Need some advice - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/08/2006 09:42:47 PM · #1

My wife and her brothers and sisters want me to take pictures of their parentâ��s 50th wedding anniversary. It will take place at a yacht club in Washington D.C. and Iâ��m told it has a lot of scenic backgrounds. Just in case bad weather or rain, I have bought a backdrop stand a few muslins and looking at getting a 3 or 4 studio light kit off Ebay.

I have the opportunity to get a new lens with the wives permission and I want a good lens. This is anniversary will only happen once.

Here is what I have:

Camera: Canon 20D
Camera Grip: BG-E2 (3 total BP-511A batteries)
Flash: 580EX
Bat Pack: CP-E3
Memory: Lexar Pro 1GB 80X
Lexar Pro 2GB 133X
Lens: EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

So, we have decided that if I want to get a L series lens, than get one. So, I want a lens for group shots as well as individuals. I know I can cover that with the 28-135 but I want to know if the L series takes a better picture, quality and all. Besides I have her blessing to spend.

Here are a few that Iâ��m looking at.

EF 17-40mm f/4L
EF 24-70mm f2.8L
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Any thoughts let me know.

E-Mail if you want spciyxw@comcast.net

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

07/08/2006 10:21:25 PM · #2

I have locked the double post. Please keep all discussion in one place thanks.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2006 10:27:24 PM · #3

Don't overlook that Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 in lieu of the Canon 17-40mm if you are on a budget...

Took these today with my Tammy

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/08/2006 10:41:45 PM · #4

Originally posted by awpollard:

Don't overlook that Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 in lieu of the Canon 17-40mm if you are on a budget...

Took these today with my Tammy

Andy,

I've spent so many happy hours in and around that Balboa Park Arboretum that I couldn't resist fiddling with your image a bit, and I came up with this:

Robt.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2006 10:47:56 PM · #5

Holy moses that's a seller there, Robt... what'd you do?

Yup Balboa is a blast... We had about 35-40 of us from the San Diego dSLR photography group show up this morn at 8AM. We owned the place (scared the local folk). There was so many photogs that the tourists just started posing every time they took a step. No one was safe. :)

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/08/2006 10:52:56 PM · #6

oh come on, you know you really want the 24-105L IS

If not that, then I'd go with the Canon 24-70L or the Tamron 28-75 SP.

Practice bouncing the flash, and possibly think about getting a Lightsphere, especially if the cielings are high in the club.

I'm not real sure about the backdrops, but I think the lights may be good for indoors where you can set up in a nice spot, not really sure what you would have there to work with.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/08/2006 11:24:18 PM · #7

You want to do group shots, you might want to consider the 17-40.

It's quite popular...

Another choice might be the 17-50 f/2.8 by Tamron... check your lenses before your shoot... You don't want to get stuck with discovering that you have a bad copy during the shoot...

This has happened to me.

And it can happen to any lens from any company regardless of the quality level...

The 24-70 is also highly spoken of... Might be an option if you can handle shooting at 38mm minimum...

This depends more on the size of the places you want to shoot... By the sounds of it, it's probably fine...

Steer clear of the 17-85 and 28-300... If you have your eyes on L lenses, and have the money for that level of quality, you probably have no real reason to go poking about there...

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/08/2006 11:38:10 PM · #8

I have around $1,000.00 give or take a few hundred to spend if I need to.

Bear music nice touch up on awpollard's pic.

And wavelength thanx for the lightsphere info. Should I use the clear or the smoked one?

And HBunch sorry for the double post. Internet is acting up and I typed the post pout in word and copied and pasted to another post again but not in same area. Thanx for the lock.

Message edited by author 2006-07-08 23:42:46.

wavelength

Nikon D300

07/08/2006 11:44:41 PM · #9

Originally posted by KSteele20D:

Bear music nice touch up on awpollard's pic.

And wavelength thanx for the lightsphere info. Should I use the clear or the smoked one?

And HBunch sorry for the double post. Internet is acting up and I posted it again but not in same area. Thanx for the lock.

I have the opaque one, and it suffers a little from loss of light. Have to push the EV on my sb800 up a little, which lowers the cycle times.

What you really should consider with all the backgrounds and lighting equipment is whether it's and investement or not. If you're going to use it again, by al means get it, otherwise I think you can probably get along without it and just doing location shots without artificial backgrounds.

Besides, unless you get a helper, you're going to spend the entire party taking pics, setting up, tearing down and the like. If that's what you want to do, go for it. If you can go scout it out and find a suitable place for group and individual shots where you can used a bounced/lightsphered flash, I'd do that instead myself.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/08/2006 11:49:37 PM · #10

I'm sorry, the dayquil is affecting my brain.

I have the clear lightsphere, so the opaque one would lose even more light, but would have the advantage of a ~~better~~softer diffusion effect.

07/09/2006 02:17:16 AM · #11

Originally posted by awpollard:

Holy moses that's a seller there, Robt... what'd you do?

Opened a hue/sat adjustment layer and amped up the yellows to make the greens glow. At the same time I shifted hue on yellow a little to the right, just +2 or +3 I think, and brightened yellow about the same. I pushed up saturation on green, which didn't effect the foliage at all but brought up detail on the balustrade lower left diagonal, which is in shade and lit by reflected green light from the pond.

On both the blue and cyan channels, I moved hue to the right maybe +4, saturation up maybe +15, and brightness down maybe -8 or so. In that ballpark anyway. Whenever you darken a color in hue/sat you need to push the saturation to maintain color intensity, so the push isn't as much as you would think.

Finally, I opened a new empty layer on top, set the mode to multiply, and used the color picker to choose a rich, dark blue for foreground color. Then I drew a foreground-to-transparent gradient From the top clear down to the implied horizon, and faded that with "edit/fade" from the menu to about 60% or so. Then I drew the same up from the bottom a little ways, and faded that as well. I played with the opacity of this gradient layer until the whole thing looked about right.

Bottom line: all I did was hue/sat and a couple gradients, took about 3-4 minutes start-to-save :-)

Hope this helps.

Robt.

BTW, if anyone ever wanted to seriously debate whether simple post-processing is a requirement for perfecting an image, here's the poster child for the "yes" camp: it's a very nice picture, properly exposed etc, but it needs to be stroked just a little to make it sing.

Message edited by author 2006-07-09 02:20:35.

margiemu

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/09/2006 03:15:39 AM · #12

wow, Robert, you are amazing with the post processing! I'm sold on the idea that pp makes the difference between good and great. Now, if I could only learn how to do it like you do...

07/09/2006 05:53:00 AM · #13

No kidding. A good photo made great. I want to take some classes in Adobe CS. Powerfull tool I have if I only knew how to use it. Teaching your self is a little hard.

But again people back to the subject. If you and a grand or so what would be your next lens for the Canon 20D.

Message edited by author 2006-07-09 05:54:00.

margiemu

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/09/2006 11:35:31 AM · #14

I have the EF 24-70 2.8L and I love it. I use it all the time. Get's in close enough for decent close ups, and wide enough for group shots.

07/09/2006 01:13:57 PM · #15

Originally posted by KSteele20D:

You're in an interesting quandary here because you already have the 28-135, which is an OK lens and covers most of the range of the alternatives being proposed. And of course you have the kit lens, so you already have coverage down to 18mm... Of the alternatives being proposed, the 17-40mm f/2.8L is the most attractive to me. That's a very nice lens indeed. But if you buy it, you have basically turned your 28-135mm into a 70-135mm.

Now that 28-135mm is worth maybe $600 in the resale market; so you have the option of selling that one and giving yourself a $1,600 budget for lenses. You could buy the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f/4L for around $1,300 and have a couple killer good lenses; they are the two most popular zoom lenses on the Canon list at Fred Miranda.

Then for another $400 you can add the 60mm f/2.8 Macro, a fast and sharp true macro lens that works very well as a prime portrait lens on the 1.6 crop cameras like yours. Total cost $1,700 minus $600 from selling the 28-135mm, leaves you at $1,100 total invested, close to your mark, and three really excellent lenses you can keep forever...

R.

*sorry for the hijacking :-)

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/09/2006 04:04:36 PM · #16

Well, in my waiting, research and debaiting. The wife logged into my Ebay and saw the lens that I was looking at. And she bought and overnight shipped a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM. We were talking about the ranges of the two lens I have like you said. And my 28-135 is only 6 months old. She also knows I like the reach out and touch as she calls it concept. Big zoom I guess. Anyway we will see I guess the 17-40mm L will come in on X-Mas

faidoi

Pentax K10D

07/09/2006 04:30:35 PM · #17

Originally posted by KSteele20D:

Better get a monopod too.

07/09/2006 06:42:54 PM · #18

Hahaha! That's a whole other animal. You'll love it, though it's not a lens you'd normally associate with "event photography"... PM Shutterpug, she acquired one not long ago and has had fun learning the ropes.

Robt.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/10/2006 07:59:15 PM · #19

OK. They could not ship the 50-500 lens in time for me to leave. Here is what they can ship. And out of these I'm wanting the lens that people gives a better quality. Well I have read for example. 50mm 1.4 is better than the 50mm 1.8

And remember I have stock kit lens 18-55mm and 28-135 IS USM.

50mm f/1.8------------------------------- $89.00
85mm f/1.8------------------------------- $341.00
50mm f/1.4------------------------------- $360.00
17-40mm f/4L---------------------------- $720.00
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM---- $1,170.00
70-200mm f/2.8L------------------------ $1,160.00
16-35mm f/2.8L------------------------- $1,300.00
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM----- $1,440.00

I know I can probably take the pictures with my 28-135mm and be fine. This Lens is a bonus and birthday present. And that is why I'm leaning toward the larger lens. It will give me something with power for motorcross races and Daytona speed week and taking pics of my squadron's F-15's. But then again if one of the above has fantastic quality over my 28-135mm than that is the way. Then again.... See where I'm going you can go on with yourself all day. SOmeone make a dicision for me base on your experience with the lens.

And that 70-300mm DO IS USM is so much smaller. Yeah Yeah maybe that one.

HELP LOL....

faidoi

Pentax K10D

07/10/2006 08:19:41 PM · #20

85mm f/1.8------------------------------- $341.00

Great for indoor portraits.

Canon 85mm 1.8 (press- More after you are linked to cycle through the pictures).

Of course some images may not fully represent the camera/lens combo due to post-processing, scanning, or photographic technique. Blah, Blah, blah,etc.

Pbase.com is a good place to check pictures taken with a certain lens.

Message edited by author 2006-07-10 20:31:14.

07/11/2006 01:53:29 AM · #21

O.K. People I have finally decided.

I'm going to buy two lens. I have been so overwhelmed with the shots people are getting with wide angle. And Amazed at the long shots at zoos and round about that bring you right up to the animal or subject.

Beings I have the 28-135mm IS USM. I will be adding the 17-40mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L to my collection. $1,454.00 both and shipping.

Now I'll I have to do is learn how to use a camera and process my pics with CS2 and I guess later take some classes and get all those other programs everyone is using.

Thanx for the help, it was fun. If anyone is ever in Jacksonville Florida or want to run to St. Augustine or Daytona for a day and want to go find things to shot. Blast a e-mail to me.

08/03/2006 03:10:23 AM · #22

Originally posted by wavelength:

Practice bouncing the flash, and possibly think about getting a Lightsphere, especially if the cielings are high in the club.

Hey I bought the Lightspere II and I'm simply amazed. I took it into the a few Smithsonian's (hope I spelt that right) and it really helped. And it is totally fantastic for portraits and close -ups. Thanx for the advice.

And buy the way I got the 40-200 f/2.8L. I'm getting the 17-40 f/2.8L is coming by way of Santa. I'm pumped at the L glass speed and quality of pics. I noticable differance in the picture quality. I'm all about the L now.