 Howard McPherson |
Canon Lens Buying Question After 2 decades of thinking of buying a camera I finally bought a Kodak digital body that takes Canon lenses. Does anyone have a suggestion of the first lens I should buy for doing landscape photography. Should I stick to Canon or buy some other equivalent brands. The dealer showed to me a 28-40 mm (?) lense with ultrasonic motion for about $800. If I have a study tripod do I need the USM types lenses? Most of the Canon are USM and some have image stabilization. Any suggestions for secondary lens manufactures? Thank you. Howard McPherson
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry L. Long |
I used to own a couple of Canon lenses that had Ultra-Sonic Motors (USM) and Image Stabilaztion (IS) features. I got rid of both and got a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX/DF and 70-200mm f/2.8 EX/DF lenses. I see absolutely no advantage of having the USM Canon offers. The Sigma's focus fast and accurately enough for my landscape photography. I rarely used the IS feature on the Canon lenses too. Once in a "blue moon" I hand-held the camera for a shot from my truck but not nearly enough to justify it's use. I like the f/2.8 features of the Sigmas much better than the USM/IS of the Canons. Also, I can't afford a Canon as fast as f/2.8. I hear the "pro" line of Tokina's are just as good as the EX line of Sigma's but, I don't own any so you'd have to get a Tokina owner's opinion on that matter. Oh...the glass in the two Sigma's I own are just as good as the two Canon's I sold.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard McPherson |
Thank you Terry for your answer. I will look into the Sigma and Tokina lenses. Sincerely, Howard McPherson
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Howard: Was it the 28-135mm zoom with Image Stabilizer and ultrasonic autofocus system? That lens is ok, but less expensive Canon lenses, without Image Stabilizer, are better. You don't say what focal lengths you might want for landscapes. 28mm is not very wide and 70mm is not long enough for a lot of intimate landscapes. (Small details.) But sure, a 28-70mm plus a 70-200mm would not be a bad start, unless you want Ultra Wide angle landscapes. Then you might want a 20-35mm zoom instead of the 28-70mm zoom. (Aside from the issue of which brand to buy.) Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard McPherson |
Thanks for the info Peter. I was wrong about the lense. They recommended the 17-40 mm lens (about $840 with the tax). The size fits what you were saying. I will try to buy it from amazon ($675) or maybe a substitute from Sigma. Sincerely, Howard McPherson
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Howard: Yes, the 17-40mm is great for wide angle, and ultra wide angle photography. A 20-35mm is less expensive but not as wide. Also, the 17-40mm is optimized for use with digital cameras so it may provide better image quality. Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||