What lens?

[mabas9395]

I'll take two please.

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Here is a new one you may want to consider...

Wow, is that a rocket launcher or a lens? The green color makes it look like a anti tank weapon

 

[DueyDooDah]

And, to show it's relation to your camera, check this out!

According to a uTube video, it'll cost about $10-$20K, they hope the low-end. And, yes, it comes in black, but no red ring and not white.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm actually quite interested in a few of the other long zooms they announced.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I ordered the Canon 100mm Macro. I strongly considered the Tamron 180mm macro. If I really get into macro shooting, perhaps I'll add it later. I'm also hoping that Canon puts a stabilizer on the 180mm macro for handheld shooting.

The 24mm T/S still draws me. I'm not ruling it out for later this year, but I doubt it. For the last few years, it has remained just tantalizingly on the other side of the cost/benefit ratio.

I've pretty well concluded that a fisheye isn't for me. I'll stick with the 17-40mm (equiv to a 22mm on my camera) for now. I'll probably get the new 5D if it lives up to expectations and that'll make for wider shooting. If I still want more, I think I'll pony up for the 14mm rectilinear lens.

The 400 f/2.8 will have to stay in the dream category for now. It's a rediculous amount of money and weight. I really don't have a great use for it. I just want it because it's cool and I can't have it.

 

[MassJester]

Interesting choice, Mark.

I've been looking at Tokina's 18-250, which seems to be getting some good press--I've been looking for a new walk around lense. Have you tried it?

I'm also trying decide on a prime for fireworks photos, but I haven't selected one yet.

 

[Groucho]

I've pretty well concluded that a fisheye isn't for me.

Somewhere a fisheye lens is crying.

I'm also trying decide on a prime for fireworks photos, but I haven't selected one yet.

Why a prime? If you're doing the usual tripod + remote shutter release, you'll probably have your aperture set near F8 - and most any lens should give you quality results. A prime will probably have more aperture blades, which can make a light that's "starbusting" (I'm sure there's a better term, but I can't think of it - give me a break, I'm feeling sick and am going to bed early in a few minutes ) look nicer, with more streaks of light around it. (Same # as the # of aperture blades the lens has.)

"Starburst"? "Streaks of light"? I'm embarrassed of my poor terminology tonight!

 

[MassJester]

Fair question -- I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that I was likely to do better with a prime.

My current compliment includes canon's 10-22, 50mm 1.8, 28-105mm 3.5-4.5, and sigma's 17-70mm 2.8 4.5.

I'm also looking at the Tokina 28-250mm.

Would you look to any of these?

 

[Groucho]

I'm not really familiar with most of those lenses... but I would guess that on pure specs, the Sigma might be the best choice.

Now don't get me wrong, the prime will probably be slightly sharper - but at F8, you lose a fair amount of the advantage, and if you can't position yourself correctly for your prime's focal length, you might be stuck doing a lot of cropping.

The primes will rein supreme for on-ride photos though.