PDA

View Full Version : Canon 450d - lenses choice - none fishy pics.



Carpchasser
29-01-2010, 16:42
Just wondered what lenses you are using apart form the standard one that typically comes with the body.

Anyone had a plan with any of the l-series ones yet.

Les_Paul
30-01-2010, 07:11
Just wondered what lenses you are using apart form the standard one that typically comes with the body.

Anyone had a plan with any of the l-series ones yet.

I use Nikon but Canon have similar lenses, you wont go wrong with L glass. Dont have any kit stuff as such but to give you an idea 35mm prime 1.8 for general shots and indoor stuff, good for a lot of stuff and a very good choice for fishing.

50mm prime 1.8, not as versatile as 35mm but razor sharp and great for portraits and people shots.

85mm prime 3.5 The best portrait lens by far. 85 mm is the perfect focal length for this as it is very flattering to people. Amazingly sharp optic stabilised as well and also a 1/1 macro lens.

16-85 VR A mid range sharp lens and the first choice as a walk around lens if travelling light. Wide to telephoto with decent results throughout.

70-200 VR A Pro grade gold ring Nikkor. Fantastic for close in sport, portraits, and street use. Image quality that is nothing short of fantastic. heavy beast though.

70-300 VR Not as high quality as the above but good when you need extra reach and want a lighter lens. A good one to go on holiday with the 16-85 as the pair cover the entire range more or less and are lightweight.

120-400 The biggest in the armoury, chews up airshows and sports. Big heavy beast and after a few hours you need a rest!

Just a simple guide. 3 of 4 grand should cover your needs.

colscat
29-03-2010, 19:35
i have a sigma 70-200 apo ex dg macro hsm ll, its a great lens on par with a canon L lens but not at such a high price

walker
30-03-2010, 14:33
The L series are spot on, can't fault them in anyway other than the price !

24-105 is a good all rounder, also have the 17-40 and if you're feeling well flush the 70-200 F2.8 IS is my fav by far [just abit heavy for an everyday lens].

colscat
30-03-2010, 19:23
my sigma is a 2.8 it is also heavy

MartinJ
01-04-2010, 08:33
my sigma is a 2.8 it is also heavy


I recently bought one for my Nikon, I have only played with it a few times but the results are fantastic, you can pick one up from Park Cameras for 660 which is a lot cheaper than the nearest Nikon equivalent . . . and yes it is heavy.

Not saying this is the best picture in the world but it shows what you can do with a f2.8 in low light.

100/sec ISO800 f2.8

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/martinjphoto/Ginny.jpg

i.e. reasonable bokeh eh?

richpearson
14-04-2010, 09:41
I have a 400D with a 35mm f/2 prime lens for fishing trophy shots.

I'm looking to get a new lens or two to cover general purpose work. My budget is 1000 max. I can go a little over this if needs must.

I've managed to reduce the choices down to the following -

17-40mm f/4 L + 70-200 f/4 L. (neither have IS and maximum aperture is only f/4 so not too good in low light but are L lens and compatible on full frame cameras if I ever upgrade) - total 1000

or

24-70mm f/2.8 L - 949 (again compatible if the camera gets upgraded)

or

17-55mm EF-S f/2.8 IS. (is very good all rounder, wide aperture across the focal lengths AND IS, however will need to be replaced if I ever go to a full frame camera) - 789

I don't intend to upgrade the camera anytime soon, however with digital cameras evolving so rapidly, it may be that in few years a full frame SLR is the norm, making the last choice redundant.

Any suggestions?

Mr_Bump
14-04-2010, 10:20
I have a 400D with a 35mm f/2 prime lens for fishing trophy shots.

I'm looking to get a new lens or two to cover general purpose work. My budget is 1000 max. I can go a little over this if needs must.

I've managed to reduce the choices down to the following -

17-40mm f/4 L + 70-200 f/4 L. (neither have IS and maximum aperture is only f/4 so not too good in low light but are L lens and compatible on full frame cameras if I ever upgrade) - total 1000

or

24-70mm f/2.8 L - 949 (again compatible if the camera gets upgraded)

or

17-55mm EF-S f/2.8 IS. (is very good all rounder, wide aperture across the focal lengths AND IS, however will need to be replaced if I ever go to a full frame camera) - 789

I don't intend to upgrade the camera anytime soon, however with digital cameras evolving so rapidly, it may be that in few years a full frame SLR is the norm, making the last choice redundant.

Any suggestions?
Unless your super mega serious, I dont see any reason to go FF now the 7D is about.

walker
14-04-2010, 14:17
I'd go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L.

The F2.8 is worth it's weight in gold, F4 is not much use in low light without high ISO and wish I got the 24-70mm f/2.8 L instead of the 24-105 F4 IS L.

richpearson
15-04-2010, 11:41
That's what I'm now leaning towards. I've disregarded the F4 L lenses, however the 24-70 L weighs nearly a kilo, whereas the 17-55 EF-s weighs 600g and is built using L glass and also has Image Stabilising. Oh what a dreadful dilemma.

I guess i'm gonna have to try them both out in the shop and see what suits.

walker
15-04-2010, 12:25
I have the 17-40 - not to heavy and the 24-105 which weighs a tone!

The 17-40 is also a great lens and has it's use's (landscape / cityscape)..

One other thing I would recommend if you're going down the L route (which if you can afford it I'd say go for it!), is getting a battery grip and extra battery, just to balance out the weight as the 450 is a small camera.

Lee S
18-04-2010, 10:16
..