What is Digg?108 Comments
- zweben, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34If you have a Canon DSLR, you should get the EF 50mm f/1.8 Lens. It's $70 for a lens that, while cheaply built, is great optically.
- ahhell, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32Rated by popularity? Who gives a *****! How about rating them by quality instead.
- jeffsteez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Wow, great article.
Adsense + 25 affiliate links. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7For Canons, only the EF-S lenses are digital only.
- leoedin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Because if you only take into account image quality then you end up with only ridiculously expensive lenses in the list. Yes, the image quality from the Canon 200mm 1.8 is the best of any modern lens, but it also costs $4000+
By rating the lenses in popularity, you get some (Sigma 70-300, 17-70, Canon/Nikon 50 1.8's) that don't cost a huge amount, but give relatively good image quality and are affordable for those of us with less money. If you want to buy lenses solely on quality, then look somewhere else (it's not hard: try dpreview!) - viet10, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Sorry, but pretty much all of those lenses aren't even close to 5-10k. They're around 1500 or less. If you're gonna invest in an DSLR, then you're gonna want to invest in a good lens. Subpar lenses on a DSLR is a waste of a camera if you ask me.
- dizzybastard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5They should also have included the prices... many of those are out of my price class =(
- Luxowell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The big problem with this list is... well, like many others have said... a lot of those lenses (and I can only speak to Canon) are pretty damn expensive. Yeah, I know L glass is nice, and I've loved every chance I've had to borrow friend's lenses, but if being a photographer isn't what I do for a living, those costs can be a bit difficult to justify. I'll toss in another vote for the Canon 50mm 1.8f prime lens. Under $100 and super sharp. Sure you're stuck at one focal length, but the thing is so damn sharp I defy anyone to look at a good picture taken with it, vs. a picture taken at 50mm with an L glass lens and be able to see any real difference. Unfortunately for people in the lens market, the 50mm is pretty much the only great lens in that price rage due to the fact that just about any other lens in the $100 catagory is pure trash.
- g33kfu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens when you're starting out and don't want to shell out $$$ for a fast prime lens. However, I highly recommend the 50mm f/1.4 if you can spare the ~$400. You get what you pay for!
- onestyle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not only does the f1.4 have better bokeh, but it is also an EF mount, has manual focus overide, and focuses MUCH faster/quiter. Definately worth the upgrade for anyone who is serious about photography
- Romanito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Well, quality has a price.
Popularity takes the price into account. - agbullet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Digg's stories are rated by popularity, and not necessarily quality.
That said, you shouldn't be here if you don't give a *****. - soapycub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+385mm f/1.2L more popular than a 70-200mm f/4L IS? -- I think not.
- nurick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The list doesn't pass the reasonableness test. Kit lenses should dominate the lists but they don't. In the article "I waded through the comments left, and identified the most popular DSLR lenses mentioned" Buried as inaccurate -- read before you submit, folks.
- dn11, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4i didn't say 5-10k a piece, but if you build a full kit of L glass you are going to spend that much. trust me I know what they cost, I have some of them. the point is - there are plenty of cheaper lenses - like primes - that are just as good optically. the only primes listed are 50mm and 85mm L - there are lots of good ones besides that but they aren't "popular"
- jon3k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Uh, because you're talking about either a $1,000 (300mm f/4L IS) or a $3,800 (300mm f/2.8L IS) compared to a $70 plastic prime that doesn't even have an ultrasonic motor.
Why not the 500mm f/4L IS or the or the 600mm f/4L IS? They're only $5,000 and $6,000. Why? Because the advice was for a cheap prime lens to get you started.
Duh. - L0C0loco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is a very small sample at only 170 respondents. Not sure it really means anything. Perhaps someone should use flickr info the same way they rate the popularity of cameras. Even then it is not clear what this sort of survey really means.
- leiatlarge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This list is entirely useless and looks to be part of a Amazon referral program. He basically listed some lens and hopes people buy the lenses from Amazon to make some bucks.
If the readership is looking for a good lens review source, check out Fred Miranda's review section: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ . The reviews here are much better quality and reflect a much larger range of lenses.
My personal favorite is the Nikon 17-55 AF-S 2.8. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is also great for portrait work. - lemcoe9, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10Nikkor FTW!
- ChildhoodRage, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Leaving the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens out of the Nikon list is ridiculous. It is a great consumer telephoto lens, and very popular right now, based upon the Nikon forums at dpreview.com over the last several months.
- weiran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How about you take value into account as well then. The Sigma 17-70 isn't that good, easily beaten by the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 Macro and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and the Canon and Nikon 50mm are a little dated on DX crop cameras now, you want a lens around 30mm to get the normal focal length.
Popularity counts for *****, just look at the number of idiots buying the Nikon 18-200. £500 for a lens that performs worse than the 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the D40? Hah! - abiquiu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Tokina12-24 F4 DX, a fantastic wide angle zoom and half the price of the Nikon!
- echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i agree, but there are many situations where the lenses you have can't help, and a certain one you don't have would have allowed you to get the shots you wanted. I do some concert photography, and until I bought the 1.8 canon 50mm most of my best shots were luck with the lighting or ability to use flash, many concert situations make it near impossible to take better pictures without the correct lens
- divdude007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Cant believe they missed Tamron 90mm Di macro. It is fantastic lens.
- gamalkik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2you prefer masturbate on grammar!
- jon3k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"My understanding is that the whole reason Canon came up with the EF-S lens type was so they could make a cheaper kit lens to package with the smaller sensor models, and thus get the cameras out the door at a cheaper price, and yet still allow them to be fully compatible with the widely available lenses intended for full frame use."
No, the reason we have APS-C sized sensors (1.6x crop) is because it's very expensive to make full frame imaging sensors. Also, a single flaw in the manufacturing process means you have to throw away the entire chip, AND the smaller they are, the more you can fit on a single wafer. This is all referred to as the "yield" (how many good chips per wafer) and is similiar to the production of microprocessors.
The reason we have EF-S lenses is because they made lenses to accommodate this. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I shoot with it almost exclusively.
- jon3k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're probably looking at the one with IS. The non-IS is only under $600
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The great lie that all photographers tell themselves: "I'd take better pictures if only I had (expensive) lens X."
Having a versatile tool is important but no equipment will make your pictures better; Time and hard work is all that matter.
Pool players, btw, have the same lie: "Once I get (expensive) cue Y, I'll never miss a shot!" - weiran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Erm, you have to multiply ALL focal lengths no matter what kind of lens it is. The 17-55 kit lens isn't a ultra wide angle you know, its a standard 30-80mm kit lens.
- jon3k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If you own a Canon SLR, you owe it to yourself to pickup the 70-200mm f/4L (under $600, or the more expensive versions with the 2.8 max aperture and/or IS) and the 17-40 f/4L, also under $600, and finally the $70 "Plastic Fantastic" 50mm f/1.8 for only $80 or so. For around $1200 in lenses you can cover nearly any situation.
- fudgebrown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Good list and also comparing to pbase.com looks accurate. I loved the Nikon 18-200 VR since it's considered the best all-in-one do-it-all zoom with the best image quality in it's price range. I have sold it and am awaiting delivery of the infamous Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR, arguably/optically the best f/2.8 constant zoom in it's range with incredible bokeh. I am surprised Tokina didn't make the list - I really enjoy shooting with their lenses - and they probably have the best build quality of any 3rd party lens.
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yep, great. Except that my friend with a D40 couldn't autofocus if she bought it. This is where the Sigma 30/1.4 comes in...
- greg9683, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1EF-S will break the mirror on film, full frame digital and 1.3 crop (1D series), but Sigma's DC lens will mount but not be useful as you will have massive vignetting (less so with the 1.3 crop). The same with Tarmon (Di II) and Tokina's(like the very nice 12-24) digital versions.
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No. It still has a longer focal length, but it gives a narrower field of view. Very large difference.
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was actually expecting a consumer *****, but the lenses were very much ranked by quality as well as popularity. I'm just glad to see that the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 wasn't included; I would have cried.
- greg9683, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Photography definitely is not a cheap hobby. heck a circular polarizer costs aroudn $150-180. Crazy.
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah, guess how much fun I had shooting football with a 70-300 4-5.6 last year. I'll be VERY happy to be moving up to the 300 2.8 this year, and I very much expect it to increase my keeper percentage---a lot.
- jon3k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Maybe more than the 70-200mm f/4L IS, but not the 70-200mm f/4L WITHOUT IS, no way. Most people either opt for the 70-200mm f/2.8L or the f/4L, not many go for the f/4 with is, from what I've seen.
Also, dollar for dollar, I believe the 85mm f/1.2L is the best lens in the world. - shuck, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Title of submitted story is inaccurate. The listing reflects only the readership of the website, which is a pretty specific group of DSLR photographers anyway. Buried.
- alansky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"These won't work on film SLR's? I thought the mounts were standardized."
The mounts ARE standardized. There are some lenses, however, that are made specifically for DSLR's with smaller sensors. These lenses cannot be used on full-frame DSLR's or film SLR's. - matrixbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I own the Canon XTi which came with the standard EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I can fit all standard EF lenses on it with the only difference being that the image projected by the EF-S lens is just big enough to completely cover the digital sensor which, is smaller than standard 35mm by a factor of 1.6, while the image projected by all EF lenses are large enough to cover the full frame of a 35 mm sensor/film frame. My understanding is that the whole reason Canon came up with the EF-S lens type was so they could make a cheaper kit lens to package with the smaller sensor models, and thus get the cameras out the door at a cheaper price, and yet still allow them to be fully compatible with the widely available lenses intended for full frame use.
Of course, because the sensor is smaller than a full frame, you have the "crop factor". All this REALLY means, is that you have to multiply the lens rating by 1.6 to get the effective lens rating. So the kit lens (18-55mm) effectively acts like a 28.8 - 88mm lens. This seems like a pain but can actually be an advantage in many cases. For example, when your buddy buys a 200mm telephoto EF lens, when you slap it on your XT/XTi, it effectively becomes a 320mm telephoto lens. - strictnein, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Same site
- paulm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://duggmirror.com/
- chaosmachine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2i thought the canon 70-200 F4/L would be higher on the list. for only $529, it's probably the best value lens canon sells.
- chazzy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Third party lenses are a nice option, but one thing that you don't get is resale value. I spent $1300 on a Canon lens and didn't flinch, because I know I can see >80% of that value come right back in resale, regardless of age (unless they move to a new format). Third parties will tend to lose about 50% of their value right away.
- kyoung989, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Thank you Digg! I'm in the market for a mid-level DSLR right now, and this article (and the site in general) is just the thing I've been looking for to get some guidance I can trust.
Dugg! - rossb1, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Powerful 10.1 megapixel camera with high-magnification zoom. With an outstandingly versatile NIKKOR 18x zoom lens, this all-in-one compact camera lets you capture impressive wide-angle and distant telephoto shots. Whether you are interested in expansive landscapes, portraits or sports and wildlife, the powerful 18x zoom lens will focus from infinity to as close as 1 cm with a Macro mode that can…
http://best-digital-slr-camera.com - mfratt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Just spend the extra $300 or so on the f1.4. I use an Olympus/FourThrids system right now, but if I ever switch to a Canon system, the first lens I'm buying is the 85mm f1.2L...sweet lens.
- julzmon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you want something better then get the 50mm f/1.4
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is