DSLR Lenses - Focal Lengths for Chasing

[Gene Moore]

Anybody used the Sigma 28-70 DG lens or the Tamron 28-80 lenses? I'm looking for just a good starter kit of lenses and thus likely won't be looking at the very high quality like the 17-40L like Mike...

Jayson, I've used the lens you mention, a Tamron 28-75 aspherical zoom for about 3 years and I like it for a storm lens because of the faster F 2.8 stop. From tests I've seen it's not as critical sharp as the 17-40L, but it's not soft at any stop. Also, it's a couple hundred dollars cheaper, I think I paid about $350 mail order.

Generally shooting wide open into bright light is a worst case test, that was the situation here where I shot El Reno at F2.8 at 640sec.
http://chaseday.com/PHOTOSHP/2006season/ElReno/ElRenoOK4-24-060021-1.jpg

This shot is a compressed JPEG for the Intenet, the original is much better. Not bad I think for "worst case" wide open.

Here are some reviews, of course people are holding it up to the Canon "L" standard and that's unreasonable, it's a $350 lens, not $600 - $1200 as most Canon L lenses are priced.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187&sort=7&thecat=29

Here is an interesting review of the Sigma 18-50 lens against the Canon 17-40L, worth reading I think. Perhaps an inexpensive way of replacing the kit lens, although there are many aftermarket lenses in this range. Generally the slower f-stop lenses are cheaper. That said, I think F 5.6 is way too slow for most "under the cloud base" photography.

http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/sigma_1850__28

As I've mentioned before the Canon 50mm 1.8 normal works great for the money ($80) and it becomes an effective 85mm on the D300/350/400 series Canon cameras.

gene

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Jayson, I've used the lens you mention, a Tamron 28-75 aspherical zoom for about 3 years and I like it for a storm lens because of the faster F 2.8 stop. From tests I've seen it's not as critical sharp as the 17-40L, but it's not soft at any stop. Also, it's a couple hundred dollars cheaper, I think I paid about $350 mail order.

gene

I've used the Tamron 28-75mm lens as well the past couple of years, and it's been nice for me. I had a Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 (I think...) a couple of years ago, but I had two bad copies that were terribly fuzzy / unsharp before trying the Tamron. Thankfully, I just got a Tokina 12-24mm that will be fun to play with this spring.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Right now I use the 17-40 f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200mm L f/2.8. All serve me quite well while chasing. Eventually I want to replace the 17-40 with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This should be an ideal chasing lens over the 17-40 L. Supposedly the optics are up to snuff with the L... just a bit of vignetting (which is easily corrected). I won't be replacing it any time soon considering the 17-55 has a pricetag of $1k.

With a bit of practice, it's possible to shoot at 17mm and stich a few photographs together to get a bigger FOV. If you keep near field objects out of the way, it's even possible to do this without a tripod.

 

[Gene Moore]

One more thing about these lenses for digital cameras that folks new to the digital lens business might not know......

The Tamron I mentioned is actually a: Tamron SP AF Aspherical XR Di LD

What all this mombo-jumbo means is the lens has the high grade glass and it's made specifically for the small sensor digital camera (Di). Both Canon and the after market companies (Sigma, Tokina etc) started tayloring a line of lenses specifically for the small sensor (the 1.6X factor). There is good news and bad with this. These lenses are sharper than sticking an old EOS lens on a new Canon digital becase they are made specifically for the new format.....has to do with field curvature on the edges. That's why some of the old lenses mentioned here are soft. This is important if you see a bargin lens on Ebay for example. Also, some of the new format lenses won't work correctly on the full sensor digital cameras (a sensor the size of a 35 mm camera). One example of this is the new 10-20mm Canon zoom that is not recommended for the Canon 12.8 megapixel D5 full frame digital.

I know this is very confusing, but everyone that's building a system for the future will have to consider the consequences. I'll bet it's just a matter of time before all higher end cameras have full size sensors. This is one of the reasons I'm not sinking big money into the current Canon Digital cameras and lenses.

Gene

 

[Jim Hunt]

Gene,

I would like add to your comments and offer my own opinions. The lenses made by most 3rd party manufactures for the 1.5 Nikon or 1.6 Canon sensor sizes just cover the smaller sensor and are not suited for full frame or Canon’s 1.3 sensor size.

The EF-S lenses made by Canon are made to only fit a 1.6 sensor size. They cannot work at all due to the back end of the lens protruding into the camera and whacking the mirror when a picture is taken. So Canon doesn’t just “not recommendâ€￾ them for their professional series or full frame cameras but warns they can cause damage to the camera or lens or both.

As for the notion that the smaller sensor size is going away is nonsense. Canon and Nikon will keep moving forward with it and making more and more lenses to fit it.

Finally, I disagree with you idea that lenses made for smaller sensors is better due to the curvature of lens. It has always been discussed that the sweet spot of any lens is in the center with the edges being the problem with CA and distortion.

Using a full frame lens on a small sensor camera makes use of the sweet spot of the lens leaving the poor areas of the lens unused.

As for not buying into Canon gear until it goes full frame for everything will have you waiting for a very, very long time. Smaller sensors are here to stay and any lens bought for that will always have a resale market available.

As for me, I shoot action sports and use Canon Professional EOS bodies and my lenses have little red rings on them. *grin*

Jim

 

[Gene Moore]

Gene,

As for the notion that the smaller sensor size is going away is nonsense. Canon and Nikon will keep moving forward with it and making more and more lenses to fit it.

Actually I said "I'll bet it's just a matter of time before all higher end cameras have full size sensors." Not that the small sensor is going out of production

. Maybe the better question is "will Canon and Nikon make professional (strong not cheap plastic) small sensor cameras? As cameras like the full frame Canon 5D come down in price (now about $2800 without lens) they will be the choice of the better photographers, I'll bet they are the choice here. Only time will tell who's correct on this. I don't want to replace my equipment every 5 years; especially after getting spoiled by Canon's F-1 series that worked without flaws for over 20 years. My current Canon digital that I've owned for 3 years is already having some problems. Finally, it can be argued that the money saved on a small sensor camera will be spent in the end trying to get adequate wide angle lenses (75-90 degrees), something that most storm chasers want. I for one will wait probably another year, I still have a good 35mm system and Canon may have a big upgrade coming next spring.

Finally, I disagree with you idea that lenses made for smaller sensors is better due to the curvature of lens. It has always been discussed that the sweet spot of any lens is in the center with the edges being the problem with CA and distortion. Using a full frame lens on a small sensor camera makes use of the sweet spot of the lens leaving the poor areas of the lens unused.

Yep, the outer edges are the main difference on the newer lenses made for small sensors. That said, I believe the "sweet spot" is not so important in storm photography as sports, where the outside of the image is often blurred or "brokah" to enhance the subject, usually players. Many storm chase (still) photographers want very good edge to edge shots for their wide angle panorama or structure images. Since clouds by nature are a soft subject we often have to depend on structures along the horizon to make our images look sharp.

As for me, I shoot action sports and use Canon Professional EOS bodies and my lenses have little red rings on them. *grin*

Well you must have big biceps because those "professional" Canon cameras are darn heavy

, not to mention the accompanying 3 lb telephoto lenses. So far the "L" series lenses (most I'm familiar with) are built to work with all the cameras and it's hard to go wrong. Of course we shouldn't be forced to buy only "L" lenses just to get a good product. Fortunately Canon does make quite a few high quality lenses that are not the most expensive.

Gene Moore

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I want to ring in and reccomend the Canon 10-22, *if* you're shooting with a 1.6x crop camera (i.e., Rebel XT, 20D, 30D.) Holy cow is that a nice lense. It's basically an L lens without the L designation, as Canon has no plans on giving any 1.6x crop lens the L designation. It effectively becomes a 16-35mm lens, which is really a sweet spot for storm photography. 16 gets the structure even up close, 35 gets the structure when far away, and you can get a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens for $50 to zoom in on storm features. Most all of the storm stuff I've shot is with the 10-22; everything in this gallery (except for the first three and the closeup of the windmill) were shot with this lens.