Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,998   Posts: 1,524,310   Online: 853
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    The thing with those is that you go up to the 100+ range and it gets BIG....

    The second thing is they get SLOW. F/3.4 wide open, F/4 otherwise? Forget any low light situations.

    I found a good compact lense with decent "average" range and yet still produces a good photo (as far as I can tell! no complaints at all so far!) is the Sigma 35-70mm F/2.8. Canon also makes a similarly sized lense in the same zoom range, but I went with the faster Sigma.

  2. #12
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    hrm.. my sig didn't show.

    Edit: now it does... I must have accidentally clicked not to include it. Oh well!
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799
    The slower 35-105 is actually a decently sharp lens but has trouble with flare situations. Non-Canon possibilities include: Vivitar 28-85/2.8-3.8, Kiron 28-85/2.8-3.8, Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5, Vivitar Series 1 28-105/2.8-3.8.

  4. #14
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    That Vivitar Series 1 looks VERY nice, especially at f/2.8. Before getting my Sigma I was gunning for a couple of those used on E-bay, but they strayed well outside of my budget range at the time.

    They are, however, big lenses. They add a noticable heft and protrusion from the face of the camera. While my Sigma doesn't quite have the reuputation of those Series 1 lenses, it is compact and lightweight. The only thing that could make it better is if it were FDn. Instead it's FD with twist-lock. I can live with that, though.
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  5. #15
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    As a size comparison:

    Canon FDn 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
    60mm max, 200g

    Sigma 35-70mm f/2.8:
    I'm having a hard time finding exact length from the Internet, mine at home isn't much longer; 368g

    comapred to:

    Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8:
    91mm (listed as 3.5"), and has a 72mm filter ring, 421g (listed as 14.88oz)

    Canon FDn 35-105mm f/3.5
    108.4mm, 600g

    Canon FDn 35-70mm f/4
    84mm, 315g

    Canon FD 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5 S.S.C.
    120mm, 575g
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  6. #16
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,684
    This is the one I'd recommend http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...zooms/2885.htm I have lots of Canon FD zoom and prime lenses, but this is the one I probably use most.
    Ben

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin