|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2006 04:19:06 PM · #1 |
It̢۪s time for me to purchase some new lens and I am asking for you help in deciding what lens would be best for me with money being a factor. I shoot landscape but I̢۪m currently setting up a studio room 10̢۪ x 16̢۪ so I will be shooting portraits, something I haven̢۪t done before. I also have almost completed my light box for still life photography. I like zoom lens but not a necessity.
What lens would be good for this work?
I currently have the following:
· Kit lens 18-55 (going to sale this lens on ebay)
· Canon 50mm f/1.4 II
· Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 XR LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (going to sale this lens on ebay, maybe)
So far I am looking at the following:
· A wide angle lens (if I go with the non-DO zoom lens it would give me more money to spend on a wide-angle lens. ($ ???)
· AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus (B&H $364.95)
· Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Image Stabilizer USM (B&H $1149.95) or Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM (B&H $564.95)
Can someone look at my portfolioor my POTD and see what would be a good combination for me. I can̢۪t afford to waste any money. Thanks!
-SDW
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 16:34:05.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 04:30:59 PM · #2 |
I'd say sell the kit lens and the 18-200.
get the 70-200L f2.8 USM $1100 great for everything :)
get the tamron 28-75 f2.8 $365 great studio and walkabout lens
and for superwide get the canon 10-22 $675 great for landscapes
you might want the Canon EF 1.4x II to go with the 70-200L $290
to even consider the 70-300 for $1150 I just don't get.. you can have the 70-200 L f2.8 for less, and with a little extra you can get a converter to reach the 300mm, but still have a bigger aperture than the 70-300, and a much better lens.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 04:38:59 PM · #3 |
If you're willing to spend $1200 dollars on the DO lens I'd rethink your whole lens strategy.
If I had an EF-S compatible body and had no desire to change from that mount, I'd seriously consider the 10-22 for wides and the 17-85 IS for a general-purpose zoom. They are the two best zooms in their focal lengths that Canon makes, for that purpose. There are no L lenses that are as wide or cover wide to telephoto on the 1.6x.
A great budget telephoto is the 70-200 F4L, at about half the price of the 70-300 DO. You can get the 1.4x teleconverter (I have one for my 70-200) if you later want longer.
For portraits the 70-200 would work with flash in the studio, or you could get an 85/1.8 or something similar.
Consider the focal lengths you need and get the best you can afford within those limits.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 04:50:22 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
...to even consider the 70-300 for $1150 I just don't get.. you can have the 70-200 L f2.8 for less, .... |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
If you're willing to spend $1200 dollars on the DO lens I'd rethink your whole lens strategy.... |
The ONLY reason I was considering the DO lens was because of the nerve problem I have in my arm. It's hard for me to hold the L lens steady. I had the Canon 70-200 f/4L and sold it because it was very hard for me to get a sharp photo without a tripod.
With that said I do feel that both of your suggestions are better.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 10:15:05 PM · #5 |
Going through your post, it looks like you want to do mainly three types of photography; landscape, portraits in a 10̢۪ x 16̢۪ a studio, and still life photography with a still box. Lastly, you have a condition that causes hand shake to consideration.
First of all, for landscape and still life, may I recommend a use of a tripod with a cable/remote release? Both forms normally are often done with a tripod anyway. A good ball head makes adjustments very easy.
I'm considering that money is a factor. If that's the case, I'd recommend the Sigma 10-20mm, it's under $500, sharp, and has relatively low distortion. Photozone.de has a review of it.
For still life (macro included?) I'd recommend a macro, a macros are pretty sharp and are fast, allowing for ambient light as well as well lit shots and good control of depth of focus. Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro ATX PRO D is a new lens that got rave reviews on Popular Photography and it's under $400, during x-mas it was $369 after rebate at B&H. Another option maybe a Canon EF-S 60mm macro. Once again a fast and sharp lens, but shorter than the Tokina. Photozone.de has a review of this as well.
Lastly, for portraits, you have a small studio and need a relatively short lens. For that work, I'd recommend either a Sigma 30mm f1.4, a Canon 50mm f1.8, a Canon 50mm f1.4. A 70-200 or 70-300mm maybe too long for a 10x16 studio. Remember, with a short lens, you can always walk toward the subject, but with a long lens in a room, you can't walk backwards through a wall. Or can you? the 70-300 IS DO is not a fast lens and will not aid in getting a nice bokeh, which is nice to have in portraits. Plus fast lenses will also increase shutter speed, minimizing blurs from a handshake more. Some also shoot portraits with a tripod, although it doesn't allow for a quick shot that may come up, but a 50mm prime is a lot lighter than a long tele with a IS.
If it was me, I'd use a tripod and a Sigma 10-20 for landscape, a Tokina for macro, still life, and tight portraits, and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (which makes it a 50mm with the crop factor) for portraits/still life. The Tamron 28-75 may serve as a portrait and still life lens as well, but it is not the best range for landscapes.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 04:30:33 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 04:30:33 PM EDT.
|
