Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


50D - Recommended lenses?


Munro e2
6 39 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2008 6:29PM
I am considering a 50d (as I am unlikely to be able to afford 5dmkii) and was wondering if anyone had experience of the 50d coupled with the Sigma 10 - 20? I only ask as some of the reviews/feedback indicate that to get the most from this body you should consider the highest spec lens you can afford. (weaknesses in cheaper models will be more easily identified apparently) If I need to buy L series lenses I would prefer to know sooner rather than later.

Many thanks

Mark

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

stevieb e2
10 3.0k 2 Panama
30 Nov 2008 6:32PM
The body is more than capable, and all of those that know will say it's the glass that makes the difference.
Graywolf e2
7 999 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2008 6:40PM
Yup. it doesn't really matter what camera body you buy these days I think most people would agree that you will get better IQ from the best quality lenses, and in the case of Canon that mans L glass. You take your pick.

For a general walkabout lens I have a 24 - 105 and it stays on the camera all the time until I need something different for a specific task.. Many swear by the 24-70.

There are other brands which can be considered Tamron and Sigma are probably top of the list, which produce images of high quality, but if you want the best, in terms of IQ and build, buy L glass.
Munro e2
6 39 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2008 6:50PM
Thanks for the feedback. Always helpful to have practical advice before parting with the money.
Graywolf e2
7 999 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2008 6:52PM
If you were to be looking at prime telephoto lenses look no further that the 400m f 5.6. Very affordable, tack sharp and lightning fast.
Briwooly e2
9 452 5 England
30 Nov 2008 11:04PM
I have a 50D and the two main lens I use are the 17-40L and the 70-200F4 IS both give great results, You can get a new 17-40L for around 400

Brian................................................
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
30 Nov 2008 11:08PM
If you want really wide angle, you really can't beat the sigma 10-20 for it's price and quality.
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
30 Nov 2008 11:29PM

Quote:If you want really wide angle, you really can't beat the sigma 10-20 for it's price and quality.


Just check out the PF's of the likes of Paul Sutton (Sut68) or Martin Levers (MartinL) to name but two who use the above for the vast majority of their work.
User_Removed 9 4.9k England
30 Nov 2008 11:50PM
I've quite a bit of L glass.......One I wouldn't be without is the 70-200mm f2.8 none IS...... you really wouldn't miss it, I don't. Fasted sharpest lens I have.

Col
robdebank e2
6 164 United Kingdom
1 Dec 2008 11:08PM

Quote:. . was wondering if anyone had experience of the 50d coupled with the Sigma 10 - 20 . .


It's a great combination.

Having just bought a 50D body, I can confirm that it will do everything that you ever ask of it.

I've been using it now for a week, along with a Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Just borrowed a Sigma 10-20 for a few days and there is no discernible difference between the Canon and the Sigma lens. So I'll be selling the Canon 10-22, keeping the Sigma and saving 130.

The Canon 18-200 is a great super zoom, that allows you to concentrate on taking photographs, as opposed to wasting time, forever swapping lenses. If you're into landscapes, taken with a tripod, then you won't be doing anything in a rush anyway, so that may not be the lens for you.

Generally, take reviews with a pinch of salt. As an example, two reviews of the Sigma 10-20 lens stated : Review A ) While handling is good, image quality doesn't match it. Sharpness is disappointing in the centre and even more so towards the edges. Review B) This lens is sharp! At 20mm, resolution tests showed it matched, and at one point even slightly out performed the venerable Canon 17-40mm L.

There is a lot of snobbery when it comes to equipment. No amount of expensive camera gear will help you become more creative. You only need to look at some of the portfolios to realise that owning the latest and best equipment does not make you a good photographer.

There are some cracking shots in here, taken by folk with relatively mundane equipment. Conversely, there are also some extremely mediocre portfolios, taken with 3000+ cameras and the very latest 17 - 85 f1.2 L Mk III lens.

You already have a good eye for a picture, so you certainly don't need to waste hundred's of pounds on a full frame camera, unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket. It really doesn't matter what kit you buy these days - you simply can't buy a 'bad' camera or lens any more.

The best 'equipment' you will ever have is your eyes and your imagination. The camera is just a tool.
colin beeley e2
12 1.1k 10 England
2 Dec 2008 8:28AM
read here should help. you can check out others you might be thinkin of as well. colin.
elowes e2
10 2.8k United Kingdom
2 Dec 2008 9:54AM

Quote:17 - 85 f1.2 L Mk III


That's one hell of a zoom lens!

Not easy to compare a Sigma 10-20 against a Canon 17-40 when the two lenses are very different. On a 1.6 crop camera the 10-20 gives roughly the same view as does a 17-40 on a full frame camera.

If you want a really wide view on a 50D then you need to look at the Canon or Sigma APS only 10-20-22) lenses. If you want a medium wide (28mm equivalent) then the 17-40L is a good buy. The Canon 17-55 also gets some good reviews but is expensive.

A good longer zoom is the 70-200 F4 L IS. Rated by some as the very best (see above link).

With or without snobbery good lenses are a must and for a Canon L lenses are possibly the best you can buy. There may be exceptions but L lenses offer image quality, good colour and contrast, fast, accurate and silent focusing and good build quality.
robdebank e2
6 164 United Kingdom
2 Dec 2008 10:23AM

Quote: That's one hell of a zoom lens!


Isn't it just - bloody expensive as well !

Seriously though, all lenses these days are good lenses. Some lenses are great.

I don't dispute that any Canon L series lens is technically better than any other Tamron or Sigma lens. But a lens doesn't take interesting / creative photographs. The person holding the camera does.

It depends upon whether you want to spend your time taking pictures of London Bridge, on a tripod, then analysing the MTF graphs or actually going out and enjoying taking photographs, for the pleasure it brings.

Look through the portfolios - you'll soon see what I mean. I was looking through one only yesterday - all taken with a very basic 6 mp Minolta, that no one in here would ever recommend buying. The photos were brilliant.

End of story.

( or possibly not ! )
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
2 Dec 2008 10:43AM
On a 40D and at f8 and 20mm I found the 17-40 and 10-20 to be very similar in performance in terms of sharpness but the Canon does produce a slightly warmer image. both can be made to look the same in RAW.

I have no idea how the pair respond on a 15mp camera. So far I am very happy with both lenses. Both are well built and just work for me. Both are better than the kit lenses..
elowes e2
10 2.8k United Kingdom
2 Dec 2008 11:01AM

Quote:End of story


Perhaps. You are looking at images generally no more than 1,000 x 1000 pixels on a computer screen.

I do understand what you mean as content is what a great image is about and we do seem to be in the era of absolute sharpness. The quality of the photographer and content are very important and sharpness of image is not the be all of photography.

I have used several different makes of lens and camera and the quality of the lens does make a large difference in the quality of the final image if all else holds true. In the mid 80's I compared images from a Pentax 6x7 with older Pentax lenses against the new RB67 I was given to work with.

Under identical conditions in a studio under flash lighting the RB 67 produced images far sharper and with better contrast as compared to the Pentax. For my work this was very important as it is when talking about portraits, advertising, landscapes, flora and fauna, architecture, in fact for most shots to be enlarged rather than viewed at low resolution.

I am not knocking the kit you suggest others are using to produce great shots but I will argue that you should buy the best quality kit for the job you want it to do and to the price you can afford.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.