Today it's the Tamron SP 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD, then my Canon 70-200mm 4L then my Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 XR Di LD then the 50mm 1.8 MKII for those special shots.
This is a fun question. Hard to answer because the answer changes every three weeks or so. Just got the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and I'm grooving on it heavily. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 has treated me VERY well but the Sigma 105mm Macro has yielded the best and most consistant results(Challenge-wise, for sure).
Stoked you posted these Robt, I had a chance to play with the Sigma 10-22mm, very nice lens. I'm thinking thats going be my next purchase.
I assume you mean the Sigma 10-20mm? They also have a 12-24mm... Why would you choose this over the Canon, in any case? The prices aren't that far apart, and the Canon has absolutely zero barrel distortion; the sigma barrels noticeably, which to my eye makes it worthless for both landscapes-with-horizons (unless the horizon is near image center) and architecture.
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a tool that feels right. The angle view it provides is remarkable, I must agree with bear music. Landscape & architecture is a primary reason for the lens, as Robert shows so well, but I must add that I also like the long end of this lens and ability to close focus with it.
My Nikkor AF-S 28-70 f2.8 has been a real champ but I will be ordering the new Nikkor AF-S G 200mm F2.0 VR soon, I am really excited about using this lens!
For low light shooting / inside churches, reception halls, etc:
Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 50mm f1.4?
On your 20D the 50mm is nowhere near wide enough for decent interior coverage. Even the 30mm is marginal as far as wide angle goes. That'd be my choice of the two, though.
R.
On an APS-C size sensor camera, the 30mm is pretty damn close to a full frame 50mm - this I believe, is why Sigma have made it. I find it to be a very human angle of view on my 350. The 50 is sharper, but if you're after full length shots, you have to get too far away with it.
I'm presuming, Robert, that the subjects are people rather than the architecture - from the inclusion of 'reception halls', which are a rare architectural subject of choice.
For low light shooting / inside churches, reception halls, etc:
Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 50mm f1.4?
On your 20D the 50mm is nowhere near wide enough for decent interior coverage. Even the 30mm is marginal as far as wide angle goes. That'd be my choice of the two, though.
R.
On an APS-C size sensor camera, the 30mm is pretty damn close to a full frame 50mm - this I believe, is why Sigma have made it. I find it to be a very human angle of view on my 350. The 50 is sharper, but if you're after full length shots, you have to get too far away with it.
I'm presuming, Robert, that the subjects are people rather than the architecture - from the inclusion of 'reception halls', which are a rare architectural subject of choice.
e
Well sure, but as you correctly pointed out the 30mm is essentially a "normal" lens for these cameras, where the 50mm is a slight tele, and the 30mm is better sutited to interior people shots. Had I thought the goal was interior architectural shots I'd have recommended a re-evaluation and a shift towards, say, the 10-22mm or at least a 20mm prime.
