Technical question !

Hi

I have a 50mm 1.8 (which I love) and the kit 18-55. If I am shooting a landscape, the 50mm lens always give a much more pleasing image (the colours and details in cloud etc are always finer.

So basically I am in the market for a nice wide angle lens. Is this superior image quality due to the fact that it is a prime lens, or because it is fast ?

I am reading through the forums but what is important to me is excellent low light ability (like my 50mm). If, for example, I have a lens with a 3.5 min and a 2.8, if I shoot at f8, will the results be the same ?

Sorry the question is a bit garbled !

Thanks !

The increased image quality of the 50mm is both because it is a prime and also because it just has better optics than the 18-55. Wide apertures don't make a lens sharper or take better pictures, it just lets it perform well in low light.

You might look into the canon 35 f2, 28 2.8 or the sigma 28 1.8. I think canon also has a 28 or 24 1.8. All those seem to be regarded as being quite good.
--
-Finch

No ; forget about 35mm f2.I have it ...

What you wan is to buy one of the either Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens, or Canon 17-55 IS f2.8.

Both are excellent, Canon a bit more so due to IS, but is also double the price

http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/

If you can afford it, you might wanna wait a bit until the verdict on the new 16-35 comes out.

cls in oz said:

Hi

I have a 50mm 1.8 (which I love) and the kit 18-55. If I am
shooting a landscape, the 50mm lens always give a much more
pleasing image (the colours and details in cloud etc are always
finer.

So basically I am in the market for a nice wide angle lens. Is this
superior image quality due to the fact that it is a prime lens, or
because it is fast ?

I am reading through the forums but what is important to me is
excellent low light ability (like my 50mm). If, for example, I have
a lens with a 3.5 min and a 2.8, if I shoot at f8, will the results
be the same ?

Sorry the question is a bit garbled !

Thanks !

Click to expand...

Check out the 24mmm F2.8. Solid optics, cheap

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

cls in oz said:

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new
alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings
sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. You'd only spend more on the 16-35 to get less zoom range and no IS and no discernable difference in optical performance.

I don't know, at first I wasn't thinking about him having an EF.S camera, but now that you mention it, if you are somewhat picky, there are still reasons to prefer the 16-35 II, if the quality was that good.

Some people do care about every mm at the wide end, and he would be using the center part of the image, so no major corner sharpness and aberration issues there. Even the 17-40 seems to be better wide open at the corners with a 1.6X camera. Check the comparisons at the Digital Picture.

Besides that, and I think this is more important, there is the issue of future bodies. I know, this has been said to the death, but not everyone can just sell and buy as they wish as we do here in the U.S. If one is in one of many other countries where the economy is not that good, it is next to impossible to resell expensive items, unless you are willing to lose a very considerable amount of money. The OP asked which hemisphere I lived in, so maybe that implies that access and availability in his part of the world is not that great.

And lastly, there is the issue of build quality. I haven't seen the 17-55, but I'm willing to bet the 16-35 is a better construction. I don't think this is as important, but for some it is. Personally, I've had an annoying experience with the build of my 50/1.2, but my other L's are excellent quality, including the 17-40 considering the price, which is one of the cheapest L's.

Lemming51 said:

cls in oz said:

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new
alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings
sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. You'd only spend more on the 16-35 to
get less zoom range and no IS and no discernable difference in
optical performance.

Click to expand...

17-55 IS kills the 17-40 L in the corners, at any aperture, so your theory is flawed at least with this lens...

I had the 17-40 ; now I have the 17-55 as you can probably tell

saynomore said:

Some people do care about every mm at the wide end, and he would be
using the center part of the image, so no major corner sharpness
and aberration issues there. Even the 17-40 seems to be better wide
open at the corners with a 1.6X camera. Check the comparisons at
the Digital Picture.

Besides that, and I think this is more important, there is the
issue of future bodies. I know, this has been said to the death,
but not everyone can just sell and buy as they wish as we do here
in the U.S. If one is in one of many other countries where the
economy is not that good, it is next to impossible to resell
expensive items, unless you are willing to lose a very considerable
amount of money. The OP asked which hemisphere I lived in, so maybe
that implies that access and availability in his part of the world
is not that great.

And lastly, there is the issue of build quality. I haven't seen the
17-55, but I'm willing to bet the 16-35 is a better construction. I
don't think this is as important, but for some it is. Personally,
I've had an annoying experience with the build of my 50/1.2, but my
other L's are excellent quality, including the 17-40 considering
the price, which is one of the cheapest L's.

Lemming51 said:

cls in oz said:

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new
alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings
sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. You'd only spend more on the 16-35 to
get less zoom range and no IS and no discernable difference in
optical performance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/

Did you see the comparisons? Do you have similar comparisons, taken with the same camera, both wide open? If you compare both at f/4 in the corners, that is not fair, is it?

Torque124 said:

I had the 17-40 ; now I have the 17-55 as you can probably tell

saynomore said:

Some people do care about every mm at the wide end, and he would be
using the center part of the image, so no major corner sharpness
and aberration issues there. Even the 17-40 seems to be better wide
open at the corners with a 1.6X camera. Check the comparisons at
the Digital Picture.

Besides that, and I think this is more important, there is the
issue of future bodies. I know, this has been said to the death,
but not everyone can just sell and buy as they wish as we do here
in the U.S. If one is in one of many other countries where the
economy is not that good, it is next to impossible to resell
expensive items, unless you are willing to lose a very considerable
amount of money. The OP asked which hemisphere I lived in, so maybe
that implies that access and availability in his part of the world
is not that great.

And lastly, there is the issue of build quality. I haven't seen the
17-55, but I'm willing to bet the 16-35 is a better construction. I
don't think this is as important, but for some it is. Personally,
I've had an annoying experience with the build of my 50/1.2, but my
other L's are excellent quality, including the 17-40 considering
the price, which is one of the cheapest L's.

Lemming51 said:

cls in oz said:

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new
alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings
sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. You'd only spend more on the 16-35 to
get less zoom range and no IS and no discernable difference in
optical performance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

Well at 2.8 the 17-55 will be softer in corners, but from F4 up it does slash on the 17-40..

So yeah, I compare what I get for same aperture from both lens, from F4 up ... I know it's not fair as one is stopped down and one not, but that is how the lens will be used. In the end, the final result matters right ?

saynomore said:

Torque124 said:

I had the 17-40 ; now I have the 17-55 as you can probably tell

saynomore said:

Some people do care about every mm at the wide end, and he would be
using the center part of the image, so no major corner sharpness
and aberration issues there. Even the 17-40 seems to be better wide
open at the corners with a 1.6X camera. Check the comparisons at
the Digital Picture.

Besides that, and I think this is more important, there is the
issue of future bodies. I know, this has been said to the death,
but not everyone can just sell and buy as they wish as we do here
in the U.S. If one is in one of many other countries where the
economy is not that good, it is next to impossible to resell
expensive items, unless you are willing to lose a very considerable
amount of money. The OP asked which hemisphere I lived in, so maybe
that implies that access and availability in his part of the world
is not that great.

And lastly, there is the issue of build quality. I haven't seen the
17-55, but I'm willing to bet the 16-35 is a better construction. I
don't think this is as important, but for some it is. Personally,
I've had an annoying experience with the build of my 50/1.2, but my
other L's are excellent quality, including the 17-40 considering
the price, which is one of the cheapest L's.

Lemming51 said:

cls in oz said:

That would be from canon I take it ? Any time frame on this new
alleged lens ? ! Also, which hemisphere are you in ? THings
sometimes take a little longer to get down this way

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. You'd only spend more on the 16-35 to
get less zoom range and no IS and no discernable difference in
optical performance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://1jzgte.zenfolio.com/

Torque124 said:

Well at 2.8 the 17-55 will be softer in corners, but from F4 up it
does slash on the 17-40..

So yeah, I compare what I get for same aperture from both lens,
from F4 up ... I know it's not fair as one is stopped down and one
not, but that is how the lens will be used. In the end, the final
result matters right ?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, for practical purposes measuring at the same aperture is better. By the way, at f/8 and higher f-stops the quality is practically indistinguishable.

But that's why I was saying that the 16-35 II, if quality is up to par with hype, and price is OK with the OP, should be a good lens to recommend him. At similar apertures it should be better than the 17-55, or at least the same, with the added advantages that I listed earlier.

Hi

Thanks for all your helpful replies.

1) He is a she !

2)I live in Australia

3)I tried to look at the Zenfolio webpage but just got an error 404, page not found. I would be interested to see some of your pictures with this fave lens of yours !

Thanks

Clare

cls in oz said:

1) He is a she !

Click to expand...

oops, sorry, my bad. I think I started it. I don't know what happened, maybe I confused you with another poster, but I try to always get the correct gender.

cls in oz said:

2)I live in Australia

Click to expand...

Is it difficult to sell lenses over there? I know it's a harder than here in the US, but I once sold a lens to a guy in Australia, via ebay.

If it is easy to sell, then you could consider the 17-55/2.8. I still think it's a great lens considering all that's been mentioned in this thread. I don't have it, but that's the wide consensus, and I've seen good samples. If it's not easy to sell, and you're absolutely sure that you won't be getting an EF mount camera (Like the 5D or 1D series) in the future, then it could also be a good idea.

But if it's really hard to sell, and you are planning on getting rid of your EF-S camera at some point, then I think you could get an EF lens like the 17-40 or if money allows, the 16-35. I assume you'll be using it at small apertures, mostly (did you mention landscapes before?) so the 17-40 at small apertures is just as great.

If you want really wide, then the EF-S 10-22 could be an option, but there are also other alternatives.

cls in oz said:

3)I tried to look at the Zenfolio webpage but just got an error
404, page not found. I would be interested to see some of your
pictures with this fave lens of yours !

Thanks

Clare

Click to expand...

saynomore said:

cls in oz said:

1) He is a she !

Click to expand...

oops, sorry, my bad. I think I started it. I don't know what
happened, maybe I confused you with another poster, but I try to
always get the correct gender.

Click to expand...

No problems !

saynomore said:

saynomore said:

2)I live in Australia

Click to expand...

Is it difficult to sell lenses over there? I know it's a harder
than here in the US, but I once sold a lens to a guy in Australia,
via ebay.

Click to expand...

We can certainly buy a full range of lenses but not without travel (or buying online). We do have a camera shop where I live but they charge premium prices and have a very limited range. I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to lenses and prefer to see them before I buy so it's a 4 hour journey for me !

saynomore said:

If it is easy to sell, then you could consider the 17-55/2.8. I
still think it's a great lens considering all that's been mentioned
in this thread. I don't have it, but that's the wide consensus, and
I've seen good samples. If it's not easy to sell, and you're
absolutely sure that you won't be getting an EF mount camera (Like
the 5D or 1D series) in the future, then it could also be a good
idea.

But if it's really hard to sell, and you are planning on getting
rid of your EF-S camera at some point, then I think you could get
an EF lens like the 17-40 or if money allows, the 16-35. I assume
you'll be using it at small apertures, mostly (did you mention
landscapes before?) so the 17-40 at small apertures is just as
great.

If you want really wide, then the EF-S 10-22 could be an option,
but there are also other alternatives.

Click to expand...

Thanks again. I just need to see some examples now and search through some quality reviews with distortion tests etc.

Clare