|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 13th, 2010, 12:37 PM | #46 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 385
|
You're probably better off to get the EF-S 18-55/IS which gives you IS as well for an affordable wide.
There aren't many good wider than 20mm lens out there that are affordable. There are the Tokina and Tamron 17/3.5's, a a few 19/3.8 or similar models by Vivitar, Spiratone, and a few other off-brands. Other than that, most of the rest like the Nikon, Zeiss and Leica fast wide primes are more expensive than a Sigma 20/1.8 . |
July 13th, 2010, 12:57 PM | #47 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,505
|
Yeah the EF-S 18-55 gives you IS, but it doesn't have constant aperture and isn't good in low light.
The Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 20mm 1.8 are good suggestions, as they will be great in low light, as woudl be the Canon EF 28mm 1.8. But as pointed out the Zenitar-K 16mm f/2.8 might be a good option as well. Personally speaking I'm leaning myself towards the Canon EF28mm or the 24mm 1.8 SIGMA EX DG, both are similar but of course the Sigma is a little cheaper in price. None of these have IS, but really most of these wide angle primes don't need IS as they are fixed lenses and being wide angle don't show nearly as much vibration as zoomed lenses do. Hense the IS necessity on the ES-S 18-55 which is zoomable. |
July 13th, 2010, 03:01 PM | #48 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
I don't own the Canon 28mm f/1.8, but my second shooter does. I shot with that lens Saturday night at the reception. In addition to the Zenitar 16mm, I have a Nikon 24mm f/2.8, but since I had his Canon 28mm f/1.8 I used it instead for a lot of the party dancing.
It's a good lens, but at $450 it should be. I realize $450 is not much compared to many lenses, but it is a lot compared to what I have paid for all of my vintage lenses. Thanks again Chris for saving me a boatload of money and introducing me to some great vintage glass. |
July 13th, 2010, 04:15 PM | #49 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 104
|
Not a problem! You've helped me out over the years so I'm glad to give back. Can't wait to see your SDE shot with the Zenitar 16mm 2.8. I wish I had more time to play with it in Tulsa but from the little I shot with it, it seems like a pretty decent wide angle lens. And I know what you mean by how inflated the prices seem for AF lenses after collecting vintage glass for a while. I get the same kind of sticker shock.
|
July 13th, 2010, 08:08 PM | #50 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 689
|
Hi Robin,
Quote:
__________________
WeddingFilms.com>> |
|
July 13th, 2010, 08:14 PM | #51 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 127
|
Quote:
It might be possible to build a 14-15mm lens at f1.4 but the front element would be the size of a dinner plate. |
|
July 13th, 2010, 09:05 PM | #52 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 385
|
Quote:
I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 (you don't want the K, you want the M), and on a 1.6x crop body, it's not very fishy, but at $200-, it's not quite the bargain it used to be. The Zenitar is very compact, and handles flare well too. |
|
July 13th, 2010, 09:29 PM | #53 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 910
|
Quote:
Now you tell me. ;-) What is the difference between the K and the M? Thanks for your help. |
|
July 13th, 2010, 10:48 PM | #54 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 104
|
I'm not Kin but I think he's referring to the Zenitar that takes the M42 mount. Don't know if there's optical differences between the two or if it's just the mount and maybe better build quality.
Chris W |
July 13th, 2010, 11:45 PM | #55 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 689
|
Hi Ian,
Quote:
I can picture that. My current obsession is the manual focus Nikon 200mm f2.0 which does have a big front element. I've set a low-ball price threshold for myself so when one comes along I'll jump on it. And currently en route from an ebay seller in Greece is a Porst 135mm f1.8 which is even more so shaped like a bullhorn.
__________________
WeddingFilms.com>> |
|
July 14th, 2010, 08:30 AM | #56 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,505
|
Quote:
Personally I prefer glass with a constant aperture, as my lens won;t stop down when zoomed in. And fast primes are great, especially with fast apertures. the only drawback to prime lenses, is that you don't get IS capability on them. As it seems that IS only is built into zoom lenses. Which of course leads to variable apertures in many of them. The ones that have constant apertures are expensive, but they hold their value very well. |
|
July 14th, 2010, 08:37 AM | #57 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,505
|
Quote:
Besides the flickering issue I have read with AF adapter chips, I also read where some people who bought the Zenitar lens with EOS AF adapter complained that the adapter was too close to their mirror in the camera. I don't know if this was a full frame or cropped sensor camera, as the camera used wasn't mentioned. I'm seriously considering picking up a Zenitar 16mm, but wondering if I should just settle for the non-AF confirm EOS mount. BTW, Mark is this fisheye enough for your taste on a cropped sensor? I liek the fact that it doesn't look extreme fisheye at all, but rather a subtle fisheye effect. Mor of a wide angle effect. I am mainly shooting DSLRs for corporate work right now. And use it for some prep, establishing shots, and detail shots. So I was thinking that the Zenitar on a slider would make a nice detail style shot lens. What do yo think? |
|
July 14th, 2010, 08:55 AM | #58 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 104
|
Quote:
Long time, no see. Didn't know you were into classic glass. What lenses do you have so far? I think since going manual focus, I've been considering the 5D for later down the road especially when it comes to wide angle shooting. There just aren't many affordable options when you get below the 28mm range. Do you find the 135 and above primes pretty useful on a crop sensor camera for weddings? |
|
July 14th, 2010, 09:43 AM | #59 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 385
|
My point is just that if anyone is looking for a cheap/affordable wide (this is a thread on old/cheaper lenses), the 18-55 is a good choice.
|
July 14th, 2010, 09:46 AM | #60 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 385
|
Quote:
There's a pretty good chance that the K-mount is just an adapter, and it's a M-mount under all that, but no guarantees. |
|
| ||||||
|
|