Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Which lens would you choose? - serious Canon geek question

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198198
    I have read many threads on this very debate on a few photography threads and the people who go solely for the 2.8 seem to be the sort who would never consider opening their minds and larger aperture is always best.




    are you talking about me with the 2.8

    I will look forward to your reviews!















  2. #12
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198198
    I have read many threads on this very debate on a few photography threads and the people who go solely for the 2.8 seem to be the sort who would never consider opening their minds and larger aperture is always best.
    This is my personal feeling too. ok for wedding photographers I see why they have it, although 24-70 is the range that EVERYONE has (18-55 on all those guests kit lenses etc) so I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.

    It's one of those snobby lenses that everyone is told they need and then sits around because it's expensive, heavy and limited

    Keith experience with the 24-70 is really interesting I would hope that I would notice a big improvement over the 18-55 for a lens that in some shops is going for nearly 1,200!!
    oh it's better than the 18-55 optically for sure but next to my 70-200 f2.8 it was flat and boring. In fact to tell the truth, I took it back, told a little white lie and had it swapped out for another one. That one was exactly the same and convinced me there was nothing wrong with it, it just wasnt as WOW as the price suggests.

    16-35 I will look at but it does give me rather a 'hole' in my options id then have 16-35 and 100-400 Although 16 would be great for a good milky way shot
    Don't get sucked into thinking you have to cover everything from 24-1000mm seriously don't. I mean, why would you anyway? I've never ever been somewhere and thought AHARHGHHGHG no I only have 35mm and 100mm and I desperately need 50. You can walk forward/back for framing, you can crop the image, you can use a cheapy prime 50 in the middle and so on.
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    :lol Julie no I don't mean you at all - We have the same debate on the Astro thread whenever someone new comes on wanting to buy a scope the same people always reply with the same tired old argument that size of aperture is paramount ( I always imagine their thread read in a rather adenoidal tone) and I always point out that a huge lightbucket can be outperformed by a smaller scope with better optics or a tighter mirror- but they never shift.

    Seriously I am tending at the moment towards the cheaper I will keep looking and will then almost certainly bottle it and buy a 100mm macro

  4. #14
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198205
    Seriously I am tending at the moment towards the cheaper I will keep looking
    have a look at the 16-35 before you do I've no idea how it performs for astro but in normal use it's interesting :)

    Out of the 24-70 and 24-105 if you asked me which was better value, of most use etc., 24-105 for sure.
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Chris there is always going to be another lens................















  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    9,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can you hear that wooooooosssh sound? That's this whole thread going RIGGGHHHT over my head
    Follow Me on Pinterest
    Disney International College Program: May 2011 working in Attractions (Voyage of the Little Mermaid & Disney Junior: Live on Stage!)

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    in my mind the 24-105 saving over the 2.8 is paying for the non l macro

  8. #18
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198232
    in my mind the 24-105 saving over the 2.8 is paying for the non l macro
    True enough and as your official tech.enabler, I can help you out there ;)
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    I feel 'groomed'

    I hope the bag I bought is going to be big enough to take the 24-105 the 100-400 and the body

    but then if I get the macro I'll want to take that and the tripods and the astrotrac



  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pmsl! Tbh I dont think any one bag will be big enough for all the lenses you plan to buy! And then there'll be another camera ;)















Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •