View Full Version : What's your favourite "walk-around" lens for a crop camera ??
Hi Everyone!
I have just taken delivery of a 7D...and am really looking forward to doing its amazing features justice - eventually. :o
What I'd like to know is which lens is your favourite "walk-around" and why?
I already have a Canon 10-22...a Canon 70-200 IS...and a Canon 50 1.4 - and for a walk-around was thinking about a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS...or a 24-105 f/4 L...they are very similar in price.
Thanks in advance for your advice...I really appreciate your insight. ;)
davomate
16-03-2011, 5:02pm
My favourite walk-around lens is the 15-85 - my first step up from the kit lens. Although now I have added the 10-22 and the 70-200 and there is some overlap, it is a great focal range for situations when you dont want to carry a bag of lenses with you. The image quality is at least as good as the 17-55 (and it costs less), although it is not 2.8, so you might need to rely on the high ISO capability of your 7D if you want to take shots indoors without flash.
Thanks davomate! I'll check it out. :th3:
Big Pix
16-03-2011, 5:09pm
24-105 would be a nice walkabout.......
I shoot Nikon and use an 18-200 Nikon as a walkabout lens.....:D
Thanks Big Pix.
I was all ready to go the 17-55 when I could afford it...and then I met someone who swore by the 24-105...why do you think it would be best?
fabian628
16-03-2011, 5:24pm
Thanks Big Pix.
I was all ready to go the 17-55 when I could afford it...and then I met someone who swore by the 24-105...why do you think it would be best?
I think I wouldnt get a zoom that isnt at least 18mm on the wide end for a walkaround lens. Your idea may vary. I used a 24-70 on a crop body for a while but ended up selling it becuase the 24mm was not wide enough to get the shots I wanted.
Alternatively, you could go a simple prime lens (maybe 30mm) and use it as a walk around.
triptych
16-03-2011, 5:45pm
My 50mm 1.4 rarely comes off my camera...so I guess its my walk around lens. I mainly do portraits so its great for that, if you are wanting to do landscapes i'd go for the 15-85mm
I have a 28-85 Sigma 2.8 as a walkaround off a 7D. Get some great shots. I find my 100mm too long for out and about shots.
billylid
16-03-2011, 7:30pm
Hi, i have a 24-105 F4L IS USM lens for walk a bout. I absolutely love it, great glass with sharp results. Very versatile. Also like to take out my 70-200 F4L USM for walk a bout too. Bill
i have a tammy 17-50 f2.8 as my walkabout on my 450d. Very Very impressed with it. Especially for the price.
24-105 would be a nice walkabout.......
I shoot Nikon and use an 18-200 Nikon as a walkabout lens.....:D
Agree - the 24-105 covers a lot of bases - I love mine!
Art Vandelay
16-03-2011, 8:17pm
300 f/2.8, with a 1.4x converter in one pocket, and a 2.0x converter in the other. Covers most things I like to shoot.
But you you it's probably different. :)
Considering you have the 10-22 the 24 -105 may be a good option, as 24 on a crop body is quite limiting.
If you only want to carry one lens though, the 15-85 is hard to beat for a crop. or the 17-55 f/8.
The downsside of the 15-85 is the variable aperture, the downside to the 17-55 is the lack of length. The upside is both are very similar (good) image quality.
If you plan on ever going full frame down the track i would probably go the 24-105L over the 17-55mm f/2.8
You already have 10-22 covered with a very good lens. if your next good lens up starts at 24mm, then you're not really missing any focal lengths (2mm is nothing, a tiny crop on the UWA would have that covered easy). However, you may find it annoying having to change between lenses. As 24mm on the 7D is effective 38.4mm, it's not particularly wide, and some might describe this focal length as a little awkward. And if you say you are using this as a walkaround, if you don't have the UWA handy, it is very likely that you will wish the 24-105 went wider for you.
So basically, if you will usually be carrying the 10-22 with you (and will possibly go FF down the track), i would go the 24-105L
But if you only want to have one lens with you as you do not want to carry additional gear or bother with changing lenses, then go the 17-55 f/2.8 or simillar
Thanks so much everyone...it's so interesting hearing everyone say why their favourite works for them...certainly have a lot to consider. I like carrying my 10-22 and my 70-200 around with me...so changing lenses doesn't worry me at all...but yes it would be nice to have one that covered many things when you're just cruising. I'm learning so much...a "walk-around" lens means such different things to different people - that's why I love photography!
Analog6
17-03-2011, 6:03am
Is the 7D 1.5? That makes the 24-105 a 36-157.5 equivalent. 36 is a bit long for a wide angle lens. I'd try for something wider if I were you. The 24-105 is a great lens, but even on full frame I found it was sometimes too narrow.
^effective focal length is 1.6 times so 24 is 38.4mm
mitgonk
17-03-2011, 10:22am
i like a one lens combo for walk around so my 17-55 is on my 7d majority of the time.
i like wider shots for street photography, as you never know when a opportunity may present when you're out and about in a indoor/cramped environment where a 24 focal length on a crop sensor is too restricting e.g. say you're in a market, or a birthday party etc.
i'll be getting a 24-70 sometime, but that will be for my film camera.
StephenM
17-03-2011, 10:40am
I'm very happy with the 15-85 as a walk-around lens on my 50D!
Cheers,
Stephen
davomate
17-03-2011, 11:00am
If you plan on ever going full frame down the track i would probably go the 24-105L over the 17-55mm f/2.8
You already have 10-22 covered with a very good lens.
Of course the 10-22 is an EF-S lens so you would need to replace that as well. The good lenses loose less than 20% of their new value when resold. For me I am happy to buy crop-only lenses now (if they meet my requirements), and resell them if I ever go FF.
Wobbles
17-03-2011, 11:24am
Hi Amanda,
another vote for the 17-55 f2.8IS. It is always on one of my 50D's (70-200 F2.8IS on the other). While the 24-105 & 24-70 are both great lenses I believe they are just not wide enough on a APS-C camera. With the high resolution of the 7D and sharpness of the 17-55 you always can crop if it's a bit short but you can't "widen" a 24mm image. Also having both f2.8 and IS in the one lens is a hard combination to beat for a walk-around when lighting is often less than ideal.
Cheers
John
Remorhaz
17-03-2011, 12:20pm
i have a tammy 17-50 f2.8 as my walkabout on my 450d. Very Very impressed with it. Especially for the price.
Agreed - I have the 17-50/2.8 (non VC) on my D7000 and it's fantastic.
larrywen
17-03-2011, 1:48pm
what about 18-200. It has a very good cover and can do nearly everything :)
davomate
17-03-2011, 5:07pm
what about 18-200. It has a very good cover and can do nearly everything :)
Image quality is not much better than the kit lenses. It saves you having to carry around both the wide and telephoto kit lenses, but your photos won't look any better.
A million thanks everyone...I never imagined I'd see so many different faves...but as I often read on AP...it all depends on what you love to shoot! At this stage I'm leaning back to the 17-55...I shoot a lot outdoors...and you're right Wobbles...you can always crop a good shot...but can't widen what you don't capture in the first place. But then again...the 24-105 has the extra zoom...and the L build. Honestly I'm going back and forth like a yo-yo trying to decide. :eek:
I'm with wobbles, the 24-70/105 would be great on a FF, but you don't have that body, If your not worried about a wider FOV then sure, but the 17/18 to 50/55 is a great lens choice and designed for APS-c sensor. Sigma also do some great lens in these lenghts. Added to that, they will price match Grey import via there CR Kennedy backing.
See here. http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&h=price%20match&
The two 24-70/105, can't rememer which one, has the nick name of "the BRICK", I would strongly recommend trying all the lenses you can on your body and see/feel the weight and workings of them, that should also help narrow down the choice, I'd say.
Roosta - I've made a decision - going with the 17-55 !! Went to order it this afternoon from Australian shopfront-grey importer...but wsa told everything from Japan is on hold - of course...stupid me...poor buggers...I didn't even think. Lens can wait...
Art Vandelay
17-03-2011, 11:34pm
Roosta - I've made a decision - going with the 17-55 !! Went to order it this afternoon from Australian shopfront-grey importer...but wsa told everything from Japan is on hold - of course...stupid me...poor buggers...I didn't even think. Lens can wait...
keep looking around for someone who has one in stock, there shouldn't be a supply problem yet. If you're going grey anyway, then look at direct from Hong Kong, like Digital Rev.
You'll enjoy the 17-55.
andylo
18-03-2011, 12:08pm
My 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. (on a APS-H sensor)
It's not huge and it's light enough for me. It's a bit telephoto if I need to shoot something far. It's so sharp I can do extreme chop , color rendering is great and it can do macro. Focal length wise I just walk up/backward myself.
Won't regret the 17-55. It's really sharp wide open. 24-104 @ F4 is just too limiting for a crop when the lights go low. It's great for a 5D mk2 with high iso, but on a 7D that 1 stop does make a significant difference.
ATP has already decided, but here's my 2c anyway...
After a few years of uding the EF28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, I've decided to give that (quite decent) lens to my son with a 50D, and have ordered an EF 24-70 f2.8L as a
"walk around" lens for my 7D. Now it's a waiting game for USPS....
xkellie
20-03-2011, 5:06pm
the 17-55mm is a nice lens, i have that one, too, but the 50mm 1.4 lives on my camera.
HappySnap
20-03-2011, 10:25pm
I have to say my favourite is the 24-105 - love it!!
You made the right choice. The 17-55 is incredibly versatile, much more so on a crop sensor than the 24-105 which just isn't suited to crop sensor applications.
I simply love the Canon 15-85 it light, fast enough and sharp.:cool:
Regards
The 24-70 is a great lens but heavy.
After a while it feels like a piece of lead.:rolleyes:
Regards
davomate
21-03-2011, 11:49am
I simply love the Canon 15-85 it light, fast enough and sharp.:cool:
Regards
As I have said before, I have been very happy with that lens as well. But recently I have been using my 100mm 2.8 macro for other than macro shots, and while its focal length limits the situations you can use it (and the framing you get), I love the subject isolation you get with 2.8, so I am starting to think the 17-55 would be nice to have as well...
I've decided on getting the 17-55...after much internet research...and comparison in the shops...I reckon it's just right for what I need it for. :th3:
I seriously looked at the 17-55, it was recommended to me by someone whose opinion I highly value, congratulations on the purchase.
However, we ended up choosing the 15-85, due to cost and range of the 15-85. If the 17-55 started at 15mm it would be a no brainer, but those extra 2mm are useful.. The 17-55 seems a bit more geared to low light and portrait work, I guess. That`s when we have been using the 50 or 100. We put the extra money towards a flash and with the 15-85 it makes a great all-round general use and a happy snap set up, ie kids parties, Family bbq`s etc., that `s what we focused our priorities on.
Gratz on the purchase ATP; I have the 15-85 and it's a fantastic lens - perhaps my only disappointment with it is the variable aperture :(
I'm looking at either the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) or the 17-55 (which you just bought) as an alternative as I tend to shoot a lot of DoF-type shots; I look forward to seeing some of your shots :th3:
One reason the 17-55 f2.8 is my favourite walkaround on my 7D is the fantastic bright viewfinder when combining the fast zoom with the 7D's very good viewfinder.
whytebate
04-04-2011, 8:35pm
I've bought a 17-55 in November & it is now my absolute favourite lens! I debated this one vs the 24-70, but in the long run really am happy with the decision. I know if I do choose to upgrade to FF, I'll still have a second body, so good quality lenses on a crop camera backup.
THE dollar is sooo storng right now - if I were you I'd be looking to buy out of the states - B&H are pretty good. I've ordered from them before.
jjphoto
04-04-2011, 10:23pm
I tend to pick a lens (a prime, not zoom) and just use that for the day, and not worry about shot's I've missed because I had the 'wrong' lens. It's a great way to learn the quirks of a lens too, they all have their pro's and cons, things they do well and things they don't. Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed. Zooms are the best way to work quickly.
My favourite lens for a crop camera is actually a Leica Elmarit-R 24/2.8 with an adapter to fit it to a Canon. It's a beutiful lens, saturated colours, great sharpness and nice bokeh, but I don't use it often anymore as I've kind of gone away from crop bodies.
JJ
mitgonk
05-04-2011, 11:04am
I've decided on getting the 17-55...after much internet research...and comparison in the shops...I reckon it's just right for what I need it for. :th3:
definately won't be disappointed! I hardly ever take my 17-55 off my 7d!
I tend to pick a lens (a prime, not zoom) .... Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed. Zooms are the best way to work quickly....
The best modern zooms tend to be excellent at everything. The old truths about old zooms are dead, and can only exist in the modern world as myths.
jjphoto
06-04-2011, 9:33pm
The best modern zooms tend to be excellent at everything. The old truths about old zooms are dead, and can only exist in the modern world as myths.
I think you're the only one creating myths here. I've never suggested that modern zooms are in any way inadequate, just that they can be bettered with primes. Are you saying this isn't true?
When I work I generally use 3 zooms only, because they do what they are supposed to and they do the job well. It's also the reason 'pro' zooms cost a lot of money, that is, they are made to very high standards.
However, it would be fairly easy, although expensive, to find 'better' performing fixed focal length lenses at every focal length equivalent to virtually any zoom (there would be very few exceptions, such as the Zeiss or Cooke cine zooms, but they cost more than most peoples cars). Zoom lenses always have to compromise somewhere whilst a prime can be best at what it's suppsoed to do. Not to mention that primes are also generally faster too.
Of course it would be relatively obsurd to carry 5 lenses whilst a single zoom could do the same job almost as well, and better in terms of speed of use. Take an example of a Canon 17-40/4 L, which is quite an inexpensive lens but which performs extremely well. This is an excellent lens that is actually quite hard to better with primes (in terms of sharpness). It's probably better than many promes in terms of flare control, but that's another issue. To better this lens you would probabaly need the following;
Olympus 18mm
Contax 21/2.8 (or Zeiss 21)
Contax 25/2.8 MM, maybe Olympus 24/2.8 or 24/2.0, Nikon 24/2.8
Leica R 28/2.8 (V2) or Contax 28/2.8 MM
Contax 35/1.4, Leica R 35/1.4
Olympus 40/2.0
Again, modern zooms are excellent, no question, but they can always bettered.
JJ
I think you're the only one creating myths here. I've never suggested that modern zooms are in any way inadequate, just that they can be bettered with primes. <snip>
Well, jj, you have changed the topic from your previous post. I'll stick to my original topic, that you raised, and I quote you here, "Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed.".
My comment on that stands. Modern zooms are IMHO excellent, not mediocre.
Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:
"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."
Bennymiata
07-04-2011, 2:24pm
It's interesting to read what you guys are saying about zooms -v- primes.
I use both, and I haven't noticed a huge difference between them as far as sharpness or colour rendition is concerned.
However, generally speaking, primes are more expensive than zooms (for similar quality and reach), but zooms still sell more units than primes as they are more useful.
And I guess that is part of the reason primes are more expensive than zooms, is that they make a lot less of them, so their tooling and development costs have to be borne from fewer units.
The same goes for zooms too.
It isn't always true that if you pay more, the quaity must be better as many of the more popular Canon zooms are IMHO, very good value for money.
Take the 24-105L lens for example.
Compared to the 17-40L or the 24-70L, neither of which have IS, the 24-105 is pretty close on price, gives more reach and while it may be one stop slower than the 24-70, it has IS built in and this is worth a few hundred dollars onits own.
I think the reason it is so well priced is because it is so popular and so the initial costs can be divided by larger production numbers.
In the comparisons I've read, the 24-105 has virtually the same sharpness as the other 2 zooms, yet offers better value for money IMHO.
The same goes with primes with the exception of the 50mm 1.8 that sells by the squillions and is a very cheap lens to make, but look at the 1.4 version or the 1.2 and the price goes up considerably.
For the price of the 50mm 1.2, you could buy a couple of very good zoom lenses for the same money, and I doubt most of us could tell if the picture from the 50mm 1.2 is really THAT much better. Compared to many other lenses, it certainly isn't value for money.
Getting back on track, my favourite walk-around lens in the Canon 24-105L.
From one 7d user to another I love the 24-105 great lens very sharp good saturation as you would expect from a pro lens. I would not bother with primes to be used as a general purpose lens.
James Axford
07-04-2011, 9:43pm
50mm f1.2 for me, I think people who have actually used it can understand how good it really is. people who haven't can't.
ive got some good keepers from it. Many more than I would from my zooms.
I'll stick with my over priced prime thank you very much.
jjphoto
07-04-2011, 10:18pm
Well, jj, you have changed the topic from your previous post. I'll stick to my original topic, that you raised, and I quote you here, "Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed.".
My comment on that stands. Modern zooms are IMHO excellent, not mediocre.
Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:
"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."
Okeydokey!
JJ
jjphoto
07-04-2011, 10:25pm
...For the price of the 50mm 1.2, you could buy a couple of very good zoom lenses for the same money, and I doubt most of us could tell if the picture from the 50mm 1.2 is really THAT much better. Compared to many other lenses, it certainly isn't value for money.
...
You can't create an image with ANY zoom that you can create with a 50/1.2 lens at F1.2-F2 as zooms simply do not exist with that aperture. So you WOULD see the difference!
Bear in mind also that most people buy such a lens to use it wide open, or close to it. It's difficult and expensive to make a lens that performs at a very high level at such apertures. The concept of 'value for money' isn't really relevant once you start trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance. You might pay 2-5 times as much to go to the next level again.
JJ
I have the 24-70mm on the 1D Mk111 as a walk around. Thought long and hard about the 24-105mm but decided on the 24-70. Since you have the 10-22, nice wide angle, and the 70-200, wonderful sharp zoom (my favorite lens), it seems logical that you would go for the 24-105 to fill the gap and give you a good range and an excellent lens as a walk around.
Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:
"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."
one thing to remember is the quality of a lens is not purely judged by how sharp it is, there ather factors involved, for example contrast, this is one area where some primes really excel.
mitgonk
08-04-2011, 1:40pm
fast zooms... only for 4/3rd's systems...
http://www.olympus.com.au/component/option,com_product/id,91/task,detail/Itemid,69/
Bennymiata
08-04-2011, 3:03pm
You can't create an image with ANY zoom that you can create with a 50/1.2 lens at F1.2-F2 as zooms simply do not exist with that aperture. So you WOULD see the difference!
Bear in mind also that most people buy such a lens to use it wide open, or close to it. It's difficult and expensive to make a lens that performs at a very high level at such apertures. The concept of 'value for money' isn't really relevant once you start trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance. You might pay 2-5 times as much to go to the next level again.
JJ
I do agree with you JJ, but for someone on a limited budget and wanting a walk-around lens, I didn't think that an expensive, fast prime lens is what he's looking for.
After all, a good walk-around lens needs to be a jack-of-all trades as you never know what you will come up against!
I also have 3 different fast primes, and wanting more, but I don't use them as a walk-around lens but use them more as specialty lenses where i really need their quality or some other atribute they may have.
Sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to.
Primes > Zoom in respoect of Aperture. That's is the only difference these days. And most of the time you always want to go faster for that wonderful shot. I use a 50 1.8 for 2 months as a walk around. It really boils down to your style of shooting and what in the world you want to shoot.
jjphoto
08-04-2011, 9:10pm
Primes > Zoom in respoect of Aperture. That's is the only difference these days....oot.
That's acyually not true, at least with respect to wide angle zooms lenses, but some of the tele zooms are about as good as lenses get.
The wide zooms tend to have trouble with sharpness in the corners which landscape shooters can't always cope with so often a prime is the only solution. I use my 24-70 for about 90% of my (paid) work and it is an amazing lens but it does fall short at the wide end and in the corners. Same for the 17-40 L.
JJ
petercee
10-04-2011, 10:42am
Agree with jjphoto, especially regarding the challenging and educational aspects of using a prime lens and having no alternative lens when you're out.
People who choose a non-L over an L may one day be in for a surprise. In my experience "L" lenses justify their investment. I get serious enjoyment from my photography, so a few hundred dollars here and there do not get in the way of a lens that will be useful for decades.
I doubt if there is anything you can do with a 50mm f1.2 prime that you can't do better with a good zoom and software like DOF Pro.
After all, shallow DOF is not some special truth in an image, it's just a special effect, like Artistic/Neon Glow. Dial it in to any f8 photo you like using software, but with much more flexibility than a very expensive piece of glass that can only do one trick one way.
James Axford
10-04-2011, 1:08pm
:lol:
here's a few photos i'd like you to replicate if you don't mind ;) sorry... do better....
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Other/the-Boyz/IMG6322/1131032027_BfY6Q-O.jpg
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Other/the-Boyz/IMG5945/1117150307_ejCDz-O.jpg
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Travel/travels/IMG9045/1231363279_pkSMi-O.jpg
all taken with the 50mm f1.2
There is a reason why people buy fast primes, because there is no other way of getting the same results.
don't try and kid your self you can.....
I doubt if there is anything you can do with a 50mm f1.2 prime that you can't do better with a good zoom and software like DOF Pro.
After all, shallow DOF is not some special truth in an image, it's just a special effect, like Artistic/Neon Glow. Dial it in to any f8 photo you like using software, but with much more flexibility than a very expensive piece of glass that can only do one trick one way.
@ James,
Not trying to do better or replicate, but this shot shows that shallow DOF and nicely OOF background doesn't necessarily require a fast lens.
It's not always possible to get close to your subject, here's one from the humble Canon 18-200 @ 185mm f5.6
In a dark street scenario the F1.2 would be a bonus though, but that's just one aspect of the use a "walkaround lens would get.
James Axford
10-04-2011, 1:48pm
that good isolation phild, but is it taken at f8 and blurred in photohop? think that what arg was saying you should be able to do.
@ James,
Not trying to do better or replicate, but this shot shows that shallow DOF and nicely OOF background doesn't necessarily require a fast lens.
It's not always possible to get close to your subject, here's one from the humble Canon 18-200 @ 185mm f5.6
In a dark street scenario the F1.2 would be a bonus though, but that's just one aspect of the use a "walkaround lens would get.
James, taken as stated, f5.6, 185mm no cropping.
My point is that you dont need f1.2 to get shallow DOF and nicely OOF backgrounds. Of course the perspective is flatter than would be from a 50mm lens.
Given the mindset of this kid to cameras at the time you wouldn't have a hope of getting the shot with a 50mm.
from EXIF Data
EOS20D
F/5.6 (wide open at that F/L)
FL 185mm
1/160th
ISO-200
My skills with Photoshop are very ordinary, I haven't ever tried to use background blur in PS, just the usual sharpening white blance, contrast in Canons DPP, resized in PS
James Axford
10-04-2011, 3:35pm
agreed you can get good isolation with a longer lens, but there are so many times you can't use a long lens.
anyway we've gone off on a bit of a tangent here....
James, taken as stated, f5.6, 185mm no cropping.
My point is that you dont need f1.2 to get shallow DOF and nicely OOF backgrounds. Of course the perspective is flatter than would be from a 50mm lens.
Given the mindset of this kid to cameras at the time you wouldn't have a hope of getting the shot with a 50mm.
from EXIF Data
EOS20D
F/5.6 (wide open at that F/L)
FL 185mm
1/160th
ISO-200
My skills with Photoshop are very ordinary, I haven't ever tried to use background blur in PS, just the usual sharpening white blance, contrast in Canons DPP, resized in PS
PaulMac
11-04-2011, 12:19am
Amanda i have a bunch of lenses but if I had to pik one lens as a walk around lens I would head straight for my 24-105 L IS. It has width, reach and IS and is a great price. Is it my favorite lens?.... No but its by far the most versatile. :)
As I have said before, I have been very happy with that lens as well. But recently I have been using my 100mm 2.8 macro for other than macro shots, and while its focal length limits the situations you can use it (and the framing you get), I love the subject isolation you get with 2.8, so I am starting to think the 17-55 would be nice to have as well...
I have since also found that the 100mm macro is a great lens for photographing animals in the Kruger Park and it is now my favourite Park lens. The 2.8 and sharpness of the lens is simply stunning.
The Jackal was taken with the 100 mm in a overcast day about 50 meters away and it is still a great photo and can only agree with you. I have other great expensive lenses that are simply not that good!
Regards
:lol:
here's a few photos i'd like you to replicate if you don't mind ;) sorry... do better....
<snip>
all taken with the 50mm f1.2
There is a reason why people buy fast primes, because there is no other way of getting the same results.
don't try and kid your self you can.....
"there is no other way of getting the same results". Well I'm not on a mission to prove you wrong. I don't even have DOF Pro, but one look at the website suggests it would not be hard, and the bokeh could be nice and creamy (if desired), or even a copy of the somewhat jarring bokeh of the 1.2L.
Photography usually offers the creative exponent more than one way of getting a certain result. I like that about it.
fabian628
11-04-2011, 9:21pm
"there is no other way of getting the same results". Well I'm not on a mission to prove you wrong. I don't even have DOF Pro, but one look at the website suggests it would not be hard, and the bokeh could be nice and creamy (if desired), or even a copy of the somewhat jarring bokeh of the 1.2L.
Photography usually offers the creative exponent more than one way of getting a certain result. I like that about it.
I am confused as to how a computer program is going to imitate a shallow depth of field and the blurr it creates. Different components of the scene will blurr differently as they may not be straight lines coming towards the camera. I think it would take a very long time to manually blur an image, and even then it would probably look un-natural. A single subject on a field may be easier, but a complex scene would be near impossible.
There is a reason people by fast glass, what it creates is difficult to reproduce (i have not seen many dumping thier expensive lenses for a more cost effective approach of slower glass + software), plus the many benifits of being able to shoot low light and focus in dark light.
Having said this, shallow dof does not make the picture, it does not compensate for poor composition.
I think a prime is interesting as a walk around, it challenges you to think about composition, to make the photograph with the field of view you are given.
---
James, i like your results with the 50L, it is definately a tempting lens :D
:lol:
here's a few photos i'd like you to replicate if you don't mind ;) sorry... do better....
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Other/the-Boyz/IMG6322/1131032027_BfY6Q-O.jpg
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Other/the-Boyz/IMG5945/1117150307_ejCDz-O.jpg
http://jimmyax.smugmug.com/Travel/travels/IMG9045/1231363279_pkSMi-O.jpg
all taken with the 50mm f1.2
There is a reason why people buy fast primes, because there is no other way of getting the same results.
don't try and kid your self you can.....
:) Thre is no way some software can replicate DOF 100%. And to even get it close takes time. Lemme guess. 1/50th of a second vs a few mins of fumbling around. I'll take the 1/50th of a second. Oh wait, what's that? You can't take the photo and need a tripod cause it's too dark? Oops. Guess that's another limitation to not having fast glass.
"there is no other way of getting the same results". Well I'm not on a mission to prove you wrong. I don't even have DOF Pro, but one look at the website suggests it would not be hard, and the bokeh could be nice and creamy (if desired), or even a copy of the somewhat jarring bokeh of the 1.2L.
Photography usually offers the creative exponent more than one way of getting a certain result. I like that about it.
Mate, you need to take everything with a pinch of salt. It is HARD trying to replicate DOF accurately.
Mate, you need to take everything with a pinch of salt. It is HARD trying to replicate DOF accurately.
I guess there is a bit of confusion, or maybe strawman effect. The original claim was that fast primes have an inalienable advantage in terms of the look of shallow-DOF photos. (Actually it was the second claim, a follow-up to the original claim by a prime lens user that "zooms tend to be mediocre at everything", which I disagreed with). And by inference zoom lenses, not usually going faster than f2.8, are disadvantaged.
I took a creative perspective and said that ultra-small DOF can be seen as a special effect (I don't think we naturally see things like that...??), and there are post processing tools to create that effect, and that the tools seem to have much more creative flexibility than a particular lens which will be much more limited in terms of its shallow-DOF special effects capability.
I can't see any reason why anyone would want to replicate the look of a particular lens. Lens worship?
ElectricImages
12-04-2011, 1:22pm
:) Thre is no way some software can replicate DOF 100%.
Actually, that's incorrect. There are a number of ways of perfectly replicating DOF in software (instantly, too), but it requires special hardware to do so - a plenoptic lens array. The more lenses, and the wider the array, the better.
EDIT: Here's a video of the array capture being transformed in software: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7usnHmNZ0 :)
PaulMac
12-04-2011, 3:47pm
I think you guys are seriously off track here..... The thread is... 'Whats your favourite walk around lens' Bit of respect for the thread starter I think and take this somewhere else?????
The OP already has the answer they were after, they purchased the 17-55
Actually, that's incorrect. There are a number of ways of perfectly replicating DOF in software (instantly, too), but it requires special hardware to do so - a plenoptic lens array. The more lenses, and the wider the array, the better.
EDIT: Here's a video of the array capture being transformed in software: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7usnHmNZ0 :)
That video didn't really explain much at all. what's this about a lens array? how was the original data/image obtained?
nhutty
02-05-2011, 10:30pm
i have a 15-85 on my 60D and its a great lens, I probably would have bought the 17-55 but the extra money and the reduced focal length made me choose the 15-85. Im currently looking to get a 100mm macro and a 30mm 1.4 sigma to complete my collection. Im hoping that the 30mm 1.4 will help me in those low light situations
davearnold
03-05-2011, 8:11am
Although, the decission has been made for the 17-55mm F2.8, having recently obtained one, I find I keep going back to the 24-105 on my 7D, as every time I put the 17-55 on I find I wish for more reach, and the 24-105 goes back on .... really I think this is a better "walk" around lens.
The 17-55 is now my landscape lens (read sunset/sunrise) and indoor portrait lens ...... all other times the 24-105 is the lens of choice, for what you lose wide, you make up for nearly double with reach.
nhutty
04-05-2011, 11:08am
argh, so after reading some of the comments here and seeing a 17-55 2.8 come up for sale i purchased it. I'll be spending some time with both the 15-85 and the 17-55 to see which one is best for me.
tannyboy
10-05-2011, 10:38pm
My current walkaround is the 50 1.4 -> Thats on my 40D.
It's a fantastic lens but sometimes i feel like its a bit long.
I've always liked primes so my next "walkaround" will be the 35 1.4L and that'll go nicely with the crop camera I think.
Should I need something wider I can always put the 10-22 on there.
Cool thread. After a couple of years with my dslr, I've come to the conclusion that I'm a prime guy first and zoom guy second.
My 30mm 1.4 has been glued to my camera since it has been purchased about a month ago (I loved my 50mm but tis a tad long in general on my 500D). That's not to say i don't like my zoom lenses anymore though. There is always a time and place for my 24-70, 10-20 and 70-200 f4 :)
But if I won the lotto tomorrow, apart from a 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII, every dream lens after that would be a prime :th3:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.