|
jasona
Jan 24, 2003, 5:21 PM
Post #1 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
anyone out there used this lens. just curious on your thoughts or opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
womble
Jan 24, 2003, 5:38 PM
Post #2 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
I've not used it, but the focal length is very useful for rock-type shots. (I use the old 20-35 f2.8 instead so cannot comment on the quality)
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 24, 2003, 5:47 PM
Post #3 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
THat focal length range is awesome. The only thing better than a 20-35 is a 16-35 or 17-35! I want NIkon to make a 16-35 so the 17-35 becomes affordable for me to buy; even the beater used ones cost $600+ on eBay.
Seriously, you'll DIG the way you can make the ground look 1000' away, and a zoom means you can crop in-camera, which rules.
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Jan 24, 2003, 5:51 PM
Post #4 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
Yeah I am pretty sure I will love the range. just curious if anyone has had any problems with clarity or vignetting or anything of that nature with this lens.
currently that 16-35 is just a little out of my price range. unfortunately......
[ This Message was edited by: jasona on 2003-01-24 09:51 ]
|
|
|
|
|
willstrickland
Jan 27, 2003, 3:54 PM
Post #5 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2002
Posts: 51
|
If you want that extra few mm's of coverage, look at the Sigma APO EX 17-35 f2.8-f4. That's what I shoot. MUCH cheaper than the EOS, equal quality for certain.
As for vignetting, you definetly won't be stacking filters on these lenses (unless you like those black corners) and even some thicker polarizers will vignette. I don't know the ring diameter of the Canon lens, but the Sigma I shoot has an 82mm ring (that's freakin huge) so vignetting isn't an issue unless I've got the Cokin P holder on there and am shooting at a focal length less than 20mm. Even with aspherical elements in the lenses, below about 20mm the "pin cushion" effect starts to become very noticable. As the others said, you'll love this range for climbing stuff, mine gets 4 times the use of any other lens I own.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 27, 2003, 3:56 PM
Post #6 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
nb. That awesome shot of the Lost Arrow Tip on the front page lately was shot with the lens you're asking about
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=10546
looks good to me
|
|
|
|
|
awsclimber
Jan 27, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #7 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 118
|
Sounds like some of you have a pretty good handle on photography. I've done some, and am looking to get into it and need to get a decent camera (I've borrowed others so far) any advice on what kind of camera (I'm looking for older models) and what style of lenses? Obviously everybody has their preferences, but I'm looking for cheap and rugged w/ lenses that are still available.
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Jan 30, 2003, 8:19 PM
Post #8 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
just got my 20-35 and shot a test roll. will post my results if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Mar 5, 2003, 11:04 AM
Post #9 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Hey jasona, I'd love to know what you think of this lens, and maybe see your shots. I just got a 75-300 but I might get me something wide at some stage. Thanks,
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
coldham
Mar 5, 2003, 12:21 PM
Post #10 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 11
|
if you are just getting in to you really don't need a outstanding camera, if you have enough skill and training you could only use disposables and still make great images. but i agree the decent camera is a help. i have a canon rebel x 35-80mm, 80-200mm, and just bought a minolta sr-1, with a 50mm lens. what ever you get just go out and make great images
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Mar 5, 2003, 2:21 PM
Post #11 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
The "getting into climbing photography, what should I get?" topic has been discussed to death in the Photography forum. Look at past topics to glean the information you want.
As for the Canon lens in question, sounds like a great size, and you have the zoomable option which makes it much more veristile than many fixed lenses. Unfortunately you do give up some speed. The Sigma lens stated above would be better for that.
So have you got your test pics bakc yet? lets see them?
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Mar 12, 2003, 4:41 PM
Post #12 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
Dmon, I love the 20-35. pretty damn sharp and very contrasty. much much better than the 28-80 I was using before. well worth the $400. I just can't justify the 16-35 right now as it is close to $1500 I believe. Plus the 20-35 is lighter and shouldn't have much of a problem with vignetting as the 16-35 would. worse case scenario a falling rock or chunk of ice breaks it I can replace it. the 16-35 would be more difficult to replace due to cost.
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Mar 13, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #13 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Did you get the USM one? That sounds like an awful lot of money! I got my non USM 75-300, f4 for AUS$375, which comes to roughly US$180. If you did get the USM, what was your reason?
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Mar 17, 2003, 11:38 PM
Post #14 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
the 20-35 is USM(only way they make it) and it is well worth the $$$. I have a 75-300USM and it retails for $279 US but you can get it cheaper and it is an ok lens. not as sharp wide open as I would like but pretty nice stopped down. I am replacing with with the 70-200/f4. I do believe USM is worth it in most lenses. the only non USM I have is a 50/1.8. big difference in focusing speed and noise. Much better in low light as well. I think that answers your question. if not just let me know
|
|
|
|
|
doughboy
Apr 23, 2003, 6:04 AM
Post #15 of 15
(3874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 17
|
Another part of the reason that the 20-35 is (relatively) expensive versus even the USM 75-300, is that they have different focusing methods, not sure what they're callled exactly, someone might be able to help me here ...
Essentially though, the focusing on a 20-35 (and indeed all of Canon's better lenses) is totally internal, whereas the 75-300 rotates on the outside as it focuses, meaning that if you have (say) a polarising filter on it, the focus will potentially change the picture.
This is independent of whether they are USM or non USM, and all 75-300's (there are three of them - an IS USM, USM and non USM) have external focusing
Also, Canon's 16-35 doesn't cost 3 times what a 17-35 does simply because of the extra mm. They completely redesigned the optics to prevent a whole lot of technical stuff that I don't understand (am I coming across as stupid here ???) that wide angles are prone to. According to Canon, it's a vastly superior lens. The 17mm barely changed in price when the 16mm came out because it was always aimed at a different market anyway.
I have a 20-35 and reckon it's a gem, the last couple of mm (i.e. down from the 22-55) are crucial for foreshortening. I can't afford either the 16 or 17-35.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
