Luza 0 #1 March 11, 2004 I hav desided(I think) to go for the Canon 10d with the sigma fisheye 15mm and Sandisk Extreme 512 Hispeed Compact flash card (total 1792 usd) But, anyone have a suggestion for a good lense to use on the ground for all sorts of stupid shooting, from weddings, faces and trees to birthays and my girlfriend Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psw097 0 #2 March 11, 2004 I've been extremely happy with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI - its very fast, sharp and light. I use it for swoopers and such. Of course, you would be missing the entire WA section from 15mm to 28mm - for WA I use a Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 when there is light (slow) and a Sigma 20/1.8 in low/indoor light. None are cheap, nor are they "L" glass expensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoym 0 #3 March 11, 2004 Here is Canon's site. http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html I bought Canon's 28-135. It has worked okay for me. Some times I wish I had a longer lens, something toward the 200 to 300 range. And an 'L' lens would be nice. And my own King Air, and a... and a... Anyway, the 28-135 was about $400 and works for most of my walk around stuff. -mh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vdschoor 0 #4 March 11, 2004 QuoteHere is Canon's site. http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html Anyway, the 28-135 was about $400 and works for most of my walk around stuff. The 28-135 is a nice lens. I got the 28-200 though. I wasn't all that interested in the Image Stabilizer on the 28-135 and wanted a slightly longer lens. The 28-200 is a very nice and reasonably fast lens. Iwan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #5 March 11, 2004 My ground camera is an Elan 7e with 28-135 IS. I love this setup, although when I want to go shorter and lighter I use the 50/1.8 II. The 28-135 is a very useful lens with good quality. It is arguably the sharpest of the Canon consumer zooms, and it rivals the crappier Canon consumer primes. I have found IS to be very useful, allowing me to handhold at least two stops more than I would be able to without it. This allows more natural party pics. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 March 11, 2004 Yeah, the 28-200 is what I went with as well. Your bread and butter swoop shots are going to be in the 28-70 range, but sometimes you just really need that extra length for those walk ins.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vdschoor 0 #7 March 11, 2004 QuoteYeah, the 28-200 is what I went with as well. Your bread and butter swoop shots are going to be in the 28-70 range, but sometimes you just really need that extra length for those walk ins. I agree, I already had two lenses in this range, but both of them were not very good ones. One was from the Rebel 2000 kit, and the other from the Digital Rebel kit. I am really happy I replaced those with the 28-200, specially after Deuce let me testdrive his for a while. Iwan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #8 March 11, 2004 Got an old 2nd hand chipped 35-105 f3.5/4.5, quite happy with it actually Anyway I'm going to switch to Nikon anyway, but not because of this lense. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
genoyamamoto 0 #9 March 11, 2004 24.70 f/2.8 L. Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayhawkJumper 0 #10 March 12, 2004 If you ask most professional photgraphers what 3 lenses they use and like the most they are usually the 17-35, 50mm fixed, and 70-200. Pro's will have 2.8 lenses which are great for low light, portraits, and really everything, but the are pricey. I would get a 50mm 1.8 fixed lense, which is a great all around lense for everything (and you can open up to 1.8). After that maybe get a 70-200 (2.8 if you can swing it) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #11 March 12, 2004 This is one of my favorites for an inexpensive lens. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm COMPACT HYPERZOOM 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 ASPHERICAL http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=245261&is=REG---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 March 12, 2004 The issue is though that those focal lengths change when you talk about most digital cameras. For instance, the Canon 10D has a focal length multiplier of 1.6 so that 50mm lens needs to be a 31.25mm (which just doesn't exist and especially at f/1.8).quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psw097 0 #13 March 12, 2004 A 50mm is still a 50, that doesn't change. The focal length does not change since the sensor is the same distance from the lens as the film would be. Its just the FOV is smaller since the sensor is smaller than the film and the lens image circle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 March 12, 2004 Uh, ok, I would have thought that most 1st year photography student would understand that. The reason people pick different focal length lenses is field of view. Are we in agreement that a 50mm lens is not the same on a 35mm film camera as a Canon 10D? If so, then the results are not the same and you can't really use a 50mm lens on a 10D the same way you would on a 35mm film camera. When recommending lenses for a digital camera, you can't use the same old tried and true rules you did for the 35mm film camera.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
