New lenses - help me pick a compromise!

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks for sharing all that great information, Adam, it makes it much easier for us to share our opinions with you.


I'm glad you liked the Tokina 12-24. Be careful not to try the Canon 10-22, because then you will forever desire those last 2mm at the wide end. []


It sounds like you're looking for a wide and fast prime. The unfortunate news is that they do not exist for APS-C.


The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 are it. That's all there is. If the Sigma is not appealing to you and you'd rather not use a Nikon adapter, then you are completely out of luck.


The only other option for a fast wide prime are to use one that is designed for full frame. This is bad for several reasons: they are designed with huge compromises in cost and image quality that are unnecessary for APS-C. The 24mm f/1.4, for example, if it were designed without the flange focal distance restrictions of full-frame, could have twice the image quality and half the cost. The 35mm f/2 has very poor image quality for its price and focal length (it gets trounced by almost any zoom).


The only real solution is to give up on wide apertures at wide focal lengths. You'll have to live with, at best, f/2.8. There are, of course, a million options between 17mm and 100mm at f/2.8, including the excellent and cheap Tamron 17-50, your 28-75, etc. You can get wide apertures at long focal lengths, no problem (85mm f/1.8), as those designs don't have to make huge compromises in order to be full frame, but the wider FF lenses on APS-C are highly wasteful.


Here's what I would recommend for you:

• Tokina 12-24
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4
  
• Canon 50mm f/1.8
• Canon 85mm f/1.8

Or, for slow zooms:

• Tokina 12-24
• Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is fast and excellent choice, but it leaves you with nothing between 50 and 100mm (except a prime, if you pick one up).


Good luck in your search.

[adam]

Problem is, if you give too much information, nobody wants to read it all


What I originally thought was that I'd check out the ultrawide lens, and if I liked it, I'd use it in addition to my 28-75. But when I had the 12-24, I was almost never using the 28-75. And not because I didn't want to change lenses...I was shooting a lot at the long end of the 12-24. The issue is, I don't need faster than f/2.8 over most of the zoom range...it'd be nice in the 35mm range, because I'd like to get into subway photography and available light is the name of that game. It looks like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is it...I'd love a 24L I, but it's too expensive at the moment.


So I can safely drop about $400 right now. I'm definitely going to get a 12-24...the question is whether to keep the Tamron 28-75 or sell it and buy something that fits my wants better. I need to go through my pictures and see if I'm giving up anything important by trading in that zoom range for a prime...if I am, I'll wait until I can afford more than one prime...


Is the Canon 60mm macro really as good as the reviews say? It's calling my name...and my main macro interest is flowers, so 60mm is a good focal length...


Thanks for the input...

[Daniel Browning]

Is the Canon 60mm macro really as good as the reviews say?

Yes. And then some. It makes the 17-55 f/2.8 IS look bad.


The 15 MP on the 50D don't even come close to showing the limits of this guy.

[adam]

Oof...that's what I was afraid of...and I only have a 40D


Looking at my pictures, I don't think I'd miss the 24-60 range much if I sold the 28-75 in favor of a 60mm macro...I'll rent one from Adorama Rentals one night next week and see how it does...