File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Okay /p/, a lens thread.

If I have to pick one, which lens is the better all around choice for general shooting?

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens or Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens?
>> Anonymous
I think the 28-135 any day for everyday shooting
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
I've used em both... and they have a really cheap plastic'y feel to em. But if I had to choose I'd go for the 28-135 by far.
You're better off buying a telephoto lens with IS that actually works anyway.
>> Anonymous
the IS in the 70-300 works well, it's L quality without the badge
>> Anonymous
may I make a suggestion?

Save up and get comfortable with changing lenses for different situations. Lenses are tools for the job. Different jobs need different tools. I would bypass the 70-300mm and get a 100-400mm and the 50mm f/1.4
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>180547
Sounds like you've never used the 70-200mm 2.8 L.
The difference in IS is very noticeable.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>180552

lulz

it's the same 3rd gen IS unit

the 70-300 matches the 70-200 f/4 at every FL, but no constant aperture
>> Anonymous
>>180550I would bypass the 70-300mm and get a 100-400mm and the 50mm f/1.4

$500 vs. $1300 + $300

i love your math
>> Anonymous
>>180566
This is /p/ where we're all rich fag measurebators. The answer to everything including good photos is "lulz, throw money at it".
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>180564
I'm going by what I experienced. The 70-200 at 200mm I could shoot clearly at 1/20. 70-300mm I believe 1/50 (at 200mm). IS on the cheaper lens felt very unreliable. I would never consider buying it.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>180550
100-400mm.. maybe, but instead of the 50mm 1.4 I'd opt for the 1.8 since there isn't much difference IQ wise.
>> Anonymous
>>180570I'm going by what I experienced. The 70-200 at 200mm I could shoot clearly at 1/20. 70-300mm I believe 1/50 (at 200mm). IS on the cheaper lens felt very unreliable. I would never consider buying it.

>>179623i'm a weak ass motherfucker and can handhold 200mm at 1/15 reliably with IS

that's me^

it's the same goddamn unit

you can see it through the lens, if it's working, it's working

there's no reason that you can do 1/20 in one and 1/50 on the other at the same FL

if you're talking about IQ, then the IS unit is really not the problem
>> Anonymous
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"
~Robert Capa~

Use a 24-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4, or a 16-35 f2.8

Your use of a telephoto will show in your images. Get closer and connect with your subject.

Also, Awesome L primes are awesome
>> Anonymous
>>180572
The 50/1.8 isn't a bad lens by any means, but the EF 50/1.4 is literally one of the best fifties ever made, and that's saying something. Forty years from now it'll be the new Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4, the perfect lens going on eBay for under a hundred dollars because there's so many of them floating around. If you don't want to wait forty years, $300 is a pretty good deal for a lens like that.

>>180577
There are other factors affecting it, though. The extra weight of the 70-200 might give some stability, or the 70-300 might extend more and be harder to balance.

>>180589
I normally agree, but some people's styles or subjects lend themselves to teles. I'm going to assume OP, considering a normal 28mm as his widest possible focal length, falls into that category.
>> Anonymous
What about EF-S 55-250, just for dabbling in tele lengths outdoors? I don't plan to move on to full-frame any time soon and 70-200 2.8IS is too expensive. I do have 85 1.8 for low light/bokehlicousness though.
>> Anonymous
it's exactly like the 18-55 IS for build and image quality, except it's 55-250

so, pretty much, it's good for the price, but you could do better
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181244

The 55-250 feels slightly better than the 18-55 IS when you use or hold it. It's surprisingly good. I've looked at a lot of samples from both dull test charts and real shooting situations with real photographers (as opposed to people sitting inside shooting test charts and dollar bills all day) and I am amazed at the performance for the price. If you want to dabble then that is the ideal lens, hands down. It is miles above the older budget offerings. Great IS, good range, superb price (there's nothing cheaper than this worth looking at as far as I have seen) and the IQ is not too shabby either.

I've even seen some pseudo-macro work and portraits done with it.
>> Anonymous
>>181269The 55-250 feels slightly better than the 18-55 IS when you use or hold it.

i dunno, maybe just in your hands

the moment you turn the zoom ring and you'll see what's wrong 0_0
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181273

You mean the wobble with some when zoomed out? It is naturally more noticeable with the larger zoom, but I still feel it is overall better than its smaller cousin. It doesn't inspire confidence and it's miles away from the Ls, but for the great price to performance ratio for budget users you'll just have to try to resist using it as a weapon to fend off angry subjects!
>> Anonymous
I have a 40d with a EF 50mm f/1.4

Planning on getting another lens soon. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 looks pretty damn good, but how likely is it that canon will stop putting out crop bodies as good as the 40d anytime soon?

Should I get the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and then maybe a Sigma 10-20 to cover that range? or is the 17-55 worth it?
>> Anonymous
APS-C is here to stay
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181293

Crop bodies on all the SLR formats and brands are the biggest seller, money maker and market now. It's not going anywhere any time soon. They would have to all suddenly really hate money or profit and decide to sink the company before that would happen. If they did that then they'd lose a lot of the market to Nikon and the rest.

The 17-55 is superb and will work great for you from day one. The 24-70 is great too, but for a crop body the 17-55 is ideal. FF users for Canon who have both a crop and a FF body (and the money to supply the habit) that I know of would recommend the 17-55 on the crop whenever possible. They'd get the 17-55 for the crop and the 24-70 for the FF body.
>> Anonymous
>>181298They would have to all suddenly really hate money or profit and decide to sink the company before that would happen.

Or maybe full frame will come down in price for both manufacturer and consumer to make APS-C obsolete.
>> Anonymous
>>181346

There is no indication that will happen in the foreseeable future.
>> Anonymous
>>181350

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
>> Anonymous
>>181352

You fail to understand Moore's law.
>> Anonymous
you fail at everything

ooohhhh ICE BURN

SEAKING FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
>>181355

An impressive retort.

They still aren't going to replace the crop sensors with the larger ones though.
>> Anonymous
i'm sorry if you can't predict the future

i just watched the air i breathe and i was like, brendan fraser is awesome because he can predict the future

kind of like nicholas cage in next but that's not the point
>> Anonymous
>>181356

not trolling here, but why not? isnt the idea that bigger = better for sensors?
>> Anonymous
>>181364

no never!

that's not how moore's law works

we will be using APS-C for the next 53 years and only the 2 richest emirs in the world can afford full frame

oh and ken rockwell will have one because he's cool like that
>> Anonymous
>>181368

no for real though.. why WOULDNT all dSLRs move toward bigger sensors?
>> Anonymous
i dunno, why doesn't this guy explain:

>>181356
>>181354
>>181350
>> Anonymous
>>181364

The cost of sensors increases greatly as they get larger. Remember that chips get cheaper because they can make them SMALLER and more compact. This is no good for cameras as shrinking sensors all the time would play havoc with lens collections and packing in more pixels into the same space is already causing concern for noise. Basically all you get for Moore's law for cameras is more megapixels from the same size of camera.

The sensor is very expensive because they require a larger perfect wafer to make them, just like with chips. It is harder to find a larger and larger area of perfect wafers, as you can imagine. Fitting in tiny sensors around flaws and onto a blank is easy by comparison and also far less is lost due to flaws when examinging in the QC section (only a small cheap sensor and area of wafer instead of a large area or expensive sensor which may have enough good area to have made several chips or sensors for lesser cameras). If they can reduce the size at all then the cost savings are enormous. This explains much of the difference between cameras such as the comparatively long in the tooth 5D and the new and improved 40D. Despite all the extra features the 40D is still cheaper because of that sensor being cheaper to make. They will always be like that until someone can make flawless artificial raw stock cheaply and reliably. The market prices have been somewhat stable though as there is no reason for it to drop (especially not with ever increasing demand), so we have to rely on Moore's law of increasing the numbers of transistors on the same area (exactly what we don't want for camera sensors because of noise) to make chips and computers cheaper.

As it is the crop sensors in the latest generation (40D D300, etc.) offer far more quality than the average hobbyist will ever need. Many professionals use them happily. This only encourages them to maintain the status quo too. No reason to cut their own throat.
>> Anonymous
>>181371
the smaller sensor size lets them cut more sensors out of a wafer and each sensor has less chance of containing a defective area of the wafer. the bad sensors then also waste less of the wafer.
>> Anonymous
>>181346
Why would they? A smaller chip will always be cheaper, and people have always shot different formats. "APS-C" is the new 6x4.5, "Full-Frame" is the new 6x7. You're getting better image quality with your "crop sensor" camera than you would've with 135 film, and yes, you do get better image quality with a 36x24mm sensor than with a 23.6x15.8 (Nikon DX, which I believe is the largest sub-36x24mm format besides Canon's APS-H and Leica's M8 and DMR chips) sensor. But it's a minor advantage for most people, and most people will take the smaller format for reduced cost, size, and so on, just like more people shot 645 than 67.

And there's minor advantages to shooting crop, too:
>> Anonymous
>>181376

Thanks for the legit response.. I shall get a ef-s 17-55
>> Anonymous
>>181376

you heard it here folks

we will never have affordable full frame cameras because it's impossible to make them ever

the more you knew
>> Anonymous
>>181380
Con't.
-Smaller lenses.
-If one does use a lens from a larger format, the best area of the lens is being used.
-The same depth of field at a wider aperture. This is important on digital, because it's more sensitive to diffraction. If you have a 28mm lens, you can shoot it at f/11 on a DX sensor and get the same depth of field as at f/16.8 (according to a calculator I'll put a link to at the end of the post) with the equivalent focal length on an FX sensor. I chose 28mm because it's the "perfect normal," a nice neutral figure, and f/11 because many modern lenses hit their best around f/8 or f/11. (Pic related.)

The argument that stopping down for more depth of field on FX sensors will get the same image quality re: noise is potentially true, but this assumes that the increased depth of field and the increased noise on the smaller sensor increase by the same amount. This may or may not be true; I don't know. However, diffraction would mean that, if you're going for depth of field, overall you should get better quality with a slightly smaller sensor. OTOH, if you like shooting wide open with a shallow depth of field, a 36x24mm sensor would be a better choice. Different priorities, different formats. Just like always.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

(The calculator I used is at the very bottom of this page.)

And someone else is dealing with the whole Moore's Law and economic issues quite capably, so I'll let him handle that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181384
Forgot the pic.

Sensor sizes are from the figures DP Review gives for the Nikon D300 (DX) and D3 (FX).