Get 50% Off Affinity Photo Today!

New starter looking for some advice on lenses.


Coleslaw 15 13.4k 28 Wales
10 Jan 2010 8:42PM
There is no such thing as too wide too early for 10-20. Whatever lens you use for landscape, sooner or later, you will have to get those other bits anyway. They are not just limited to 10-20.
LensYews 11 1.3k 1 United Kingdom
10 Jan 2010 8:45PM

Quote:There is no such thing as too wide too early for 10-20. Whatever lens you use for landscape, sooner or later, you will have to get those other bits anyway. They are not just limited to 10-20.


My 10-20 still scares me, never have really learnt how to use it properly, just disconcerts me how much of the scene is in the field of view, and tend to stick to the 17-40 as the widest lens I use these days.
rios_uk 16 35 1 United Kingdom
10 Jan 2010 9:00PM
One aspect that really interests me and i know i'll spend hours and hours with is working with a Softbox/Light Tents and still life, size wise i would say ranging from candle size up to bottle size.

With that in mind what kind of lense would suffice for that kind of work ?
certx 13 415 1 United States
10 Jan 2010 11:13PM
I have struggled with this issue since I started with SLR's a few years ago. Here's my experience.

Portraits:
For portraits I've borrowed and rented a Canon 24-105 f/4 L and 24-70 F/2.8 L. I own the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, and the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS that came as the kit lens.

I love the Canon L's: Beautiful results with color reproduction, DOF, and sharpness, but I can't afford them.

I can't stand the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8: It's basically a paperweight that never makes its way into my bag. Inconsistent focus, poor sharpness, though the color reproduction is good.

I only consistently use the kit 28-135 lens. Not as sharp as the L's, BUT VERY CLOSE, and FATHOMS better than the Sigma. The color reproduction is quite reliable and bright and not at all dull. It's not f/2.8, but move your subject a little further from the background, and it suffices for DOF, and with the IS, it handles a slower shutter speed very well.

Landscapes:
I have the Sigma 10-20 and have to say it is an excellent lens. I like it a lot. Though I haven't had to opportunity to use it "out in the landscape" yet, but I have played with it a lot in other situations. No complaints at all.

Still life/Macro:
I don't know about Tamron's, but I have the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. I think it's a very nice lens. It's not too heavy, but I still need at least my monopod when at the 300mm end. I've been completely happy with it at virtually all focal lengths, the color, brightness, and sharpness. These were all shot with that lens.

What does all that mean? I don't know, but here's my synopsis: If you have the budget, buy Canon's L series lenses. Short of that, before buying third party lenses, borrow or rent them. You may find that your kit lens is FAR better than the third party ones. For the landscape stuff, I would happily recommend Sigma's 10-20, and for Long shots, I have no problem recommending Sigma's 70-300 apo dg macro. Tamron's may be just as good, but I don't have any experience with it.

HTH
CR
rowarrior 12 4.4k 9 Scotland
11 Jan 2010 12:24AM
I've been using the Canon 28-135 with my light cube I got recently, although it depends what's in there what I need lens wise. I bought it to hold some pretty large bears, and the tallest so far has only been 14"
LensYews 11 1.3k 1 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2010 12:28AM

Quote: I bought it to hold some pretty large bears


aren't cages more traditional?
rowarrior 12 4.4k 9 Scotland
11 Jan 2010 8:25PM
Yes, but they're very well trained Wink

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.