Lens choice redux

[61Dynamic]

I can't speak for the zooms you mentioned but as a 50mm user I'll add my two cents.

The 50mm f/1.4 is an excellent performer. It's very sharp, even wide open. Most lenses are generaly sharpest stopped down to f/9 but my copy reaches it's sharpest by f/4. Color and overal contrast is better with this lens than any other Canon or Sigma lens I've used. Can't say how it would compare to Zeiss but you'll certainly be happy with this lens.

Canon could put a red band on this lens and sell it as an L. My only complaint is that the AF motor is micro-USM and not Ring-Type. The micro-USM motors aren't quite as quick and are noisier. Motor noise of this leve isn't a huge concern in most situations really but AF speed is since these systems aren't any good for manual focusing. The 20D shutter is 100x louder anyway

I've seen tests of L zooms that are very sharp as well but I don't know of any that can match a sharp prime. However many do come close and sometimes the difference is minimal. In the wide angle arena Canon doesn't shine (zoom or prime) as Didger will attest to. But I'll leave that commentary to those who know more tham me

[DiaAzul]

I would second 61Dynamics recommendation of the 50MM/1.4 - I have a 24-70/2.8 zoom and somehow the 50mm lens just gives a much nicer picture even though it is limited to one focal length. I use it as a low light portrait lens in events and it can give some very pleasing results.

At the shorter end I have a 17-40mm zoom, which is OK for what it does and produces adequate rather than stellar pictures, though I have no primes to compare it with.

The only other option you may wish to consider is a Canon 15mm fisheye. On the 1.6x crop camera the distortions are still their, but can be managed such that they don't unduly influence the picture - or even if it does it can be done creatively. I do use this lens a lot, but then it is something that I build in as part of my shooting style. Here is an example of the 15mm on a 1DII (1.3x crop) so a 1.6x will have less pronounced distortion.



ciao ciao

[docbradd]

This question has been asked and answered in different ways before, but the different ways induce more uncertainty.  

The situation: I am in the process of selling my Contax system in favor of a Canon EOS 20 D.  With the Contax, I used an 18 MM/f4 on one body (usually RX) and the 85MM/f1.4 on an RTS III.  I would say that my usage was roughly equal, occasionally using a 135MM or a 180MM and rarely a 300MM (all Contax).  In my experience, I use the wide angle the most, started 35 years ago with a 21MM Super Angulon on a Leica M, moving through different 24 MM on various other cameras, and then to the 18MM on the Contax.  Wide angle is important and I take pride in using it in a way that it is rarely apparent that I am shooting with a wide lens.  I've repeatedly thought that I need to get a "normal (35MM or maybe a 50MM), but somehow I never get around to it, and those times that I've had such a lens it just took up space.

My budget for the EOS 20D is $2400 (US).  Thus far I am considering the 10MM - 22MM as my main lens, adding a 50MM 1.4 (the rough equivalent of my 85MM), and looking for an 85MM f1.8 as a long portrait lense and ultimately getting a 135MM as a replacement for my 180mm.  All of these would be Canon, of course, although a good Sigma could be considered, especially for macro.

I've never been satisfied with zoom lenses, but recently using a Sony DSC 707, I've been surprised at the quality I can get from that lens/sensor - I'm pretty good at correcting problems in Photoshop and can make very good prints at 18X12 in.

As  prime lens user, am I going to be disappointed by the 10-22MM lens on the 20D?  Comments on using the fixed focal length lenses for "best quality"?  Would I be better off with the 17-85 that has created so much comment - rather than the 50 MM and 85MM fixed?

Thanks for thinking with me on this.


DocBradd

[BJL]

In the wide angle arena Canon doesn't shine (zoom or prime) as Didger will attest to. But I'll leave that commentary to those who know more tham me

Well, I do not know more that 61Dynamic, but since you are in the realm of "digital SLR formats", and so need about 12mm to match that 18mm in 35mm format, there do indeed seem to be higher quality ultrawide lens options from brands other than Canon.

The obvious one is the Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX [18-36 FOV equiv.]. To really stir the pot, I could mention the new Olympus 7-14 f/4 [14-28mm equivalent, slightly wider than any other rectilinear lens, prime or zoom]. But that could easily break your budget, and for the most part, Olympus is far more oriented to high quality zooms than primes. By the way, this is also what is happening with the new Canon and Nikon lenses for the new "digital SLR formats". As far as wide to moderate telephoto primes for these new formats, what you see already is about all you will ever get, apart from a few more from Olympus.