| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2004 02:51:02 PM · #1 |
I have $350.00 burning a whole in my PayPal pocket and I want to buy a new lens. I have a baby on the way and a 3 year old daughter, so I'm looking for something to take portraits with. I am also very interested in trying to take some macro shots as well. Here is the list of lenses I currently have for my Canon Digital Rebel
Canon 75-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 III USM
Canon 28-80mm
Canon 18-55mm
The lens doesn't have to be a Canon, but I would like it to be a quality lens.
So, if anyone is bored and wants to look on e-bay and give me some suggestions I would really appreciate it! If you find one that you like please let me know why you like it. If anyone finds one that I buy I will give them a $25.00 gift certificate to ritzcamera.com for taking the time to help me.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:57:43 PM · #2 |
The Sigma 105mm macro is supposed to be a great macro lens (Jacko and many others use it to good effect)
105mm is also a reasonable focal length for tight portraits, or portraits of 'small people'
Costs $369 new at BHPhoto
Auto focus is apparently not blindingly fast, but other than that I only hear good things about it. Image quality is supposed to be great too.
I'd recommend the Canon 100mm f2.8 but it is a bit more expensive (about an extra $100 new)
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 14:58:34.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:58:41 PM · #3 |
Canon 50mm Æ’/1.4 (you specifically said eBay, so there you go)
Everybody needs a good, fast prime lens, and what better place to start than with the 50mm Æ’/1.4. With the 1.6X crop factor of the DRebel, it becomes an 80mm equivalent. A little shy from the "preferred" portrait length of about 100mm, but still a very versatile lens. Recommended over the Æ’/1.8 version for the extra 2/3rd stops, 8-blade diaphragm and USM focusing mechanism.
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 15:00:39. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:59:24 PM · #4 |
I was going to suggest the Sigma 105mm macro too. Excellent lens. Another option would be a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 - I've seen quite a few people rave about that one for portraits.
OK I'm slow with my suggestions!
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 15:00:00.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:59:42 PM · #5 |
Damn Gordon, you beat me to it.
Here's the link at B&H, //www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=148526&is=USA its also nice that B&H accepts payment via PayPal.
The Sigma is comparible to the Canon 100mm Macro (albeit a little slower focusing) and a great deal at $100 cheaper.
Dave |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:02:05 PM · #6 |
I guess I'd have to second the Sigma 105mm macro suggestion. It'll give you a little more distance from your subject (especially with insects and the like) than the 50mm counterpart and the glass is quite sharp.
I actually just picked one up along with the Sigma 12-24mm about a week ago. I think I payed almost exactly $350 for the 105mm. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:02:12 PM · #7 |
| I think this might win some kind of response time record, 5 responses in just over 2 minutes... wow. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:04:50 PM · #8 |
For semi low light, indoor type "snapshots" of the kids when you need a little more in the picture than the 50mm gives (80mm on Rebel) ... I have the Canon 28mm 2.8 (45mm on rebel). It's freakin awesome and only costs about $160.00 on B&H.
I use this lens a ton for people pictures (not formal portraits, just people being people :) |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:07:10 PM · #9 |
Only problem with buying the 100mm or 105mm macro is it'll make you realise just how soft all your other lenses are...
slippery slopes.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:10:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Only problem with buying the 100mm or 105mm macro is it'll make you realise just how soft all your other lenses are...
slippery slopes. |
Slippery slopes indeed.... |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:13:01 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:14:47 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:20:51 PM · #13 |
| I'm going to be a little different here. I would suggest the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM ($229), the Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($75) and a macro coupler ($8). The 28-105 is a quick, sharp lens that I, and many others here, use as our general-purpose walking around lens. It covers a better range than any one of your current collection. The 50mm will serve you well for low light shots and portraits, and it's known for being one of the sharpest lenses around. The reverse macro coupler will allow you to attach the 50mm backwards to the 28-105 or the 18-55 (they're the same thread size) for REALLY close macro work. This group will provide you with a lot of versatility, and you can buy them all new at B&H, with $38 left for a teddy bear. Happy shopping. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:22:54 PM · #14 |
Personally I prefer the Canon 50mm f 1.8 to the 105 Sigma for portrait work. The working distance for portraits with the 105 is a bit much. Both give nice results. Most of my portrait shots are of little people. I think an ideal lens would be the Canon 85mm f1.8, which is about $330 or so.
For macros, the 105 is really great thos.
Sigma 105 f2.8 wide open
Canon 50mm f1.8 wide open
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:23:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm going to be a little different here. I would suggest the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM ($229), the Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($75) and a macro coupler ($8). The 28-105 is a quick, sharp lens that I, and many others here, use as our general-purpose walking around lens. It covers a better range than any one of your current collection. The 50mm will serve you well for low light shots and portraits, and it's known for being one of the sharpest lenses around. The reverse macro coupler will allow you to attach the 50mm backwards to the 28-105 or the 18-55 (they're the same thread size) for REALLY close macro work. This group will provide you with a lot of versatility, and you can buy them all new at B&H, with $38 left for a teddy bear. Happy shopping. ;-) |
Just curious - have you ever tried doing any real macro work with a reversed 50mm ? I've been able to get 5x lifesize reproductions of coins with a reversed 50, but the working distance is about half an inch or so - almost useless for field work, and without any aperture control at all, the DoF is very small. guess it depends on your macro subject choice
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:48:05 PM · #16 |
Yes I have, yes it is, and yes it does.
You need a strong light source, but if you want to clearly read the designer label on the back of a fly, this is the only way to go. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 02:33:09 PM · #17 |
Mavrik... didn't buy that exact lens, but I did end up buying the same lens. Shoot me an e-mail so I can send you the the gift certificate. You can also just take $25.00 via PayPal if you want. I really appreciate the help from everyone! |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 02:39:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes I have, yes it is, and yes it does.
You need a strong light source, but if you want to clearly read the designer label on the back of a fly, this is the only way to go. ;-) |
You really want an MP-E then, don't you :) It has all the lack of DoF and magnification of a reversed 50, with at least some level of controlability - though slightly different price range.
I'd guess that if you wanted to read that designer label on the fly - the fly'd have to be dead ?
|
|
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: 09/11/2025 01:21:44 PM EDT.
