Camera Lens for Gear/Meets/Etc.

[Voltron]

I have a Canon EOS 40D and a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS lens. I have been asking around randomly and was looking at lenses today with the hope of finding the perfect lens for gear pics and use at meets. The question of whether it is better to get a macro or just a wide angle lens is not completely clear to me. Several people have 50mm f2.8 macro lenses and like those, and you can even go to f1.4 with a new Sigma lens, but I think I still want it to be a zoom for greater flexibility. Talk me out of it, of course, if you think that is the best choice.

The lens that looks killer to me is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, although it is very pricey and may be overkill for me. The runner up is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but that is almost as much cash. The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is more affordable, but the f4 seems to make it less indoor-friendly. I know that you can jack up the ISO, but still, that is probably too slow for use very often in low light. Sigma has the 20-40mm F2.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL, which seems pretty bitchin, and it is much lower priced.

So, any thoughts on the right lens for gear? Any experience with any of the lenses above? Just want to spew some photo-knowledge? Please have at it.

Thanks.

[n_maher]

Before getting a lens I'd get a good flash. To me proper lighting can make or break meet pics. I've never had an issue using my stock nikon lens even though I lust for a good wide angle zoom.

[Voltron]

Before getting a lens I'd get a good flash. To me proper lighting can make or break meet pics. I've never had an issue using my stock nikon lens even though I lust for a good wide angle zoom.

Funny, I tried to convince a salesman that I should get a real flash and maybe some kind of diffuser like the one I have seen Tyll use a lot, and he said the 40D flash is perfect for my needs. I didn't agree, but could not believe that he was talking me out of spending money.

[tyrion]

Here's what I have:

20D

Canon 28-105 Ultrasonic

Canon 18-55 IS

Sigma 55-200

Sigma 50 2.8 macro (arrives tomorrow)

Canon Speedlite 430EX Flash

I also have a Quantaray QAF 6600 flash you can use. I don't know if it's better than what's on your camera.

Al, if there is anything you want to use, let me know. I will have it all with me at the hotel.

[kevin gilmore]

good flash and flash cord extender great for making sure there is no glare.

[Voltron]

So I bought a 430EX flash on the way to the Giants game but BB had shit for lenses.

[n_maher]

So I bought a 430EX flash on the way to the Giants game but BB had shit for lenses.

Al, I've tried a diffuser and honestly, in most situations, just bouncing the flash (assuming the ceiling is reasonably low and fairly reflective) works better for how I like things to look. Of course Tyll's diffuser is way more sophisticated than the one I use so his results are much better with it, mine still results in too much of a direct flash look. Still, there are situations which demand the use of a diffuser to avoid the brutal hot spot that any direct flash (on or off camera) is going to provide when you can't bounce. See if you can find one of the simple cap style diffusers and then play around with it to see what angle results in the best results.

[Voltron]

Thanks for input so far. Any more thoughts on a good lens, whether of the types/brands listed or otherwise?

[Smeggy]

Personally I'd head for a high speed fixed lens in the 24-30mm range.

[Bob_McBob]

If you're not planning to buy a full frame camera, the 17-55/2.8 would be a perfect carry-around lens for meets and almost anything else. The 50/1.8 also makes a nice cheap fast portrait lens on the 40D.

For flash, I use a stofen omnibounce that works pretty well for quick diffused shots.

[laxx]

I say go for the 17-55 IS. That's on my to buy list for the summer. I'm waiting for my 85 1.8 to come in the mail right now. I had the Canon 50 1.4, but didn't really like using it too often, so I sold it.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Personally I'd head for a high speed fixed lens in the 24-30mm range.

That's my route. Indoor stuff just doesn't really require a zoom in such a moderate range as 17-50, from what I've done so far. I'm fine zooming with my feet and changing out for a serious wide-angle or tele lens when a drastic change in perspective is called for.

[Knuckledragger]

I spend more time thinking about camera equipment than headphone so...

First, I agree with both Smeggy and KG. A fast prime that gives you close to the 50mm equivalent focal length will do you well. The EF 35mm F/2 is an excellent choice. It's cheap, light, tack sharp wide open (especially on an APS-C sensor) and it has a very close minimum focus distance. It's wide aperture will allow you to do available light shots not possible with zoom lenses. As a bonus, it works on film bodies and full frame digital, were you to go that route in the future. Downsides are a noisy focus motor, and no full time manual (FTM), but what do you want for $250? An external flash is a must. The price of the 580EX has gone down significantly now that the 580EX II is out. A bracket and a extension cable will help even more. The farther your flash is from the lens, the better.

Next, I would avoid the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8. It's expensive for an EF-S (APS-C only) lens, and it's not terribly sharp wide open, which is the only reason to own it. $1000 for a constant F/2.8 that's blurry and won't work if you upgrade your camera is crummy deal.

The EF 50mm F/1.4 is the cheapest way to get a Canon-branded F/1.4. It does let in a lot of light, and has USM and FTM, but it's not a paragon of sharpness until F/5.6 or so, and it tends to mis-focus in low light (which is when it's needed most.) The autofocus assist beam from a 580EX or other external flash will help with this. It also has mediocre bokeh, but this is probably irrelevant to you. The 50/1.8 is indeed a bargain, cheap enough to be an impulse buy purchase for most head-casers. It pretty sharp, and has less barrel distortion than the 50/1.4, but it's REALLY noisy, and feels like a cheap plastic toy. Caveat emptor.

The EF-S 18-55 IS seems like a good idea, but I can't comment on it directly as I've never used it. It has the same slow aperture (F/3.5-5.6, depending on zoom) of the crappy kit lens Canon sells. I assume the optics are better, but it's kind of expensive. For the cost of it, you could get the 35mm F/2 and 50mm F1/.4 (or nearly) and they'd be useful film and full frame cameras.

The one EF-S lens I would suggest is the 10-22mm. It's a superwide, making it quite useful in crampt quarters, and it's wonderfully sharp. It's a much better deal than its full frame cousin, the EF 16-35mm F/2.8L.

In short: consider fast primes and an external flash. Avoid EF-S lenses (other than the 10-22) if possible.

[Bob_McBob]

Next, I would avoid the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8. It's expensive for an EF-S (APS-C only) lens, and it's not terribly sharp wide open, which is the only reason to own it. $1000 for a constant F/2.8 that's blurry and won't work if you upgrade your camera is crummy deal.

Both photozone and the-digital-picture rate the 17-55 as extremely sharp. "As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range." I agree it is not a good option if you plan to buy a full frame camera in the future, but not everyone has a 5D in their upgrade path. If I were sticking to 1.6x cameras, the 17-55 would be on my list of lenses.

[Voltron]

After seeing Gene's 5D is the same size as the 40D, and having a slightly better understanding of the full frame vs. not distinction, how much improvement/difference does the upgrade provide if using Canon EF L lenses in both?

[blessingx]

This is going to be used for other purposes besides gear porn? There is a lot of talk of overkill and I have to concur in respect of frame size and L lenses. Arguably even the 40D. Hell the majority of my best shots were from an old G1 under controlled conditions even when I had a D70 around. Is the web the final output? I certainly understand desire for a quicker lens, but as others have pointed - tripod and lighting are where I would focus. I also have a lighting tent should you ever want to borrow.

[Voltron]

This is going to be used for other purposes besides gear porn? There is a lot of talk of overkill and I have to concur in respect of frame size and L lenses. Arguably even the 40D. Hell the majority of my best shots were from an old G1 under controlled conditions even when I had a D70 around. Is the web the final output? I certainly understand desire for a quicker lens, but as others have pointed - tripod and lighting are where I would focus. I also have a lighting tent should you ever want to borrow.

Definitely more than gear pron, including people, nature, traveling, etc. While the web would be the more likely place for gear shots, we do make prints for albums and framing on occasion. I was focused on the lens because even though I wasn't focused on full frame envy I have not been satisfied with the relatively lacking packaged lens (28-135, f/3.5-5.6) that came with the 40D (which I bought as CompUSA closed its doors). I enjoyed checking out the lenses and think that 40D with better lens options would be adequate. The new question posed today is what is lost by sticking with the 40D's 1.6x system?

Thanks for the offer of the light tent, which is probably a solution for lots of the gear photo issues. Taking pics on the racks won't allow that, however, unless you got one big-ass tent.

[blessingx]

It's pretty big. Last time I used it was for some origami -

[luvdunhill]

What do you guys think of the Canon G9? I was considering this and perhaps the Sigma DP1 for a point-and-shoot camera...

[grawk]

I still like the panasonic fz20 for point and shoot camera. It's just 5 or 6 mpix, but has the best lens of any small camera I've seen. The later models got worse.

[Iron_Dreamer]

What do you guys think of the Canon G9? I was considering this and perhaps the Sigma DP1 for a point-and-shoot camera...

The G9 feels great in your hand, more so than any P&S I'm aware of. The controls work out pretty nicely also. Too bad it is a real noise machine. Perhaps that can be cleaned up well using RAW, but I've only tested it in the store. The only other lackluster point to me is 35mm on the wide end, I'd prefer 28, but they at least could have done 32.

[luvdunhill]

The G9 feels great in your hand, more so than any P&S I'm aware of. The controls work out pretty nicely also. Too bad it is a real noise machine. Perhaps that can be cleaned up well using RAW, but I've only tested it in the store. The only other lackluster point to me is 35mm on the wide end, I'd prefer 28, but they at least could have done 32.

I totally agree. I figured there would be more opinions on these 2

[laxx]

I personally like the G9. My coworker got one a few weeks ago and I play with it here and there. Are you definite on getting a point & shoot/advanced point & shoot?

[luvdunhill]

I personally like the G9. My coworker got one a few weeks ago and I play with it here and there. Are you definite on getting a point & shoot/advanced point & shoot?

yeah, something decently compact.

[laxx]

I consider a rebel XT/XTi/XSi compact. =T