I sold all my Nikon gear, and a mkll will be here Monday. I need to put together a few lenses, and I'm getting a little pissy. Here is my lens selection:
1. Sigma 300mm f/2.8 (I plan to shoot some sports this year)
2. Canon(maybe sigma) 70-200mm f/2.8 non-is (don't really need to explain this gem)
3.
= I can't find a good walk around lens! The 1.3 crop sucks! I sold my Nikon mount Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, what a great lens. I want one for my mkll...but I can't get one(that would work properly). If you do the math, someone should make a freaking 19-20mm to 57-63mm f/2.8 but nooooooooooooo....they just dance around it. I think it might make more sense buy a 20d and another Tammy. Might work out better to have a second body anyway. Seriously though, I think this is really odd, and I'm feeling a little alone on this one...
16-35mm - More expensive than the 20d/tam combo
24-28mm to anything - Not quite wide enough. I was stuck with a 28-80mm once in Tahoe, not wide enough. A 24-xxmm might work for me, but f/2.8 versions are too expensive.
20-35mm - A 15mm zoom Really...why bother, should have just been a prime. I'm pretty sure two steps with my feet in any direction gets me 15mm.
I would probably buy the Tammy 28-75 as my walk around. Especially since you liked the 17-50 so much. I know you said you had a similar lens in the past and it wasn't wide enough. I use it on my 20D as my walk around and it is not wide at all, but I take mostly people photos and find it works great for that for me even at 1.6 crop. You could also add the Tamron 17-35, though it is not a straight 2.8 lens. It is 2.8 at the wide end and you would have the 28-75 for 2.8 at 28 and greater. True, that is two lenses and not one, but they are good lenses, not very expensive, and cover a nice range. Besides, when you are lugging a 1 series camera around anyway, what's a second lens that is fairly compact anyway?
If it were a little wider, and a little less $$$, I wouldn't think twice. But, it will be tough for me to choose it over the 20D/Tam combo. It would sure be less gear in the bag, and I like to keep it simple. Do you guys feel it's wide enough for most of your landscape needs?
I think you should get a lens that'll give you good image quality, and just go out and shoot instead of worrying about how many millimeters it is versus some other lens. No one can tell you what lens *you* should use, that's a personal call. Maybe you'll use the 300 as your walkaround lens.
My walkaround lens is a 28-105 3.5-4.5 on the 1D. Sometimes I wouldn't mind a faster one, so I might end up with the 24-70 eventually, but when there's enough light I'm happy with the images I get with it. Regarding light, there almost always is enough, with the exception of sports but I use the 70-200 2.8 99% of the time for that.
Sounds like you've effectively ruled out anything that's possible. I'll add another voice to the throng offering that the 24-70/2.8 is a great walkaround lens.
Jon, I totally understand what you are saying. But, doesn't anyone find it odd that nobody ever made a "traditional" 18-55mm f/2.8 equivalent for 1.3 bodies? It seems so logical to me. No matter, my choices are still the same. I will probably opt for the 20D combo, might be nice to carry a lighter camera for hiking and such. Maybe even a Rebel xt if I can get past all that plastic.
I suspect that you might be better off with the 17-40/4 L though. I haven't worked out the details but you may be able to get close to the same DOF since the sensor is larger and with the Canon you may be able to get similar IQ at a higher ISO than your Nikon, offsetting the f2.8 speed advantage. (this is not a slam of Nikon, just a comment that larger sensors tend to have better high ISO performance)
Edited by CVickery on Dec 16, 2007 at 12:45 AM GMT
I always found the 1.3x a very nice compromise between FF and 1.6x. I think it all depends on what you will find wide enough.
For me, I went from a film body to the 1D with 1.3x. Even when shooting in New York I found 24mm (my widest FL on film) still wide enough on 1.3x. YMMV.
I also find the 24-105/4 a great walkaround lens, but it is f/4 of course.
You didn't buy a "walkaround" camera either... Why not a 40D and the amazing 17-55IS...? Otherwise, the 16-35 to 24-70 to 70-200 combo for your one series is the professional trifecta of zoom lenses.
What about the Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF). Gets very good reviews and is f/2.8 at the wide end? Lot of talk about this being as sharp as the 17-40L.
Reading through this thread, I find it ridiculous that, with all the advice provided, you cannot see that you have great choices:
16-35 f/2.8 L II
14 f/2.8 L II
24 f/1.4 L
The advantage of using Canon is mostly in having some great Canon prime lenses. I might have already switched to Nikon if I could find good, fast primes in its lens line-up.
corndog wrote:
... But, doesn't anyone find it odd that nobody ever made a "traditional" 18-55mm f/2.8 equivalent for 1.3 bodies? It seems so logical to me. ...
I don't think anyone has marketed any lenses specifically for the 1.3 crop (which is really 1.25). It's reasonably close to full frame, and the sales volume of those bodies is not large.
It's odd to realize that the 18-55 can already be thought of as traditional, since we've only had lenses specifically for 1.6 bodies for a few years. I'm not knocking your discomfort with the way zoom ranges "fit" with the 1D series. If a 24-105 doesn't go wide enough for your needs, and carrying two lenses won't work, the best solution could be a FF or 1.6 body. I wouldn't expect a 19-80mm any time soon, since it would need to cover FF in order to have enough market.
