[Samurai]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Guys, please dont get happy or sad because Tanveer used a 18-55 kit lens to capture those images. You send him there with a mobile camera, he might come back with the same set of images.

I doubt that image is as is from the camera. Most probably shot in raw and very nicely post-processed.

Originally Posted by amitk26

IS compensates in sense you can lower shutter speed but since subjects are not always posing for you, subject motion blur becomes a major problem.

Exactly, IS can't compensate for the need fast lenses in every case.

Originally Posted by ampere

So that explains it. Then I might as wll continue with 18-55 for some more time, before I look at 15-85. Thanks again. 1000$ saved for now!

Wait, don't try to escape the money pit so easily. The effective FL starting at 24mm is the best thing for any walkaround zoom lens. I have had 12-60mm F/2.8-4 lens for 3 years now, whose EFL is 24-120mm. It can take care of 99% of my shooting needs. And if it is a high quality lens, you will never need to buy another lens, not even a prime. Think about it. If you can afford it, get 15-85mm as your only lens. You won't need anything else unless you suddenly develop interest in birds (Tele) and small bugs (macro).

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by ampere

...Then I might as wll continue with 18-55 for some more time, before I look at 15-85.....

ampere, if landscape is your priority, dont spend on a prime, it will not do any good to you. Dont take it as a professional or authoritative advise but from a person who is playing with his 9th lens in 2 years time I started with 'kit' and now owns 1.4 and 2.8 primes, but its always used for portrait shots. Landscape magic numbers are f/8 to f/16 regardless of the lens you own. Naturally low light landscape needs tripod. My 2 cents !

[ampere]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Ampere about F number it is not true that for outdoors you always need F8 ,If you are in to street photography most often subject is in foreground some 10 - 40 feet away and then you want to cover whole scene around.

Even at F2.8 at 10mm you get a lot of DOF ( by virtue of low F number) check the DOF calculator, I have Sigma 10-20 mm but there are situations where you need lower then F4 when subject is in foreground like for street photography after dark. Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is one fast Ultra Wide Angle lens which you can choose for these kind of usage.

Coming back based on general purpose use I still do not think that 10 to 17mm is that useful , In Film terms people used to have lenses above 28mm.

Originally Posted by shajufx

ampere, if landscape is your priority, dont spend on a prime, it will not do any good to you. Dont take it as a professional or authoritative advise but from a person who is playing with his 9th lens in 2 years time I started with 'kit' and now owns 1.4 and 2.8 primes, but its always used for portrait shots. Landscape magic numbers are f/8 to f/16 regardless of the lens you own. Naturally low light landscape needs tripod. My 2 cents !

Amit, Shaju,

I am not on to street photography, Idea was to have a good low light, such that I can shoot indoors as well. (That was the reason, I mentioned, I would get a 50mm prime and not for landscape).

The reason for 17-55 was since I could get a combined lens which is a good wide angle (well next best to 10-22) and also a fast lens, it would have served my purpose both ways. Then as I mentioned in prior post I thought it may also help me shoot landscapes in low light (but at that time I did not realize that for landscape you need large DOF, f-2.8 may not work out. Thats where I was confused as to how to use a fast lens for good low light landscapes). Low light at home was anyway a need. If its not worth spending 1000$ for 17-55, I would buy the prime for home use and then practice more with 18-55 and then may think on the lines of 15-85.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Wait, don't try to escape the money pit so easily. The effective FL starting at 24mm is the best thing for any walkaround zoom lens. I have had 12-60mm F/2.8-4 lens for 3 years now, whose EFL is 24-120mm. It can take care of 99% of my shooting needs. And if it is a high quality lens, you will never need to buy another lens, not even a prime. Think about it. If you can afford it, get 15-85mm as your only lens. You won't need anything else unless you suddenly develop interest in birds (Tele) and small bugs (macro).

Samu-san
But I thought 15-85 does not give F2-8 but only F3.5/5.6. That is the doubt, if I should go for it or not. If it started at f2.8, I would have jumped at it.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by ampere

....I would buy the prime for home use and then practice more with 18-55 and then may think on the lines of 15-85.....

50mm 1.8 is very good for indoor use, I had 35mm 1.8 which is a perfect range on a cropped body. For low light landscape, kit is more than enough. I also had Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which is an all-rounder below 19k. I think Tamron has it in 17-50 spec, equally good as sigma in similar price tag. But for indoor usage, nothing beats 50mm 1.8 in quality and affordablilty. Open to correction.

[Samurai]

When you say indoor use, what kind of objects are your shooting?

[ampere]

Given the fact that 17-55 also has the IS, I was very much tempted. That was the reason for looking at it.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ampere

Samu-san
But I thought 15-85 does not give F2-8 but only F3.5/5.6. That is the doubt, if I should go for it or not. If it started at f2.8, I would have jumped at it.

I just realised that Canon makes no fast zooms for EF-S mount starting at 24mm EFL. That's a pity.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Samurai

When you say indoor use, what kind of objects are your shooting?

Mostly people and objects in this case.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I just realised that Canon makes no fast zooms for EF-S mount starting at 24mm EFL. That's a pity.

That was the discussion: 17-55 (f-2.8) versus 24-70L (again f2.8)
Since 24-70 is for full frame, and I am not planning to shift. I thought 17-55 should be what all I need. Though it does not have enough mid-range zoom.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I just realised that Canon makes no fast zooms for EF-S mount starting at 24mm EFL. That's a pity.

Another advantage of being in the Olympus, Nikon boats !! Hope the canon guys dont nail me live

Edit: Wow, this happens to be the 7777th post here, I could not be more happier than this, my week is made !

[tsk1979]

Samurai, canon does 16-35 2.8L. Its 25mm in APS-C

[ampere]

I think even 17-40L works for APS-C. Does it not?
And 16-35 we are talking 2000$ !!!!

[teknophobia]

@Tanveer, you have some beautiful shots in that set.

For indoor shots, you should have a hotshoe flash (preferably 3 ), unless you're using natural light coming though a window etc. otherwise you just get dull lighting without definition under typical setups.

As Shaju stated earlier, tripods are essential for landscape photography. A CPL helps as well

If you want an ultrawide for a crop sensor, go for the tokina, you can't go wrong (couple of pics attached, one of which was recently exhibited).

[hiren.mistry]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

MY entire ladakh 2009 trip was shot almost exclusively by 18-55 on a 350D.
Check this out
Favorites - Tanveer Singh (tanveer)'s Photos
An example

Gosh! Tanveer each and every pic in that album is worthy of being a wall paper. Fabulous skills.
And you clicked all of these using a humble 18-55mm kit lens makes it even more extraordinary.

I'm officially become your fan. Thanks for posting that link.

Cheers

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by hiren.mistry

Gosh! Tanveer each and every pic in that album is worthy of being a wall paper. Fabulous skills.
And you clicked all of these using a humble 18-55mm kit lens makes it even more extraordinary.

I'm officially become your fan. Thanks for posting that link.

Cheers

+1 Thank you very much Tanveer! Superb photos.

Regards,

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ampere

I think even 17-40L works for APS-C. Does it not?
And 16-35 we are talking 2000$ !!!!

Thats 27mm. Wide angle is 24mm and wider in 35mm format.
The 16-35 is the closest you come to in wide angle terms, in canon land.
Then of course, if you move away from canon you have the tokina 12-24 F/4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8
I own the Tamron 10-24 F/3.5-5.6 in canon mount.
I normally shot at F6.3/F7.1 with that lens.

Wide angle gives you wonderful perpective, if you know how to use it.
For example in landscapes
You can get the entire scene, esp when you want to capture reflections

You can get real low and close to ground. This is the most common use UWA


Finally, for architecture, there is simply no subsitute for a UWA. If I was doing more arcitechture photography, I would not have migrated away from UWA