Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Next lens ideas
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Nov 4, 2018 14:09:22   #
newvy
 
junglejim1949 wrote:
Would this be a good walk around lens on trip to England?


You already have a good walk around length.

Reply
Nov 4, 2018 15:39:28   #
East Banana
 
the way a 24 and 50 capture a frame are different...way more than just 2 different focal lengths, one lens is usually asymmetrical in design and the other is not. One has no field curvature and 0 distortion the other does, which creates a story in itself? one has wider angle of view obviously a distortion by definition... how one chooses to use or apply either is a personal preference and there is no set rule governing one to be for vista/broad view and the other a short tele, no this for landscapes and this for portraits rule of thumb exist and is an imaginary principle contrived from minute space particles that escaped some comet that passed by a trillion years ago and drove some people into believing there needed to be these base rules? regimented lenses assigned to specific duties sounds unartful and cold, like military weapons so I have to chime in when people assign and attach these arbitrary assumed classifications on glass, a thing we use to distort our actual view to begin with as if we don't

the 50 makes an excellent landscape lens, in fact some of the finest distance detail I ever viewed comes from 50's

and today with stitching and panorama ware? unless you actually need and desire field curvature for a reason? why not a 50?

here's a concept; the 50 has been and is the best all around lens there was or will ever be ...and every maker knew this and still knows this ...it is a standard and in fact within several lines, a reference lens for that line.....

a lens should depend on far more than what peoples opinions of them are, they have philosophies behind them and spell out what their intention was in the design applied for those who take the time to study what was trying to be achieved.....the one thing I promise you was not a priority of the creator was how many likes he scored by readers on some forum? MTF measurements based on near subjects suit a portrait lens but fail a landscape lens, and don't serve general use or purpose needs. Opinions are so skewed by unqualified comments that sorting through them is a waste of time mostly, honestly who are these people adding comments ? who am I? exactly, ghost that don't exist but that other people allow to convince them....

rent lenses, try them and rely on your results to tell you what looks good ....not what other people convince you with?


the difference between a 24 and 50 and 70? There's only a tiny difference between a 50 and a 70 and a world of complete difference from a 50 and 24...just look at DOF and hyperfocus?

Reply
Nov 4, 2018 15:49:42   #
newvy
 
newvy wrote:
You already have a good walk around length.


Yeah... I got lost part way through that. I was told years ago your eye was equivalent to a 50mm lens. I like have a couple lenses. previously 28-75 and 80-200 in my bag that covers most of what I need.

Reply
 
 
Nov 4, 2018 21:35:33   #
junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA
 
newvy wrote:
I will never have another bag without a good 70/80-200 f2.8. I would recommend holding off for the short term in favor if a much nicer more universal lens in the long run. (Can you not shoot at 50mm with your current lens?) rhetorical...


I was looking for something to take on vacation in London. Very crowded streets and was thinking the 55mm 1,8 STM would be a good choice @ $125. Just weighing my options. I have been putting money aside for the eventual Canon 70-200.
Thanks for your advice

Reply
Nov 4, 2018 21:58:15   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
junglejim1949 wrote:
I was looking for something to take on vacation in London. Very crowded streets and was thinking the 55mm 1,8 STM would be a good choice @ $125. Just weighing my options. I have been putting money aside for the eventual Canon 70-200.
Thanks for your advice


I think I would be looking at the Canon 24 2.8 pancake ....

Reply
Nov 5, 2018 16:16:30   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
bobmcculloch wrote:
For the OP the 24, 40 and 50 would all be faster and easier to handle than the 18-135 zoom, I loaned my son the 24 and he is a convert, he was using the 18-135 as that came with his camera.


Faster yes, but easier to handle, I don't think so. I had an 18-135 and it's a very versatile lens. I think the OP would benefit with different focal lengths rather than a lens that is simply faster. Unless the OP says he has a specific reason to want and need a fast lens, I wouldn't recommend them. We can agree to disagree.

Reply
Nov 9, 2018 00:38:08   #
DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area
 
amfoto1 wrote:
What are you hoping to accomplish with another lens? What are you not able to do with your 18-135mm? After all, you already have 50mm and 24mm focal lengths with the zoom.

If you want a large aperture lens to shoot in low light and/or blur down backgrounds in candid portraits, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a pretty good value. 50mm is a "short telephoto" on an APS-C camera like the 80D. Personally I prefer the EF 50mm f/1.4, but it's about twice the price.

Not sure about the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM.... it's an extremely compact "pancake" lens, if that's what you have in mind. However, you already have 24mm f/3.5 or f/4 with your 18-135mm. Only 2/3 to one stop difference. Not a very big deal.

If yours is the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM, it's probably faster focusing than either of the STM lenses. Neither of those primes have IS either, while you're zoom does.

If a 70-200mm is too rich for your budget... how about an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 instead? The latest version "II" is currently on sale. The previous version is still available new, and a decent lens too... for under $400. Both 70-300s have fast USM focus and helpful IS. Once you save up a bit more, if you still want a 70-200L (I recommend the IS versions with either f/4 or f/2.8), you can sell off the 70-300mm.

Another response suggested the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM... which also might fulfill your telephoto needs quite well. It's a very capable lens, too. About $300 for one of those.

Of course, there quite a bit of overlap with your 18-135mm and either 55-250 or 70-300mm.

An alternative would be the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM.... an ultrawide that will give you a range you haven't currently got covered. That would be nice for scenic shots, among other things.

Another option would be a macro lens, if you like to do close-ups. The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM is quite compact and might serve some of the same non-macro purposes as a 50mm lens. It's on sale for under $400 right now. (I opted for the Tamron SP 60mm Macro instead, because it has a larger f/2 aperture that makes it even better for dual purposes such as portraiture... but it's more expensive than the Canon lens. It's slower focusing than the Canon, but that's no problem for most macro or portraiture.)

Or maybe you just have G.A.S. ("gear acquisition syndrome", highly contagious and common here on UHH ). In that case, do you have the matched lens hood for your 18-135mm? If you don't, I'd highly recommend getting and using it regularly (same with all the above lenses... except possibly the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, which has a fairly well recessed front element, so may not need a lens hood). Or, do you have a high quality circular polarizer for use on it? With digital photography, a good CPL (such as B+W F-Pro or XS-Pro) is the most useful of all filters.

Just tryin' to help you spend your money!
What are you hoping to accomplish with another len... (show quote)


Good information. I also have an 80D with the EF-S 18-135, the lens that is on mine the most. I needed a longer lens that wasn't too heavy for walking all around with it (mostly at the sports car races), so I bought the EF 70-300 noted above and have been very happy with it. Next, I decided a wide angle was necessary. There is a bundle from Canon with the EF-S 10-18 and the EF 50 1.8 for only $40 more than the 10-18. I'm really happy with the combination, but I rarely use the 50, since it's right in the middle of the 18-135 range. The 50 is faster, but the IS works well and the camera performs well at higher ISO. The 50 is a great value when you get it with the 2 lens kit however. My daughter has been doing some portrait photography with her 5D Mk IV using my 50 with excellent results. I have a hood for all except the 50.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.