Lens for EOS body

[Snapper]

Can anyone give any recommendations for a lens for a EOS30 body? For the last year I have been using medium format, but I want to get the 35mm out again for certain situations - the standard 28-80mm zoom I have just doesn't cut it any more. I don't really want to stretch to an L-series lens though.

Fixed or zoom? Is there a big difference in image quality?

 

[photomc]

I have a few EOS lens, the two I use the most are the 20-35 and 28-135 IS. Both have very good glass have been well reviewed, and are not as expensive as the L series. I think they are both under $500 US.

 

[bjorke]

Manual-focus Contax Zeiss lenses, with the apprpriate adapter. The 50, 28, 21, 85, and 135 lenses are particularly crisp and colorful compared to their Canon (or Nikon or Leica) counterparts, yet nowhere near the price of an "L"

 

[David R Munson]

With current lenses I think the biggest difference between primes and zooms, outside of cost and lens speed, is simply a matter of personal preference. Personally, I really don't like zooms. Give me a 50/1.4 or an 85/1.4 over any zoom ever made any day of the week. But then you'll often hear people talk about how they hate the 50 and how it's the worst lens ever devised.

So what I'm getting at is that you should try and borrow or rent some lenses - both prime and zoom - and see what you like. You may like the primes, you may hate them. Only way to know for sure is to try it. And for what it's worth, a 50/1.8 from any manufacturer is generally both the sharpest and the cheapest lens available new.

 

[modafoto]

Hi

I would without a doubt recommend the Sigma 24-70 2.8
It's rather cheap and is crisp and the aperture of 2.8 all the way is a very needful thing. The wide end with 24 mm instead of 28 mm is a nice feature.

Morten

 

[rob99evans]

I have 2 eos lenses. One is a 35-80mm. The other is an 80-200mm. They are both Canon lenses. Both which can be purchased for under $150 each. I mostly use the 80-200mm for portraits and wild life. The 35-80mm is great for landscape. You should look at these lenses as they are made buy the manufacturer of the camera.

 

[bjorke]

But then you'll often hear people talk about how they hate the 50 and how it's the worst lens ever devised.

???? I'm not a huge fan of the 50 f/1.8 because the build quality is poor for what I do, but it's a joy compared to most zooms. The 1.4 is pricey, I prefer manual focus. But really, the only grousing I've ever heard about the 50mm's was from idjits complaining that they don't "zoom in" enough....

 

[Matej Maceas]

I can recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (Mark 1). This lens is only a small part of all my gear but I've made most of my keepers with it.

 

[bmac]

I am in love with my 50 1.8. I have made a lot of keepers with it as well. Tack sharp, pretty good AF speed too. Like stated above, the build quality is pretty bad, but I haven't had any problems with it. I also have the 85 1.8 which is also awesome for a short tele, and the 1.8 reqally blurs out the background well. I also have the 17-40 f4 L. I believe it is nearly as sharp as the others, but has light fall off on the corners at 17mm. It works for a lot of shots, but sometimes can ruin a shot.

It's hard to suggest a lens without knowing what you are shooting.

 

[David R Munson]

My comment about the 50mm focal length is from hearing a lot of people in various venues (including a few forums *cough*photo.net*cough) convinced that you can't do anything well with the 50mm lens. It isn't long enough for some, isn't wide enough for others. Some don't like that it doesn't zoom. Maybe other people don't think it looks cool enough. I'm not really sure, really. But there is definitely a bias against the 50mm lens among certain people.

Not me, though.

*strokes his 50/1.2*