Which lens or lenses can't you live without?

[Jeff Mottle]

And you get the bonus arm workout too while carrying it around!

 

Yes, by the end of a day walking around shooting, my back, shoulder and feet are killing me. That lens and body combo weighs 5lbs. You pretty much need a chiropractic adjustment. LOL.

[shaneis]

The hood can't be removed either, it's integrated into the lens

 

D'Oh!!! Oh well, Maybe try a hacksaw

 

Jol, (Sandman), what body and lenses do you use...actually, in general, how do you do your pole-cam shots???

Edited April 16, 2009 by shaneis

[SandmanNinja]

I can jump fairly high and hover briefly?

 

Manfrotto produces a 7.1m tripod that's designed for stage lighting.

I attach a camera with a programmable timer to the tripod and, using my eye and a bit of experience, position the pan head to the 'close enough' angle, and start hoisting them up. While they are up there, snapping a photo (set to AUTO shutter and f/stop) every 5 seconds, I slowly rotate the pan head by loosening/turn slightly/tighten one of the telescoping extensions.

 

Very low tech - no monitor to see what I'm doing - but I use a wide angle lens and by now can judge the angle for the pan head by eye. I usually hoist it up, turn 90-degrees left then slowly work by way 180-degrees right. I then hoist it back down and while it's still attached have a quick look at the photos in the screen on the back of the camera.

 

If I've missed what I was aiming for, I adjust the pan head and re-joist back up.

 

The tripod is "light" for what it does, and I can carry it to really remote locations.

 

I pretty much leave my Sigma 15mm-30mm on my D200. I have a D100 as 'back-up' camera and then have a few Coolpix 5000s sitting around. I'd love to get a D2 or a D3 but can't really justify it as my D200 just keeps performing beautifully.

[Dave Buchhofer]

here's a walkthru from the digital urban guys for the pole panos.. its kinda interesting. http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/search/label/Pole%20Panorama

[Onslaught]

My Sigma 70-300 and Nikon 18-135.

 

Nikon 50mm for backup.

[mcl]

After trying Jeff's full frame and 14-24 I just had to upgrade (thx J) The 14-24 f2.8 on a full frame body is just fantastic. I used to shoot with a Nikon D80 and the 18-200mm for a long time. I got to say that the 18-200 is a great DX lens, very versatile but can't compare to the joy of full frame and the crisp 14-24. Right now debating between the 24-70 or the 70-200, leaning towards the 70-200 f2.8.

[AJLynn]

I have one for the list: Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8 Macro (in Minolta MD mount). Costs practically nothing on the used market, fantastic image quality, perfect zoom range, close focus is so close I can't take off the UV filter because I'm worried about bumping things. Plus, it's huge, which looks impressive. It's going in my bag for my trip to CA in a couple weeks, along with probably a 50/1.4 and maybe another lens or two, so I can shoot some Kodachrome before it dies.

[Craig Ramsay]

My Canon 10 - 22mm & my Canon 50mm 1.8

 

Shooting a Canon 500D at the moment but saving the pennies for a 5D MK2 and a Canon TS-E 24mm YUM!

[SandmanNinja]

Plus, it's huge, which looks impressive.

 

I laughed out loud when I read that.

[Matt McDonald]

So I 'm close to taking the plunge on either a d5000 or a t1i. I'm leaning towards the Canon, I found it easier to use (I asked "what does this do?" less) and I know quite few folks with Canon's so maybe I can borrow a lens every now and then.

 

I was thinking about skipping the kit lens and getting something a little better. The guy at the shop was super keen on the Tamron AF18-270 f/3.5-6.3. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18270_vc.asp

I really don't know the brand. I was bothered by the fact that the lens extended on its own when I point the camera down but he made it out like I'd be a fool to buy any other $600 lens.

 

Any thoughts?

[shaneis]

You'd be a fool to listen to a salesman who makes you sound like a fool for not listening to him.

 

The lens can do everything, but it sacrifices image quality for features. If there's one rule to follow when buying camera equipment, it's "buy good lenses". Hey, in a few years' time, we'll have +100MP cameras. At that point you'll be glad you bought good glass.

 

Great (and quietly damning) review of the Tamron on a Canon 50D http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-tamron_18270_3563vc_canon

 

The 18-55mm Canon kit lens is FAR better than the Tamron you mentioned. Get it and use the dollars you saved to go towards you next lens. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

 

If you can, try to match lenses to your body (ie Canon). Once in a a while, an off-brand maker will release a great lens that is worth the risk eg Tokina's 11-16mm http://photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

 

The risk is that Canon, for example, may introduce a new auto-focus system. They'll make it compatible with their older lenses, but your Tokina (off-brand) lenses may lose auto-focus and you're left with a good manual focus lens.

[Matt McDonald]

Thanks Shane! I appreciate the advice (and the links)!

 

Matt

[Craig Ramsay]

I bought the Canon EF-S 18-200mm super-zoom at the weekend, it's pretty good! You do get a bit off barrel distortion at the wide end but I actually like that If I need to do wide architecture shots I'll use the trusty old 10-22mm.

[Tim Nelson]

I tried the 18-200. The distortion was enough to drive me crazy.

It had a lot more distortion than the 18-55?

 

So last week I picked up the Sigma 18-200 OS. At first I thought it was great because it had much less barrel distortion at 18 than the kit 18-55. But it did have much more CA. Then yesterday I went out shooting around providence with it, and afterwords I noticed how ridiculously blurry the images were around the edges, and I didn't even find the center focus to be that great. I know thats going to be a given for a super zoom, but I honestly don't think it should be that bad. Some of the softness could be corrected in photoshop, but definitely not the junk at the edges.

 

I am going to go out and buy the Nikon 18-200 VR II tomorrow to see what the difference is. I suppose I could try exchanging the Sigma until I find a copy I'm happy with, but there's a chance I would never be happy with the iq. Oh, and for some reason the metering doesn't work right with my d60, and I have to set the exposure to -.7 to look the same as the nikon lenses...annoying.

 

Here's a sample from yesterday. Its definitely fun to have the range of 200mm, so I'm stuck. And I don't want to have to change lenses all the time, so I'm hoping I am happier with the Nikon version.

 

edit: this picture is after ca removal, sharpening, distortion removal, etc.

[AJLynn]

Oh no, now you've got the lens bug. Save yourself some time and get a 16-85 and a 70-300, since that's where this ends anyway

 

See if you can find an original Nikon 18-200 instead of the new one. The only difference is the zoom lock switch, but the release of the new one should have the effect of bringing down prices on the old one.

[Tim Nelson]

Oh no, now you've got the lens bug. Save yourself some time and get a 16-85 and a 70-300, since that's where this ends anyway

 

See if you can find an original Nikon 18-200 instead of the new one. The only difference is the zoom lock switch, but the release of the new one should have the effect of bringing down prices on the old one.

Ha! I have a feeling I'm about a year behind you in camera time. Now I keep telling myself "if I sell my d60, the d90 would only be another $400"....So far I have resisted the temptation.

 

As far as the zooms, you prefer having two separate lenses? I just can't picture myself walking around on vacation or just around town always switching back & forth between the two. The only one I would not feel bad about switching for is the 35mm f1.8.

 

It seems like these Nikon 18-200's must be in pretty high demand because I have not seen many version I lenses for sale, and even those have not been cheap.

 

I don't consider myself having the "bug" just yet, but given all the things I've been through during the past two weeks, I might be getting close. It's just that my budget is also about the size of a bug!

[Tim Nelson]

Well today was actually a good day. I went down to Best Buy this morning, and was ready to buy the 18-200 VR II lens for $850 when I noticed they had the first VR version on clearance for $685. Woohoo!

 

I've been testing it against the Sigma this morning and my impressions:

 

1) The Nikon has much much better overall sharpness, and although it does still blur in the corners, it is cleaner and has a more natural look to it. The softness in the corners of the Sigma looked more like motion blur.

 

2) Bokeh effects seem a lot better with the Nikon.

 

3) Vignetting is a lot lighter with the Nikon

 

4) There is more barrel distortion with the Nikon, but it seems to be more uniform than the Sigma, making it easier to correct and get straight lines.

 

5) Chromatic aberrations were slightly less with the Nikon, but for some reason the ones in the Sigma seemed a little easier to correct.

 

So, I hate to admit it, but the extra $300 for the Nikon seems to be worth it. The images just look more balanced & natural to me. And the fact that I didn't have to buy the VR II made me a lot happier too. You will get zoom creep with this if it is already zoomed out and shake it, but if you roll it back to 18mm you don't need a lock because it stays in place there. I think I'll be pretty happy with this lens for a while.

[Matt McDonald]

I just ordered a Sigma 30 1.4 for my Canon t1i. I can't wait! It was a tough decision between the Sigma and the Canon 28 1.8 but whenever I saw side by side images I preferred the Sigma.

[AJLynn]

The Sigma is very strong on bokeh. I think you'll be pleased.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I just ordered a Sigma 30 1.4 for my Canon t1i. I can't wait! It was a tough decision between the Sigma and the Canon 28 1.8 but whenever I saw side by side images I preferred the Sigma.

 

I have that Sigma lens, an I have been happy with it. I did read about some of them having problems with front to back focus. Not exactly sure what that means though.

 

Below is an test image I shot to check my lens at 1.4. One image is focusing on the 12" mark, the other on the 16" mark. Both of those are direct off the camera with the exception of resizing for the web. No post work was done.

[Matt McDonald]

Cool man! Thanks.

 

I've read a lot of end users complaining about focus issues with the lens but I kind of write that off as people using too many auto-focus points.

 

Quality control on the lens is a little bit of a concern for me. I couldn't find a local dealer so I haven't got the chance to put my hands on one. I guess if it feels crumby, I'll send it back.

[shaneis]

Ha! I have a feeling I'm about a year behind you in camera time. Now I keep telling myself "if I sell my d60, the d90 would only be another $400"....So far I have resisted the temptation.

 

Head over here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm to get up to speed. Ken can geek-out at times but he does write an honest and detailed review.

 

Have fun with your new lens. I have an 18-200 VR as well - it may not be the best lens in technical terms, but it does live up to the "Swiss Army Knife" moniker. There's nothing worse than being at the right place at the right time with the wrong lens

[Tim Nelson]

Head over here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm to get up to speed. Ken can geek-out at times but he does write an honest and detailed review.

 

Have fun with your new lens. I have an 18-200 VR as well - it may not be the best lens in technical terms, but it does live up to the "Swiss Army Knife" moniker. There's nothing worse than being at the right place at the right time with the wrong lens

Yes, I've read his review of the D60, and D90 - I like Rockwell's reviews. While I have never used a D40, I can say that low light sensitivity of the D60 is not that great, at least compared to the D90 which I tried out last week. I liked it so much, for many reasons. Thinking I will have to upgrade very soon. :-)

[AJLynn]

Read Rockwell's reviews with a critical eye. He often makes good points, and often is way off.

 

For example, the D40 thing - he (and everybody else who take high ISO photos and views them at 100% looking for noise) misses the point that low light sensitivity isn't about how much noise is in the image, but how much signal. The D40 and D60 are nearly identical in that regard, but the D60 has better color depth at all its ISOs. And the 1/500 shutter sync is all well and good but it's that way because the D40 has a sensor-based electronic shutter technology that's been abandoned because it caused more problems than it solved. OTOH, the D90 does have the best low-light performance on a crop-sensor camera under $4000 (at least until test results come back on the D300S).

[Tim Nelson]

Ok, I promise, this is the last piece of glass I'm going to buy for a "while"...I found a good Craigslist deal on a Tokina 12-24mm F4. I could not resist. I have only taken a few shots with it, but I can already tell its going to be a new favorite. Here's a sample I took yesterday. It has almost an hdri look to it, but this is completely straight out of the camera, no post at all. A lot of it is the lighting, but still, this seems to be an awesome lens. Perfect for landscapes and architecture.