NPN has moved to naturephotographers.networkYou’re viewing the read-only archive of the original site (2000–2018). The community is active today, with new critiques and discussions every day.
Another from the CSNP spring gathering... that Sunday afternoon I parked at the southern end of the landslide blocking Falling Water Road, and bushwhacked a mere 250 yards uphill to this little beauty.
Matt - no, and that gap between 35 and 70 IS a problem sometimes. I've thought about getting a 50mm to fill that gap, but might get another zoom instead.
My main two lenses are a 16-45 and a 70-300, but I am using a crop camera so my gap isn't as much of a problem as yours could be. I have read at several different places that a gap that size shouldn't be an issue. They say we should just get closer or further away from our subject but I don't think the people writing those articles have ever shot in the Ozarks where moving isn't always an option.
Does Canon offer a 35-70L or something similar? It seems that is would compliment the 16-35 and 70-200 nicely.
Canon 24-70 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made, and it is a terrific macro lens too. Just ask Tom - he has been using mine for several years and I wish I had it back!
the 50mm may be the way to go for you. I have a Pentax manual focus 50mm f/2 from the K1000 days that Clayton Wells loaned me. I don't use it much though. It is really sharp past f/5.6 but it does lack a little in color and contrast compared to my 16-45mm f/4. It is pretty easily correct in photoshop though.
The 50mm f/1.8 is pretty cheap and supposed to be good. Don't listen to me to much though, Canon is the only big name brand I haven't shot so my opinion doesn't mean a whole lot.
Whew, for a minute there I thought Matt was claiming my old lens!
another beautiful image, John. I have the 50/1.8 and despite it's cheap construction, it's been a more than decent piece of glass for the crop-sensor 40D. somewhere on my list is either the Canon 50/1.4 or the new Sigma 50/1.4. I've read and seen some sharpness comparisons and it looks like a sharp copy of the Sigma is sharper than the Canon. It also takes the same size filters as my 17-40, which would save me some more money.
Great shot John you have really found some nice ones around Richland the past year. I love my 24-105L for what it's worth. When stopped down very much like the 24-70 but with more range. I use it for almost all my shots actually.
Discussion
19 repliesDoes Canon offer a 35-70L or something similar? It seems that is would compliment the 16-35 and 70-200 nicely.
The 50mm f/1.8 is pretty cheap and supposed to be good. Don't listen to me to much though, Canon is the only big name brand I haven't shot so my opinion doesn't mean a whole lot.
Still loving the 28-70, Tim! It really shines on the Canon 5D MarkII.
another beautiful image, John. I have the 50/1.8 and despite it's cheap construction, it's been a more than decent piece of glass for the crop-sensor 40D. somewhere on my list is either the Canon 50/1.4 or the new Sigma 50/1.4. I've read and seen some sharpness comparisons and it looks like a sharp copy of the Sigma is sharper than the Canon. It also takes the same size filters as my 17-40, which would save me some more money.