Recommend lenses (especially for IR landscape)

This site is like heaven for me, and now that I found the forums, I'm even happier.


Background: before the digital age, I shot film with various bodies from an old indestructible AE-1 to an Elan. Forgot what my lens lineup used to be, because I sold it all off years ago (had a 135mm prime, a 100-300mm zoom, a 50mm prime, among others). Used to shoot kodachrome & later velvia. Long story short, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I went digital when the Rebel XT came out--was a low-cost experiment, and I've really enjoyed the results. But I retain habits from the film age: invest in good lenses; bodies come and go. So I've stuck with the XT has various new models have come out; I've lusted after full-frame bodies (the x0D series doesn't interest me a bit) and eventually will pull the trigger on the latest version of the 5D. But I need to re-build my lens kit first, and that's where my funds get allocated (I'm finishing my PhD, so I don't make much money; any purchases have to be approved by my "accountant"....er, wife).


I shoot primarily outdoors. Landscapes, photojournalism-ish stuff, some wildlife. I got into photography as a kid in 4-H using my dad's old Ricoh & kodachrome to shoot flowers, so I really, really enjoy macro nature photography.


So the new t1i is out, and it's a substantial upgrade from my XT at a pretty digestible price. I currently have the 24-105mm L, and soon after I get the t1i, I'm going to pick up the 100mm macro. After that, my next purchase will likely be the f/2.8 70-200mm IS L, though I lust after a wider zoom like the 17-40mm L (or the 17-55 EF-S or 10-22 EF-S, as I'll be using the 1.6 bodies for a long while yet), too.


One last bit of background: years ago, my brother (a rehabilitated pro photographer) used to shoot IR film, and I was totally blown away by it. So when I get the t1i, I'm sending my XT out to be converted to IR.


Anyway, given all that background, here's the question I'm asking: I'll have two bodies and one lens. The IR will be used 90% for landscapes, and maybe 10% for random portraiture. Given that I'm committed to getting a macro lens, and after that I need a longer (than 105mm) zoom--one that will cost more than the macro & my 24-105mm combined--I should probably opt for a 50mm prime, right? But that's pretty long considering the fovcf on the XT?


The 28mm f/2.8 would be a better landscape lens, I think, as a default. And it's cheap. And if I need a longer lens for any reason, then I can just switch out. But the review of the 28mm f/2.8 isn't very enthusiastic... though shooting daylight landscapes, I'll be stopping down and most of the negatives about the 28mm f/2.8 have to do with shooting wide open.


I'm talking myself into the 28mm f/2.8, but then, the kit lens for the t1i isn't bad, and at this point would only add $32 to the cost of the camera.


So, between:


28mm f/2.8 (~$200)
50mm f/1.4 (~$400)
EF-S 18-55 kit (~$32)

Which sounds best for my needs (the lens that stays on the IR-converted XT for landscape photography until/unless I need to use a longer lens for whatever reason)? I'm not considering either of the 35mm primes--one's too expensive and the other is too poor. I guess the big question comes down to: is the image quality of the 28mm f/2.8 significantly better than the EF-S 18-55? If it weren't for the lukewarm review here, I'd say "of course; primes in the same length/price range are always going to be better." But I dunno.


Sorry for the novel, and thanks for your feedback.

I voted for the 28/2.8, but thinking it over, the 18-55 is also a good idea because of the zoom. If you ever plan to shoot indoors, the 28/2.8; if only outdoors, go for the 18-55.

To be honest, I can't actually pick a best among the choices. Making concessions when picking a lens is not one of my strengths. My philosophy in buying lenses is to wait until I can afford the best--that way I don't have to wonder if the shot could have been any better.


My instinct is to suggest the 50mm f/1.4 because of its usefulness outside of landscape photography (especially in low-light situations). I don't have any experience with the other two lenses, but I've always found Bryan's reviews to be spot-on. So if Bryan was dissatisfied with the images produced by a lens, then you'll likely have the same issues with that particular lens. The 50mm f/1.4's build quality is far from an "L" standard, and its autofocus does tend to malfunction after short drops onto any hard surface, but if handled with care it's a pretty darn good lens for the money (mine's extremely sharp from f/2.0 onward). The only problem is (in my opinion) that the focal length's a little long for landscape photography. I personally like a very wide lens for that. Someone will say, "Well you can just back up!," but that's not always an option.


This may be one of the most useless posts I've ever made, but my suggestion is to broaden your lens choices--and possibly wait a little longer until you can buy something you know you won't regret.

Well, BuyDig continues to impress me. I placed my order for a new
T1i on Thursday afternoon, chose the free shipping (7-9 days), and
Saturday morning I had the camera in-hand (that's less than 48 hours
for free shipping).


I'm very impressed with the T1i compared to
my old XT. I got the kit lens, as BuyDig priced the kit at $32 more
than the body alone--figure I can't go wrong with that. Especially as
the kit price went back up to $899 at Amazon and BuyDig on Friday.


I'm
sending the XT off for IR conversion. When I get it back, the 18-55mm
IS kit lens will be the "default" lens on the camera, and when I need
something sharper/better, I'll just swap my 24-105mm IS L onto it. As
my lens collection grows, I'll put a better lens on the XT--but by the
time I get to buying the 16-35mm L or 17-40mm L, I'll probably have
moved up to whatever is the latest 5-series body, and I'll have the T1i
converted for IR--so the temptation to get the EF-S 10-22mm (or even
the EF-S 17-55mm) isn't very strong; if I'm going to spend $700+ for a
lens, I'll spend it on an L-series rather than an EF-S.


In the end, I guess the only way I wanted to spend $400 or so on a new lens for using on the IR-converted XT was for a good
lens that I would find a use for in the future, as well. The review on
the 28mm f/2.8 was pretty negative, and for shooting landscapes, I need
a wider angle than what a 50mm will do on a 1.6 FOVCF body. The 35mm
f/2.0 review turned me off for current landscape use (like the 28mm:
soft corners, nasty bokeh) and especially for any future use on a
full-frame body. So the lens closest to my requirements (wide, sharp,
not breaking the bank, and useable on a full-frame body) looks to be
the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.


Gahh, something happened to this post, so I have to edit it.


In the end, I think I don't want to shell out $400+ for a lens like the Sigma, when the 17-40mm f/4.0 L runs ~$750 and is a more flexible lens (with better optics).


Considering my future lens line-up will be (from wide to tele):


17-40mm f/4.0 L
24-105mm f/4.0 L IS (already have)
100mm f/2.8 Macro (next on the list to buy)
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (next after the Macro)


I'm gonna save my pennies for a lens I know will be better overall than be penny-wise and pound-foolish buying a stop-gap lens now.

Hi! guys!, I have no idea what IR photography is. I mean i know it's infrared image.and i checked out some IR photos on Flickr, and they looked very cool, but how does it work? can somebody recommend some web sites?oh, by the way, Jaell, may I know how much is the cost for converting your XT to a IR capable body? did you send it to Canon? thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

but how does it work?

---

Digital cameras are naturally sensitive to IR light. To increase color accuracy, manufacturers place an IR-cutoff filter immediately in front of the sensor. This filter is removed and replaced with a filter that blocks ambient (visible) light. It is also possible to buy an IR filter that screws onto the lens, but that requires very long exposures, since the IR filter blocks most of the visible light and the IR-cutoff filter blocks most of the IR light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

can somebody recommend some web sites?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

did you send it to Canon?

---

Canon does not convert cameras to IR. www.maxmax.com & www.lifepixel.com offer the conversion service. There is also a thread with more information here: http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/817/5597.aspx#5597

Johan beat me to it. Another site that does it--same price and quality (I think) as LifePixel--is LeZot.


Runs $325 at either LifePixel or LeZot. Check out the sample photos on LifePixel & LeZot and you'll see why spending the $ to convert an old camera is better than other options. If I had tons of money, I'd buy a new camera to convert it to IR... but the sample pictures on LifePixel were taken with a converted XT, and really, for landscapes the XT will be fantastic anyway.


Though someday, after I win the lottery and get my 1Ds Mk III, I'll convert my spare 1Ds Mk III to IR.[ip]

Thank you johan and Jaell, thanks for the information.I sold my XT 6 month ago,well, still not too later to know this.I'll convert my XSi someday.thank you guys again!