File :-(, x, )
suggestion thread TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
ok /p/ i need a suggestion for a new lens.
The lenses main purpose is going to be for wedding photography.

now I want a lens that has capability to go wide (for the family pictures, etc.) and zoom (for those moments you just shouldn't get close e.g. the couples first kiss).

My current gear is the following:
2 EOS 350D bodies
75-300 f/3.5-5.6 USM II
Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
canon speedlite 420EX, & a 430EX
also a couple of smith-victor strobes.

now I know that the 18-200 already serves the purpose, but I just wanted to know if there is a Canon lens with an equivalent coverage of focal lengths.

inb4 no 50/1.8, pic sorta related
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:18 12:52:39Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height422
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192489
.. Cant you google?
Took the whole of 10 seconds.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/index.asp
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192491

well yeah. But I wanted to hear some input on the subject. thanks for googling for me.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192491

so i was poking around the link Martin gave, and the 28-200 caught my eye. Anyone got any experience with this lens?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192492
Ah didn't realise about the input;
I shoot nikon so cant really help.

But imo - I dont think you'll notice much improvement between your sigma 18-200 and the canon 28-200. Im guessing the only differences will be a slightly better optical quality, such as less cromab. But that can always be fixed very easily in LR/Shoop.

As for weddings, you'll probably only ever use a focal length of 18-200 at best. So if you wanted to improve your glass, your better off going splitting the focal length into 2 different lenses.

For example:
--- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Gives you the wider end, and the standard 50 for portraits. Fast glass aswell, good for dark churches.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF-S_17-55_f28_IS_USM/i
ndex.asp
--- Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Cheap higher end zoom. Image stabilizer etc.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF-S_55-250mm_f_4-5_6_I
S/index.asp

Also, something to consider:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
From looking at the spec, this lens looks VERY good, and although im not totally sure, the canon red band = second from best glass? You'll loose abit on focal length with this though.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF_24-105mm_f4_L_IS_USM
/index.asp

Hopefully this is some sort of guide, as I said earlier - I dont use canon, but if I did, these would be the lenses I would consider - Purely going on their specification.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>192505
Is money an object? If not so much,
1. 17-55IS is L-grade glass, but crop-body-only. It's amazing.
2. The 70-200 series provide truly excellent quality. In their range, they're as good as you're likely to get. Four models: f/4, f/2.8 either with or without IS.

I actually own the 55-250 and while it's amazingly cost-effective, it's just too slow for anything wedding-related unless you're exclusively outside with daylight.

Canon doesn't manufacture an equivalent to the Nikon/Sigma 18-200s, which really hurts them in sales imo.
>> Anonymous
NIKON 18-200
NIKON 18-200
NIKON 18-200
NIKON 18-200
NIKON 18-200
NIKON 18-200
>> HIJACK Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192508
Einta, abit off topic but:
What are the grades of the canon lenses?
Im guessing something like this, best-last

Green > Red > Gold > Silver?
Correct me if Im wrong :)
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192505

not a problem at all martin, let's blame the internet.
but that's one thing i'm trying to avoid, using 2 bodies for the same event. and as of right now Ls are out of the question.

>>192508

>>192508
hey Einta, yeah the fast glass is something i've been drooling over, but still have to figure out a way to stretch my budget that far. especially for the f/2.8s. on the note about EF-S lenses, i'm trying to avoid those cause i'm planning to eventually move up to the full frames and i've heard EF-S lenses aren't supposed to fit onto the full frame cameras.also i find that OS (which is Sigma's IS/VR) kicks ass for sub-1/60 exposures! really helps IMO.

so thanks for all the input everybody, probably getting the 28-200, cause it seems most practical, flashes were made for a reason right? again thanks all
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192520
General, have you shot at a wedding before?
If so, what requirements doesn't the 18-200 meet? Forgot to ask.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>192514
Don't think of it with colors.

The shittiest lenses come in both ringless (nifty fifty, which has shit build quality but great optics, old film kit lenses) and silver ringed (new kit lenses) versions.

A gold ring indicates the presence of a USM focusing motor. This generally means build quality is improved (70-300IS, 17-55IS), but then the optics of the lens could actually be shit (28-135IS)

A green ring is for Diffractive Optics technology, which allows long focal length lenses to be made in much smaller and lighter packages. There are only what, two? But both are awesome.

And then red rings are L lenses, which stood for Luxury in the past but I don't think they call them that now. Top build quality, and top optics.

Disclaimer for next part: I have never shot a wedding but I've done a fair bit of reading up on them.

>>192520
Uh every wedding shooter has two or more bodies. If your one body dies then you're fucked. Also you don't want to miss a moment changing lenses, and the lens you've chosen sucks. I suppose your decent lighting setup should make up for that a little, but shooting with only a 28-200 will leave you pretty tight on the wide end, making it hard to do group shots. You also don't want to be using a flash during intimate stuff like ring exchanges and first kisses and whatnot, and that's when the slow speed of your lens will really make you suffer.

Since you already have two bodies, maybe you could go for a two fast lens setup and go offbrand to save cash. Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Tamron/Sigma 70-200/2.8 shouldn't break the bank.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192526
yeah Martin, I've shot a couple weddings before. But I want to get another wide coverage lens, so in case 2 events have conflicting schedules (cause I work for a company) the other wide coverage lens can go there.

>>192536
Hey Serenar, yeah that would be the Ideal scenario. Usually when my company shoots weddings, both of our 350Ds are there, it used to be that one was sporting a kit lens, and the other body would have the 75-300 on it.

as of right now I'm rethinking about getting the 28-200, cause I just realized I don't have a single piece of fast glass in my arsenal. The 2.8s are waaaaay expensive though. Are the 4s handy in lowlight?
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192536
oh yeah, about the 28 being too tight. This is one thing I was originally concerned with. I had at one point a sigma 28-200, the fucker was way too tight even at the wide end, sold that and bought the 18-200.

So far the Sigma 18-200 has performed rather well, have you guys heard of any issues with this lens?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
How about a Sigma or Tamron lens? They are usually half of the cost of a Canon lens and perform just as well, if not better. Like a 10-22 ... would work great for a cropped body.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>A green ring is for Diffractive Optics technology, which allows long focal length lenses to be made in much smaller and lighter packages. There are only what, two? But both are awesome.

Is that only on canons? I saw a sony videocam with a green ring on the lens and have been wondering wtf it was for.
>> Anonymous
From what I've gathered, Canon doesn't make a lens with a zoom range equal to the 18-200.

I just ordered a Sigma 18-200 with IS. Sounds like a good investment.

Sell that 75-300 lens and buy the Sigma 10-20mm EX lens. Wide as you'll need and its probably one of the cheaper (with still maintaining quality) lenses with those specs you'll see. Canon makes a couple awesome wide angle lenses ("L" series, f2.8 so better for low light) but they will obviously cost much much more.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>192557
Yes, ring color codes are different for each brand.

>>192559
Nope, no Canon 18-200. The biggest zoom ratio Canon lens I can think of starting from there is 17-85IS, but that's slow as shit and rather soft.

Ultrawides don't really do it for me, and the event photography I've seen from them is a little too distorted IMO.
>> Anonymous
What are all the different colors for rings on Canons?

My kit lens has silver
red = L
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>192610
Red = Luxury
Green = Diffractive Optics
Gold = USM
Silver/Chrome = Cheap
>> Anonymous
For a wedding you will want a 17-55 and a 70-200. Low light is often a problem, so f2.8 can be key. A fixed focal length lens wouldn't go amiss. Depends on budget.

For heaven's sake, don't use a consumer superzoom. Not in that situation.
>> Anonymous
>>192704
What would consumer mean in this case?
>> Anonymous
>>192775

Non L superzoom. Canon made a couple of L ones that are as good as these things get for PJ types who needed a wide range of focal lengths and a push-pull design for the fastest operation. Expensive. They aren't bright either though. Not much good for indoor work. Best avoid these things unless you have to use them. You could spend your money much better elsewhere for your needs.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192549
>>192559
hey guys General here, the 10-22 is a bit too wide for my needs. Also, I'll probably do this once I have additional bodies.

>>192704
both the 17-55 and 70-200 have f/2.8 models and f/4 models? or was it only the 70-200?
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>192489
damn, those lenses are expensive. The 17-55 IS USM is nearly $1,000...

the 70-200 f/2.8 is $1,500 and the f/4 is $1000

damn, that runs a pretty penny.
>> Anonymous
>>192893

Primes are your only other low light and wide aperture option.
>> Anonymous
>>192893

canon rebates

17-55 has $70 off
70-200 2.8 is has $125 off

cheapest they're ever going to be
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>192514
Bleh. Ignore grades. What matters is the specific lens, and the grade is only a guideline. Since no EF-S lens is ever going to be rated "L",...(at least, as far as I know), crop-only lenses can buck the scale with relative ease.

>>192520
Fast glass is nice indeed. Cheapest way to get it is to go prime. I've got a 50mm 1.8, and I'll probably be picking up the Sigma 30mm 1.4 soon (even though it's crop-only [EF-S equiv], and slightly worse IQ/BQ than the Canon EF 28mm 1.8 I wantwantwant that aperture and on a crop body the 50mm [80 equiv] is just too long for indoor shots).

VR/IS help a hell of a lot on long lenses. They also help for static subjects when you can't use a tripod. For example, I've taken 1/4 second ISO 1600 shots at 18mm (29mm equiv) when no tripod was available that would quite simply have been impossible otherwise. If humans/living things/things that move are meant to not move however, shorter lenses do not need IS at all. On 400mm equivalent, being able to shoot at 1/50 (or perhaps down to 1/25) instead of 1/400 is very nice. On 48mm equivalent (30mm prime), I wouldn't want to be shooting slower than 1/50 anyway since I do not wish my human subjects to have motion blur so IS would be nice to have but isn't really needed.

>>192888
There is one EF-S 17-55 IS. It's pricey, but awesome.

There are four 70-200s, all of which are EF and vary only with f/stop and presence/absence of IS.
f/4
f/4 IS
f/2.8
f/2.8 IS <--- Do Want...but can't afford
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Oh just buy the damn Sigma/Tamron equivalents already. 17-50/2.8 or 17-70/2.8-4, then a 70-200 or 50-135 depending on your needs.