#1  
Old 17-04-2006, 08:17 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Lenses for Canon 350D

Hi all.

I'm after some advice and opinions on what extra lenses I could buy for my 350D..

I've heard (and it's understandable) that prime lenses are generally better quality than zoom lenses, so i'm after a lens or two that I could use for

a) portraits
b) landscapes

I've heard that for portraits, longer focal lengths are better, so i'm guessing around 70-100mm might be appropriate? Helps with depth of field etc.

For landscapes, generally I'd imagine wider field/shorter focal length would be best to capture the scene, so something around 15-25mm.

I *might* use these lenses for widefield astrophotography in the future, but it's not a main concern at this stage.

What are the best lenses for these purposes?
What are the best value for money lenses for these purposes?

Apart from genuine canon lenses, what other (cheaper) brands would fit the 350D? Do I need any adapters or equivalent?

I was at camera house the other day, and pretty much most (if not all) of the genuine canon lenses were over $1000, some significantly more than $1000. Is that what I should expect to pay? That's an awful lot of money

Has anyone got any comparison shots of the same scene taken with the same camera, with a good quality lens versus a cheaper lens? I want to see why they cost so much!

Thanks for your help.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-04-2006, 09:37 AM
Volans's Avatar
Volans
Registered User

Volans is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
G'day Mike,

While I can't offer any help (because all my lenses are Canon Ultrasonic Zoom) I will be very interested in any answers to your valid questions. You may recall I started a thread about a blue flaring I got in a photograph and after asking people what it was, it turned out to be chromatic abberation. It raised its ugly head again a few nights ago when I tried to use that same lens (Canon 75 - 300) to see what kind of image I would get if I just zoomed in on Jupiter. I picked up Jupiter and 3 moons alright but the CA on the over exposed planet was incredible. It was like looking through a wobbletronic with a very dodgy Hyugens ep.!!

I wonder if there is an easy way to test camera lenses before you buy them? What could you take a picture of that would enable you to see any defects? Remembering that it's unlikely the shop would let you take the lens out of the store.

Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-04-2006, 09:44 AM
Striker's Avatar
Striker (Tony)
Whats visual Astronomy

Striker is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,062
You can always try to talk me into selling my "L" series 17-40mm F4 lense...you never know I may give in.

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cam...f_17-40mm.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-04-2006, 09:52 AM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,996
Mike how much are you willing to spend on these two lenses, max let's say?
Obviously you'd prefer to pay rock bottom price but what's your budget?

Also if the store you're talking about is the one I'm thinking of, then I wouldn't be buying from there.
Too expensive.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-04-2006, 10:17 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Two lenses in the portrait range are
1. Canon 85mm F1.8 bang for buck as good as an L. Razor sharp no chromatic aberration. About $600+

2. Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro. As sharp if not sharper than the Canon Macro. Again razor sharp and no chromatic aberration. Has the added feature of focusing in close for macro. About $600+

Both of these take almost perfect star fields as well.

If you want to take wide landscapes you cant beat for value
Zenitar 16mm F2.8. About $180+. This lens is manual focus but for landscapes would not be a problem. Any distortion can be eliminated with PTlens. This also takes very good starfield pictures.


Of course the one lens that you should not pass up is the Canon 50mm F1.8. About $130+.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-04-2006, 11:00 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,985
If you're taking landscape shots you are really quite limited without a zoom lens. It's not always possibe to reposition and get the composition you require with a fixed focus lens when taking landscape shots. The Tokina 12-24 is a good wide angle landscape lens, it's very solidly built and is reputed to perform as well as the L series Canon Lens. I have a friend with the Tokina 12-24 and he speaks very highly of it. Here are some user reviews of the 12-24. The 12-24 can be bought on Ebay from this melbourne dealer for $699. As Bert said, for portrait work, the 50mm standard Canon lens (either f1.8 or the more expensive f1.4) would be ideal as this f/l equates to around 80mm on a 35mm SLR (80mm is a f/l often used for portraits in 35mm film format). The 50mm F1.8 can be had for less than $150 and for the money is a very good lens.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-04-2006, 11:38 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Tony, PM sent. Although I have no idea if that's a good lens or not I have the 18-55 stock lens in that focal range atm.

RB, I really don't know.. I don't have a budget in mind, just trying to get a feel for how much I'm going to need to pay.. incase I win lottery or something And I'm talking about John Ralf's camera house at Erina. And no I wouldn't buy anything from there but I just had a look around while I was there getting some prints done.

Bert, thanks for the portrait suggestions. The second one sounds good because I like the idea of doing some macro from time to time as well.

The landscape one sounds good as well, manual focus shouldn't be an issue. Do all these non-canon lenses just screw on normally, or do I need an adapter?

Phil, good point and a zoom lens is better for general all purpose for landscapes, because as you say sometimes you just need to zoom in a bit to eliminate some unwanted part of the scenery. As long as it's good quality. The one you suggested sounds good and will go on my short list.

I've heard about the 50mm Canon before, mainly for people doing astro work but it sounds like it's quite suitable for terrestrial as well?

Thanks for the suggestions and great advice, keep them coming!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17-04-2006, 12:20 PM
Mikezoom's Avatar
Mikezoom
Gravity = Beer in glass

Mikezoom is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wagga Wagga, NSW
Posts: 182
Mike,

I can second/third the Canon 50mm 1.8 too, got mine last year for AU$130.00 and have since used it for portrait, wedding, landscape, lightning & Star field shots and have not had any woes, it is a GREAT lense for the amount of $$$ spent.

Im currently in decision mode about purchasing either a Canon 20mm 1.8 & 35mm f2 or the Canon 17-40mm L as I already have a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 & 100-300mm 4.5-5 to cover my zooms which are two handy, well made lenses that are not tooo expensive.

Mike, it's alot like aperture fever, ....... trust me.

Mike. B.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17-04-2006, 11:32 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Mike,

I'm willing to sell my brand new in box Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 for $575. It's been used twice. Recommended retail price is $749.

I'm selling it because I have two.

Let me know.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-04-2006, 01:39 AM
Jonathan
Registered User

Jonathan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
My choice would be a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for portraits and a zoom lens in the 12-24mm range for landscapes. With all wide angle lenses I strongly suggest you read reviews and look for examples that show the distortion levels and any light falloff, distortion can completely ruin a photo especially if it has straight lines in it (such as the horizon or buildings). You'll probably find you get what you pay for.
I also suggest you look at www.bhphotovideo.com for prices. I've bought heaps of camera gear and lenses from them and they are usually at least 30% cheaper than the best Australian prices.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 19-04-2006, 10:26 AM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,540
Prime vs Zoom - debatable, I'd go with zoom. In the good quality end of the lens range you will be hard pressed to notice a difference (if you can). I believe the Prime better than Zoom comparison only lingers form days when Zooms were lower quality than now and less popular than now. Zoom usually have slower F-stop's but that's not a huge issue with digital and "non-pro" work in my opinnion. Can't beat zoom for convenience.

I have a 70-200 F4L & 17 - 40 F4L. The 70-200 is considerred a portrait lens but with digital I think it's a bit long for that, I'd agree with your 70-100 but suggest maybe 28-100 range. The 17-40 is great for everything.

For landscape I use my 70-200 as much as the 17-40, for various reasons - DOF, framing, whatever. Often a wide angle like 17-40 isn't helpful, only making a scene clutterred. Same for astro, both prove very useful.

Cheaper alternatives:
- Sigma
- Tamron

I'd always buy Canon or Sigma personally. Sigma's range can be confusing - do some research I'd suggest.

The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 used to be a good buy, haven't looked at it for a long time. I'd expect they have a good range of wide angle's, but haven't looked for over a year or 2 (last lens I bought was the 17-40 a couple of years back).

Roger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Hi all.

I'm after some advice and opinions on what extra lenses I could buy for my 350D..

I've heard (and it's understandable) that prime lenses are generally better quality than zoom lenses, so i'm after a lens or two that I could use for

a) portraits
b) landscapes

I've heard that for portraits, longer focal lengths are better, so i'm guessing around 70-100mm might be appropriate? Helps with depth of field etc.

For landscapes, generally I'd imagine wider field/shorter focal length would be best to capture the scene, so something around 15-25mm.

I *might* use these lenses for widefield astrophotography in the future, but it's not a main concern at this stage.

What are the best lenses for these purposes?
What are the best value for money lenses for these purposes?

Apart from genuine canon lenses, what other (cheaper) brands would fit the 350D? Do I need any adapters or equivalent?

I was at camera house the other day, and pretty much most (if not all) of the genuine canon lenses were over $1000, some significantly more than $1000. Is that what I should expect to pay? That's an awful lot of money

Has anyone got any comparison shots of the same scene taken with the same camera, with a good quality lens versus a cheaper lens? I want to see why they cost so much!

Thanks for your help.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement