Add the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender to the setup for a 252mm 1.4:1 Macro lens.

Full review on the Canon 1.4x extender: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-II-Tele-Converter-Review.aspx

lithfkn

Member

Posts: 14,659

Joined: Jan 27 2007

Gold: 78.16

#13

May 31 2009 06:12pm

Quote (Qhotex @ Sun, May 31 2009, 05:35am)

The Canon 15 - 55 IS is better than the version without IS. I also read that somewhere. I think it is good enough for starters. But the sigma 10 - 20 <3.

Hmm I thought the sigma 10-20 was horrible.

I purchased one a while ago to get me out of trouble before getting a FF dslr.

The corner sharpness and distortion was terrible

Even shooting at f16 the centre at 100% was quite a bit off.

The canon 10-22 is much nicer

lithfkn

Member

Posts: 14,659

Joined: Jan 27 2007

Gold: 78.16

#14

May 31 2009 07:12pm

Even the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a better UWA lense than the sigma

Chantal7

Member

Posts: 21,796

Joined: Sep 26 2005

Gold: 895.69

#15

May 31 2009 07:20pm

Quote (lithfkn @ Sun, May 31 2009, 06:12pm)

Hmm I thought the sigma 10-20 was horrible.

I purchased one a while ago to get me out of trouble before getting a FF dslr.

The corner sharpness and distortion was terrible

Even shooting at f16 the centre at 100% was quite a bit off.

The canon 10-22 is much nicer

It's not that horrible... I have this lens and I love it. Also, a few users in here have also had that lens.

lithfkn

Member

Posts: 14,659

Joined: Jan 27 2007

Gold: 78.16

#16

May 31 2009 07:33pm

Quote (chantal7 @ Mon, Jun 1 2009, 11:20am)

It's not that horrible... I have this lens and I love it. Also, a few users in here have also had that lens.

The work I've done has been quite demanding so maybe I'm basing it off those expectations.

Maybe I got a dodgy Sigma. They are known to have random shit examples

Still, the Canon and even the Tokina has proven much better in tests =/

edited.

This post was edited by lithfkn on May 31 2009 07:48pm

Chantal7

Member

Posts: 21,796

Joined: Sep 26 2005

Gold: 895.69

#17

May 31 2009 07:48pm

Quote (lithfkn @ Sun, May 31 2009, 07:33pm)

The work I've done has been quite demanding so maybe I'm basing it off those expectations

Still, the Canon and even the Tokina has proven much better in tests =/

Possibly... I still think it's a great lens. You can zoom in all the way with it and it doesn't leave that big of a distortion. ^^ of course there is better, hehe. But for 600 bucks, this lens is decent.

lithfkn

Member

Posts: 14,659

Joined: Jan 27 2007

Gold: 78.16

#18

May 31 2009 08:05pm

Quote (chantal7 @ Mon, Jun 1 2009, 11:48am)

Maybe I got a dud lense.

Can you post a pic for me at 10mm @ f8 100% crop at the centre and corners?

Chantal7

Member

Posts: 21,796

Joined: Sep 26 2005

Gold: 895.69

#19

May 31 2009 08:58pm

Quote (lithfkn @ Sun, May 31 2009, 08:05pm)

Maybe I got a dud lense.

Can you post a pic for me at 10mm @ f8 100% crop at the centre and corners?

Maybe... but I can't be too sure lol. You've seen better, however, I haven't

Sure ... will do. How do I do the crop part tho? (I've never done that before).

This one here I used my wide angle... (it's not one I took with f8 etc... just wanted to show this one) how come f8 though?

This post was edited by chantal7 on May 31 2009 09:02pm

Futurama

Member

Posts: 11,814

Joined: Feb 4 2006

Gold: 8.09

#20

Jun 1 2009 12:23am

100% crop means you have to enlarge the original image so it shows 100% in Photoshop or which ever software you use for cropping and crop it. He wanted one of the center so you just get rid of everything except the center part and do the same with the edge one.

Anyway here is the center 100% crop of one of the pictures I took and I think I posted in one of my topics awhile ago. I am sure you got a crappy lens because I find it sharper than my EF 17-85 IS USM lens and I have heard that it's just as sharp as the Canon version but cheaper that's why I bought it instead.

EDIT: btw the Sigma 10-20 won't work well on FF bodies. It will physically fit but you would get images with black corners. I believe only the Sigma 12-24 is usable on FF bodies but it's also quite a bit more expensive.

This post was edited by Futurama on Jun 1 2009 12:42am

Go Back To Photography Topic List