Choosing a lens.....attn PJ

[Liz]

I thought a discussion on how we choose our lenses would be interesting, and maybe we can all learn something in the process. ;)

Decision-making about which lens to purchase often comes up. Sometimes we agonize over quality, price, convenience, weight and other lens characteristics in making a decision. I don't always make the right decision, end up selling a lens, and then wanting it back.

I put your name up there PJ because we've all seen some of your awesome images - yet one of your favorites is the Canon 28-135 IS lens which is a good lens, but doesn't fall into that awesome "L" category. Since you own - and have used some of the (so-called) best lenses, maybe you could give some input here. I've often wondered why the Canon 28-135 IS lens is a big favorite to someone who has such a diverse choice in lenses?

Personally, I was never quite satisfied with the image quality of the 28-135 after seeing the results of the 17-40L and the 200mm/f2.8L. Therefore, when I recycled my lenses after switching to digital, I sold the 28-135 to help pay for the new equipment.

However, to be honest, I really miss having a low-light walk around IS lens when I want to go into a Church or museum, etc.

Liz

[another view]

I found this article kind of interesting and it's along those lines. It's about the IS being built into the Konica Minolta 7D, and how useful it can be in low light because you'll have it with all of your lenses. I'm sure you're not going to change systems because of that feature, or to Olympus who has that trick that cleans the sensor. But maybe both of those things will show up in Canon and Nikon cameras some day. I hope so...

With the 28-135 range, there just aren't many choices that have IS or VR. With Nikon, I think there's only the 24-120 that has VR and it's a slow lens. Personally for low light, I choose fast primes over this lens because I'd usually prefer a faster shutter speed over VR. For example, 1/4 sec with VR can be handheld pretty well, but if the lens is four stops faster (f5.6 vs. f1.4) then you'd have a shutter speed of 1/60 wide open. Of course your DOF goes down to nothing but you do have that option. Having the subject sharp and the background out of the DOF beats having the background sharp (because of IS or VR and smaller aperture) but the subject soft from motion blur. Usually for me, anyway.

Now fast forward to a couple/few/several years from now - and hope that Canon/Nikon does VR inside the camera. You've got both tools to use, fast lenses and VR/IS.

[Liz]

Lots of good input, Steve.

Of course your DOF goes down to nothing but you do have that option.

This is the problem for me in some instances. I have friends who like me to do their kids - in small groups, and sometimes in the house. Because I have only 3 lenses to choose from - the 17-40/f4, 50mm/f1.4 and 85mm/f1.8 it's difficult to get a decent shot. I've used the 17-40, but it's not great in low light without a flash. I just purchased the Canon 35mm/f2.0 for that purpose - just nice indoor snapshots of small groups. However, I'm returning it because it consistently gives me the Err99 (another post on that one) ever since I got it. Nothing has helped - and no other lens does that. It may be a bad copy. However, I'm toying with the idea of getting the 28-135 lens again, altho it's close to $200 more. It's very versatile.

Have a great day. Have to go to a meeting now.

Liz

[villenadecorte]

Liz, great thread, and Steve, great response.
This is something I myself agonized over for a good long while before I bought the N80, and I am definitely not thrilled with the sigmas I purchased and am again in the market.

[villenadecorte]

Steve- as a side note low light is a BIG BIG BIG factor for me right now... as one of the series I was *hoping* to start this summer revolved around low lit scenes... and Liz you hit it on the nose with going into a gallery or church because quite a few that I've taken in exactly those spaces look brash with usage of a flash, and too grainy without.

[another view]

If you've got a good lab, try Ilford Delta 3200 exposed and processed at 1600. It's a little contrasty, but 1600 helps instead of trying 3200 with it. Kodak's T-Max 3200 at 1600 has a totally different look - grainy but looks great in some cases.

Yeah, low light - especially concerts - is something I like doing. The other thing about fast primes (like f1.8 or f1.4) is that they see much better in low light, so that even if you don't use them wide open the camera will have a much better time autofocusing. Most cameras can't reliably autofocus with a lens that's any slower than f5.6, and some of these lenses are getting close to that magic number. It really makes a big difference. You'll also have it much easier trying to manually focus because the viewfinder will be a few stops brighter.

[Photo-John]

Liz-
You wanted to know why I like the 28-135mm IS so much. It's all about the right tool for the job. Sometimes image quality is not my number one consideration. Remember that a lot of the time size and weight are a big factor for me. When I ride with my 10D, I need a relatively compact and flexible setup that will fit in my hydration pack and still allow me to ride for hours - sometimes on some pretty technical and even dangerous terrain. That's when I love the 28-135mm IS. And I do think the image quality is very good. It may not be as wonderful as the 70-200 f/2.8L. But the 70-200 alone probably weighs as much as my 10D and 28-135 lens together. And it's way too big to easily fit in my backpack. In the end, it's about what gets the job done. And on the bike, the 28-135mm lens gets the job done.

On the other hand, when I'm at an event and I have all my stuff, I almost never use the 28-135mm lens. I do think the image quality is very good. But my other lenses have larger apertures, they're more contrasty, and the AF is usually better. If image quality was my main concern, I'd probably stick with the 70-200 f/2.8L and my 50mm f/1.4. But there's so much more to consider than image quality. My main complaint about the 28-135mm IS is the variable aperture. I hate the f/5.6 maximum aperture at full zoom. And I don't care that much about the IS feature. What I'd really like is a 28-135mm f/3.5 or how about a 24-105mm f/2.8!!!!!

Hope that clears things up for you a little. Remember - the right tool for the job

[Liz]

By the way - the Canon 35mm/f2.0 lens continued to give me Err99 - and none of my other lenses do. After viewing some sample images from the 28mm/f1.8 I decided to return the 35mm and get the 28mm. Hope this works. With the 1.8 it should.

Liz

Thanks John, for an excellent post. You make many good points. I've been so enamored (sp?) by the quality of the "L" lenses, that I forget there are other reasons to get a lens. ;) The best tool for the job needs to be a big consideration. I find low light lenses hard to come by. They aren't scarce, but the DOF becomes a big issue - no pun intended.

Liz

[Liz]

Thanks John, for an excellent post. You make many good points. I've been so enamored (sp?) by the quality of the "L" lenses, that I forget there are other reasons to get a lens. ;) The best tool for the job needs to be a big consideration. I find low light lenses hard to come by. They aren't scarce, but the DOF becomes a big issue - no pun intended.

Liz

[Photo-John]

I like wider, anyway. But it concerns me that you had problems with the 35mm lens. I'd like to know if it was just your lens or if it's a design problem. Did you learn any more about it?

[Liz]

It's good to see you around again. You were missed - hope you had some good times.

I'm sure it was the lens copy that I got because I checked out some reviews and didn't find anyone/anyplace where there were complaints about err99 with this lens. I don't think it's a design problem.

I did some research on the 28mm/f1.8 and it doesn't have great reviews, but I saw some great images shot with this lens. When I saw these (link), I was sold on this lens. Check it out.

http://www.pbase.com/vincentbenoit/burkina1

Liz

I like wider, anyway. But it concerns me that you had problems with the 35mm lens. I'd like to know if it was just your lens or if it's a design problem. Did you learn any more about it?

[Photo-John]

Those are nice photos. They're good examples of how angle-of-view and lens speed can be mroe important than image quality. My fisheye is a good example, too. If I got to obsessed with image quality I wouldn't be able to use the fisheye. But it's got an effect and allows me to get photos I'd never get with any L lens.

[Liz]

Those are nice photos. They're good examples of how angle-of-view and lens speed can be mroe important than image quality

John - would you clarify this for me? Are you saying the images aren't good quality? I'm not sure what you're saying here?

Thanks
Liz

[Asylum Steve]

Hi Liz,

I know most of us can't help but be influenced by photos we see shot by photogs using certain gear, but many times we make the (common) mistake of thinking equipment takes the photo, when in reality the person does...

The photos you link to from West Africa are good because of the EYE of the shooter, not any particular lens. I'll bet he could have gone around with a decent point & shoot and captured nice images as well.

That being said, I do agree that the 28mm f/1.8 is a really good lens, but it's simply one piece in the puzzle... ;)

[Asylum Steve]

Liz,

Don't want to put words in PJ's mouth, but what I think he means is that the pics are nice (same words I used btw), but nothing remarkable.

The photog obviously shows good use of perspective, composition, light, and color, but if you take away the fact that the images are very exotic to our Western eyes, these are really ordinary pics of ordinary people in ordinary places doing ordinary things.

[Liz]

Steve,

Thanks for the comments. I agree with what you said; however, with these particular images, I was impressed by how sharp they are and most especially the color rendition. I'm trying to compare this lens to the 35mm/f2.0 which is also a nice lens - and the price is $200 less. I think the color rendition coming from the 28mm beats the 35 - the question is - does it beat it $200 worth.

Liz

Liz,

Don't want to put words in PJ's mouth, but what I think he means is that the pics are nice (same words I used btw), but nothing remarkable.

The photog obviously shows good use of perspective, composition, light, and color, but if you take away the fact that the images are very exotic to our Western eyes, these are really ordinary pics of ordinary people in ordinary places doing ordinary things.

[Asylum Steve]

Liz, not to confuse matters, but I find a 28mm lens one of those "in between" focal lengths that I never had much use for.

With film, I used the 35mm f/2.0 as my normal lens, the 20mm f/2.8 as my superwide, and the 15mm f/2.8 as my fisheye. I found the 35mm to be the best for overall sharpness and image quality by far.

Now with digtial the rules have changed slightly, at least with the sensor conversion factor. My short lenses now are simply the 15mm and the 17-40mm f/2.8 zoom (which pretty much covers all the wide angle bases).

As for color rendition, I don't know what to tell you. I think the EF lenses as a whole are as good as any in the world, and personally I'd be very surprised if one's color rendition was better enough to make a noticable difference in a shot, especially compared to another EF lens so close in focal length.

Truth is, that kind of evaluation would have to be done using test prints under neutral lighting. Once you thown in image file color spaces and monitor profiles when viewing on a computer, IMO all bets are off.

Anyway, to reiterate what PJ said, things like that are not usually the most important thing to me. Sharpness and angle of view are what I look for in a wide angle lens.

Besides, I almost always fool around with the colors in photoshop anyway...

[Liz]

Hey there Steve,

Thanks for confusing me more! Actually - that's a good thing. I'm learning something so maybe I won't spend money on something I won't put to good use. I wondered if you would give me some input. Thanks.

I have 3 Canon lenses: 17-40/f4L - 50mm/f1.4 - 85mm/f1.8

My favorite is the 17-40. However, I need something I can use for indoor and lowlight situations for "posed" small groups - also for museums & churches, etc. My friends ask me to do some of their indoor parties, etc. I don't want to always use a flash.

Recently I bought the Canon 35mm/f2.0, but it kept giving me err99. I returned it since I don't have this with any other lens. I got the 28mm vs another 35. I'm not sure it's worth $200 more than the 35mm since they are comparable altho limited.

What should I seriously consider?
35mm
keep the 28mm
get another 28-135 IS
get the 17-85IS

The last 2 might not seem related, but I have thought about going that route since they also are good in low light, camera shake (which I have only a slight problem with). They are more than the 35mm too, but they have other advantages (you know - one of those situations you and PJ talk about). I was happy with the 28-135, but sold it when I recycled my lenses.

28mm - I'm not one for returning lenses, but right now I would rather return another lens than not use it.

I thought maybe you would see another aspect to one or the other of these lenses and I can't see the woods for the trees now.

Thanks for any input.

Liz

[brianc]

My fisheye is a good example.

speaking of your fisheye.....how wide did you go? which one do you have? I'm looking for a fast, wide lens for my 10D. I've got it in my head that this combo might be the way to capture the tight, dark east coast singletrack.

[Asylum Steve]

Well Liz, as I told you in my pm, everyone has different lens needs and so it's often tough to give advice and know whether it is good or not.

I'm old school, and it has taken me quite some time to accept zoom lenses, at least for my own workflow. Now I have the EF 17mm-40mm, and I love it, mainly because in my work I often need to change angle of view and shot composition on the fly.

But as you've discovered, the main drawback to a zoom is the lack of speed. So in your case, shooting the low-light scenes you described, you probably are better off with at least one fixed length wide angle lens that's reasonably fast.

I still think (for the money) the EF 35mm f/2.0 is the sharpest lens in Canon's stable, and that it would be great lens for you to use for your interior shots.

There must be a reason for the error message you keep getting when you use the 35mm, but instead of giving up on the lens, I'd go through Canon tech support to try to figure out a solution.

As for the other choices you mention, I'm not familiar with those particular lenses. I can tell you that I'm not a big fan of "wide to tele" zooms. Others can probably give you better advice here, but IMO that's a lot to ask of the glass. I'd think there would be some sacrifice in overall performance in exchange for the wide to tele range of the lens...

-Steve

[Liz]

I still think (for the money) the EF 35mm f/2.0 is the sharpest lens in Canon's stable, and that it would be great lens for you to use for your interior shots.

I agree. I was thinking about this a lot last night. When I returned the 35mm I was afraid to get another one. However, I think the err99 was the specific copy because I haven't seen any reviews or comments about err99 anywhere. It happened every time I clicked the shutter button. It would stop for a few clicks if I turned the camera off and back on. This time, I'm going to B&H in person and try out the copy that I'm buying in the store.

Regarding the 28mm, reality has set in - the fact that it cost me $200 more. I decided last night to get another 35mm - before I read your post - so thanks for confirming my decision. I do value your input a lot - you know far more about this than I do.

Thanks again.

Liz

[Photo-John]

I have the Canon 15mm Fisheye. I bought it when I first started planning to buy a digital SLR. There really weren't any options back then. I'd like something wider, but this lens does the job and I like the distortion. Here's a photo I took with the 10D and fisheye, last weekend at the Downieville Classic. Do the math and it works out to be an effective 24mm lens.

[brianc]

very nice. I can see how you/I'd want someting a little wider still. But you definatly got a great image with this lense. I love the "angle" of the trail showing the chasers. really adds to the drama of the moment.

I went and checked out the Canon and Sigma wide angle lense. What I really would want to get is just missing from either company. some thing like a 12-13mm with f1.4 (at least).

My 17-40L f4 is really nice but 28mm is just not wide enough and f4 is very limiting in the dark woods. and cranking up the gain doesn't really give the same gritty feel as pushed film.

I am a little intregued by the Sigma 14mm f2.8 with there version of USM etc. Which would be in the same class as my 70-200mm f2.8 that I just love. My question is how much would "only" one stop" gain me?

we all can be Sterling and have f1.2 glass.