Why would anyone purchase this over say the 14 mm f2.8? That lens is around $300... I guess can anyone answer this question for me?
624644
The short answer is "You get what you pay for." Not all glass is created equal. Less expensive lenses often prove to have inferior glass (greater distortion, higher chromatic dispersion, etc.) If your images don't require the kind of detail that higher priced lenses provide, then go with the less expensive lens.
624645
Some people need more than just 14mm. Shooting at 24mm, or anything in between, can create a drastically different image. I use this lens to shoot interiors for real estate (amongst other things), the zoom aspect is invaluable in tight spaces and also allows me to achieve the right balance between rectilinear distortion - which is often very noticeable at 14mm - and the desired field of view.
1561298
when u r spending that kind of money, go for the L lens. It just makes more sense. The difference in optical quality is night and day.
854405
Look at the price. Seriously these kinds of questions hardly apply. Theres a spherical focusing plane so not everything in the frame can even be in focus. If you want to have fun with a really cheap lens get it. If you want to nitpick don't bother with this.
1041296
The 35mm f1.4 is amazing. The photos I gets are out of this world. I'm saving now for the 56mm f1.2. Prime lenses are pretty much all I work with.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
873452
Another option is getting the 50mm 1.8 for about a hundred bucks. Takes great shots and you can still buy the 28-135. I bought my 28-135 used and love having both lenses.
916481
I have been very happy with the 18-200mm. It was my first lens and remains a workhorse. I have since acquired a 28-135mm as part of a used setup and have yet to try it - there's been no need as the 18-200mm exceeds it in range.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
1753828
I have no idea.. but hey, may as well save $49 and go for the one with the lens (:
1666071
I am not sure how you would "know" without believing it is as it is stated. I would say you should look locally to you. Visit reputable shops. Try it before you buy it! National Camera Exchange would warrant a sale of used gear. So would others. If the seller is a reputable dealer or good ratings and a return policy I would give it a try. The 70-200 f2.8 is a sweet lense! I love mine and could sell it now for more than I paid new for it!
1611417
I've owned this lens for a couple of years now... And honestly I would've liked to save up for the IS.. No mistake it is an excellent lens for no motion images.. Things get blurry when capturing movement in low light.Thinking on selling it as soon as I save up for the IS version
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1840044
Your not understanding a tc. The tc is a way of magnifying the image above what a lens already does. It has nothing to do with the camera. If you had a 300.2.8 lens a b day you want 400mm it would cost you 9k dollars. You can get 420 mm with the 14 tc for 500 bucks. You will lose 1 f stop. The is loss would be minimal. What type of lenses do you own? This enters into the equation. The lens is what you need to compare.
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less