11/22/13 4:37 PM

I was in the market for a fast (2.8) 28-70 lens, in my research I came across a good deal on a 17-50, not exactly what I was looking for but it's tempting, what do you guys think?.

11/22/13 4:48 PM

why were you on the market for a 28-70 in the first place?

I guess you need to spell out what do you intend to use it for... (and the rest of your lens collection/setup)

11/22/13 5:36 PM

It sounds to me like you know what you want in terms of 35mm photography focal length, but the lens you found is for the postage stamp sized sensor on most digital cameras. The likelihood of getting a 17mm fisheye on a zoom led me to that conclusion.

The conversion factor is about 1.5 and .667.

This table might help, pardon the formatting:

Actual
Focal
Length
of lens
(mm)----APS-C-------35mm
20-------wide----------ultrawide
35-------normal-------wide
50-------short tele----normal
80-------tele-----------short tele
135-----medium------tele
200-----very long-----medium tele
400-----wow-----------very long

11/22/13 5:53 PM

I doubt henoch is buying the lens for a film camera.

For most consumer grade DSLR, 17-50 is a very typical and very usable wide to short tele-photo zoom. But that's not saying much without knowing what other lens he's already got.

And just in case, if the DSLR in question actually has a full size sensor, then the "normal" rule of old school applies. 17-50 would be a super-wide to normal zoom...

11/22/13 6:14 PM

dpreview and fredmiranda.com can give you some insight on the quality of the lens you are looking at. A cheap lens is only a good deal if the quality is decent. IMO

11/22/13 7:36 PM

quote:

---

I doubt henoch is buying the lens for a film camera.

---

11/23/13 10:16 AM

The 28-70/2.8 (or 24-70/2.8) is considered the photojournalist's everyday/work horse lens. Wedding photographers love them too. I have one and they are great, but they are pricey ($800+ for 3rd party and $1600+ for OEM).

A 17-50mm on a full size sensor is, IMHO, a pretty useless everyday lens. It's basically a very wide - normal view range. Good for landscapes and close subjects, but that's about it. As others have said, on a C sensor, it will yield a more useful range for everyday use and a slightly wider range than a 24-70 on full sensor.

If you have a C-sensor, than your deal lens, as long as it is is good glass (fungus free/dust free) and mechanically sound, may be a good option. On a full sized sensor, it will be very limiting as far as use.

Wheels

11/23/13 10:59 AM

Have a look at Photozone: http://www.photozone.de/ . He has tests of quite a number of lenses in the zoom range you mention.

I've been more than happy with the image quality of the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 (28-85 full frame equivalent) zoom on my Fuji X-E1, but the lens only fits Fuji X-series cameras.

11/24/13 8:55 AM

I am well aware crop sensor conversions etc..., my question wasn't meant to be technical in nature just more of an opinion question, Wheels thank you that was the kind of opinion/information I was looking for.

Yes I am shooting a CS DSLR
I am looking to get a fast lens that I can use a) to shoot my new baby that is constantly on the move and I want to shoot without flash for the most part.
b) something that would do double duty as a good every day walk around lens.

11/24/13 11:46 AM

I always thought that the needs in indoor lenses to shoot without flash were different than outdoor lenses. Indoors I like an f1.4, which means fixed focal length lenses. A 50 1.4 is one of the cheapest and best lenses you can buy. That said, I hate the 50mm focal length on full frame, but on a crop sensor it makes a nice short telephoto for portrait applications.

Outdoors, f2.8 is fast enough, which means you can use a zoom.

As far as focal length, indoors for people I prefer shorter lengths, and outdoors usually a little longer.

My favorite length overall is 20-24 on a full frame, but I am a wide angle head.

11/24/13 1:03 PM

did you mean the 50/1.8 is one of the cheapest lenses, not the 1.4. 50/1.4 OEM is around $400, the 1.8 is $100. Unless your shooting in very dimly lit rooms, the 1.8 should be fine for most indoor conditions. YMMV. I agree that the 50/1.8 or 1.4 should be in every photographers bag.

11/24/13 7:15 PM

April has the right question:
What lenses do you have now?

f2.8 is a stop too slow. You might consider a fixed focal length since your conditions are well defined, indoors, low light.

11/24/13 7:55 PM

Already have a 50 1.7 which is giving me really good results but I wanted something that gives more range and 28-70 1.7 would be too pricy.

11/25/13 12:21 AM

Price is what kept me from buying the 28-85mm lens that I wanted for my 230AF back in the 80's, so I've gotten by nicely using only the 50mm and a 70-210 zoom for my outdoor (mostly sports) photography.

11/25/13 6:09 PM

For shooting a baby, I think you would be better off with the longer focal lengths. People don't look good in wide angle, and they tend to bring the background into focus. Longer lenses have a better perspective for faces, and tend to help blur the background and emphasize the baby over her surroundings.

11/25/13 9:42 PM

quote:

---

For shooting a baby, I think you would be better off with the longer focal lengths. People don't look good in wide angle, and they tend to bring the background into focus. Longer lenses have a better perspective for faces, and tend to help blur the background and emphasize the baby over her surroundings.

---

11/26/13 6:36 AM

...automatically reduce depth of field, so yes, it does matter to some degree, thought the aperture matters more. That and the perspective issue are why portrait lenses are typically 80-90mm with very fast apertures in the F1.0-1.4 range.

11/26/13 11:26 AM

I recently got a bid from KEH camera to buy my film camers and lenses. They offered me $18 for a mint condition Canon 50 1.4. So, 1.8's may be cheaper, but 1.4's are cheap enough on the used market. I've founf 1.4's to be better made and at least as good optically, so I'll take the slight extra cost.

If you look at the depth of field scale on a wide angle lens compared to a telephoto, the differences will be clear. At the same magnification of the subject, the wide angle includes a lot more in the background,

The thing that is confusing for me is the format/sensor size also influences depth of field. Larger sensors have less depth of field, so pros shooting sports tend to use full frame sensors, long 300-600 mm lenses at large apertures like 2.8 to isolate the subject from the background.

11/26/13 3:24 PM

Yes, longer focal lengths are better for portraiture. With the same framing, the longer lens places the camera further away from the subject, yielding a "flatter", slimmer, image.

11/26/13 3:41 PM

quote:

---

I recently got a bid from KEH camera to buy my film camers and lenses. They offered me $18 for a mint condition Canon 50 1.4

---

11/27/13 11:15 AM

Since serious photographers all PP, I don't get the DOF fixation. I'm lazy and hate to spend time with RAW and PP, but I'm not a photographer. What am I missing?

11/27/13 12:49 PM

It's probably obvious but -

PP ?

11/27/13 1:47 PM

Post Process

I think most serious photogs would not want slow lenses anyway, since fast lenses may mean getting a picture or not, and if they have fast lenses they don't need to PP a background out of focus. I take pride in getting a photo out of the camera that does not need PP'ing. And I hate slow lenses.

11/27/13 9:37 PM

I shoot sports mostly and can't use a flash in nearly all cases due to flash syn speed. Unless I am shooting in 100% sun, f/4 or slower won't cut it. Even with full sun, to get get shutter speeds 1/1000 sec or faster I can't go slower than f/5.6. Indoors, most school gyms are poorly lit, so most times a 2.8 is slowest lens that I can use, most times l am at 1.8 or 2. Even then, with high ISO, shutter speeds are around 1/400, which is slow for fast action, for properly exposed image.

I won't buy a lens that isn't a least a 2.8.

11/29/13 10:11 AM

Let me stick this here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiallo/2013/11/27/iphone-5-replaced-dslr/