Camera lens problem...

[rxpharm]

Might not be in the focal length you want - might not be in the budget you would like to spend. The image quality difference might not matter if you don't print or view the image at wall size.

However, if none of the above apply, then buying the brand name lens is the right choice.

[manarak]

ok Azza, what the "most affordable" L-lens for me?

remember I *absolutely need* 30mm (because 30mm is 49mm equivalent on APC) or less AND good low-light performance (so... f/1.8 or f/1.4, better f/1.4).

the 400 USD for the sigma lens were already a bit more than I was willing to pay just for getting some decent shots without flash of ladyboy hookers in the bars!

the nearest Canon lens is the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, which costs a whopping 1700 USD !
(+ tax...)

[azza33]

To each his own... but you do get what you pay for

[rxpharm]

Manarak, I would do the RMA first or if you bought it from a bricks and mortar shop - maybe they will let you exchange it and you can test the replacement before taking it home.

[azza33]

(manarak @ Jul. 04 2010,21:14) ok Azza, what the "most affordable" L-lens for me?

remember I *absolutely need* 30mm (because 30mm is 49mm equivalent on APC) or less AND good low-light performance (so... f/1.8 or f/1.4, better f/1.4).

the 400 USD for the sigma lens were already a bit more than I was willing to pay just for getting some decent shots without flash of ladyboy hookers in the bars!

the nearest Canon lens is the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, which costs a whopping 1700 USD !
(+ tax...)

You would have been better served spending the extra $1300 than messing around with a lens that doesn't work.

I see it, not as the price you fork over, but was value you get over a prolonged period.

Yes, $1700 is a lot, no argument, but its not much in the greater scheme of things if you get 10-15 years good use from the product and it can be used on any new cameras you purchase.

[manarak]

heck, I'll just buy the 5D mark III when it comes out, with a couple L lenses !!

:-)

Now, if you excuse me, I gotta trade some of dem futures to get the 5000 dollars!

[azza33]

Just play golf and check the next day... seemed to work last time

[azza33]

btw... have you picked up a telephoto lens?

I was thinking of getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM .. price is around $700 USD delivered.

[manarak]

I don't really need telephoto. The 18-135 kit lens I have is really sharp.


I made some more tests with the Sigma lens in low light in my office.

I don't have the time to post the shots now, but it consistently misfocused.
It's called "frontfocussing" I believe. By about 3/4 inch.

Again, terrific pictures when I corrected manually.

The lens would be perfect for me if it was focussing correctly.
I guess the error was not noticeable in my kitchen window shots.

Is there a setting for correcting the autofocus with a particular lens?

[rxpharm]

That is available only in certain models of the various manufacturers. For Canon - the 50D and 5D mark II have microfocus adjustment

[azza33]

http://www.lensrentals.com/category/normal/for-canon

Here is an amusing option

[Chinaman]

(azza33 @ Jul. 04 2010,21:48) btw... have you picked up a telephoto lens?

I was thinking of getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM .. price is around $700 USD delivered.

I bought the EF 70-300 IS when I was in Pattaya in April from a shop in TukCom and I am very happy with it. Of course it is not an L-lens but therefore it is lighter.

I thought of 70-200 first but then figured that if I do go telephoto, I would want as much tele as makes sense, etc.

Reports have been quite good on that lens. But then I am not a pro.

[azza33]

The image quailty of the 70-200 f/4.0 L series even without the IS is really very good.
Pricewise is a very reasonable L series, The IS version is double the price and same as the f2.8 without IS. The f2.8 with IS is 4 times  

I define the 70-200 f4.0 L as a good value product.

Ive taken a look at the EFS 55-200 and its cheap & nasty imo.

the EF 70-300 is  fine, but for a little extra the L series 70-200 f/4.0 is the better option imo

I was thinking of also getting the 24-105 L series

I can justify the pricing on that one however i'd love the 24-70 f2.8 EF L series but its price is a little too much for me.

I guess if i got the 24-105 lens, the 70-300 would make more sense.

[f0xxee]

Hi Azza,

I have the 24-105L series on a Canon 50D and I love it. In the past I have uses a 70-200 F2.8L The sharpness even with a 1.4 extender was superb. (I could shoot chicks on the beach at Tamarama from my balcony and see the ripples in their silicone tits. If you insist I will post photographic eveidence!)
HOWEVER: I couldn't easily fit it into a motorbike tankbag, and worried constantly about carting it everywhere. And although great it was too heavy, too long an too valuable. Also for portraits I found you needed to stand miles from the subject: ok outside but a bitch for inside flash photography if you are not in a warehouse.

The 24-105L is a good compromise. ALSO: I bought Mrs F the 24-70 2.8L series and she loves it. She uses it on my old 20D body and has done some great portraits with it. With it's lower F-stop it is the perfect portrait zoom.

SO my choices:

Sports: 70-200 F2 L
Portrait 24-70 F2.8L
All-rounder and travel 24-105 F4 L

[f0xxee]

Hi Manarak:

THe 24-105L Series lens retails in LOS for about 44,000 baht.

One other great thing about Canon L series is that they sell well on Ebay with little depreciation, and are generally bought and sold by people who are really into thier cameras and tend to be well looked after.

Perhaps check on Ebay for the lens you want. And you can always sell it if you are not very happy with it.

Remember also the Canon 550D multiplies x 1.6 so a 24-105 realistically becomes a 38-168. (This is why in the post above I mention the problem with needing to be miles from your subject using the 70-200 lens).

As far as I know (and I am not a reader of camera mags) this is true for all low and medium end Canon SLR's up to the 7D model.