Lens Choices

[Sin]

Originally posted by ckiang


But whatever the brand, stay away from superzooms however tempting they are.

Regards
CK

Why har?

Superzoom could be useful for certain people. Not the best of quality, but better than some more expensive lenses. Better to include the reason for the advices so that people know WHY to avoid certain stuff...

heh heh heh

 

[erwinx]

didn't someone just post some pretty decent pictures taken with a Sigam 50-500mm. Thats a superzoom if anything

Originally posted by ckiang


Looks very plasticky to me. Probably end up in multiple pieces. But whatever the brand, stay away from superzooms however tempting they are.

Regards
CK

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by erwinx
didn't someone just post some pretty decent pictures taken with a Sigam 50-500mm. Thats a superzoom if anything

That's a superzoom of a different class (ok, my fault for not being specific). Was referring to those 28-200, 28-300, etc which are normally quite bad. But well, it does suit some people's needs very well.

Regards
CK

 

[Shadus]

heh heh, i remember canon have a superzoom 10x in
35-350mm 'L' lens. I remember its a pretty decent lens too.

 

[Jed]

Actually, the Sigma 50-500 should be better optically than the other superzooms because it doesn't have to correct from wideangle through to telephoto, just telephoto. Which to start with is easier to correct than wide angle as well.

 

[willyfoo]

Ok.. let's say I drop the idea of getting a 1D and get the D60 instead (rumoured to be 1.6x magnification) ... and I plan to start off with the following kit..

Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L [$2,400]
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM [$650?]
Sigma 50-500mm [$1,600]
Speedlite 420ex (is this sold in singapore?) - [$350??]

Total $5000.. + D60 another $5000???

Geez.. 10k investment...
Is this selection of lens good enough??
Can anyone correct the prices which are off??

 

[Jed]

Hi Willy,

Best way to correct the prices which are off are to give someone from town a ring. The 50/1.4 looks about $100-150 off I think. No idea about the rest.

The best input I can give you about your lens lineup is really to know what you intend to be using the setup for and how often you'll be using it...
What do you need the Sigma for, sport or nature? In either case, you're better off with a better specialist lens, and the 1D.

I haven't used the 50-500 lens for any meaningful length of time, but by reason of the 10x zoom range, it would be fairly safe to assume it's not the best lens optically. It may well be good enough for your purposes. Sigma's build quality is legendary for the wrong reasons, and if you're going to be working this bit of kit fairly hard, you may want to look elsewhere.

I wouldn't skimp on the flash either. If you're forking out S$10k for your kit, you can afford a couple of hundred more to get the 550EX.

:dunno:

 

[YSLee]

Save the money, get a wide angle prime. Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM. If it matches the Nikkor version, it'll be darn good for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35.

Save more money and get a 50mm f/1.8. Try to find the Mk I version. At least you get the metal mount.

Then.. <WEG>

.
.
.

Blow it all on a 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens.

 

[willyfoo]

Originally posted by Jed
The best input I can give you about your lens lineup is really to know what you intend to be using the setup for and how often you'll be using it...
What do you need the Sigma for, sport or nature? In either case, you're better off with a better specialist lens, and the 1D.

I plan to use the 16-35mm as my workhorse lens for event photography... the 50mm prime for potrait work and the 50-500mm for nature shoots.

I haven't used the 50-500 lens for any meaningful length of time, but by reason of the 10x zoom range, it would be fairly safe to assume it's not the best lens optically. It may well be good enough for your purposes. Sigma's build quality is legendary for the wrong reasons, and if you're going to be working this bit of kit fairly hard, you may want to look elsewhere.

I was initially hesitant, but after ninelives posting of his nature shots using the 50-500mm, I'm more inclined to give it a go.. especially when it gives me the 500mm which would otherwise cost me a limb. This lens would be more for 'hobby' use whereas the 16-35 is more for 'work' use... so I decided not to save on the 16-35; and go for the ultrazoom with the 50-500mm... It might not be the best lens optically... but I won't be able to afford the best right now..

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by YSLee
Save the money, get a wide angle prime. Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM. If it matches the Nikkor version, it'll be darn good for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35.

Save more money and get a 50mm f/1.8. Try to find the Mk I version. At least you get the metal mount.

Then.. <WEG>

.
.
.

Blow it all on a 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens.

Well, someone in dpreview said a Seekma 20mm f1.8 beat his 16-35 in sharpness, so he sold his 16-35 and got a 100-400. For me, I'd stick with my Nikkor AF 20mm f2.8D. 62mm filters are a lot cheaper than 82mm filters. Can live with 1 1/3 stop less.

Regards
CK

 

[YSLee]

And you don't have to spend all night correcting your pictures.