| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2007 10:11:10 AM · #26 |
I have the 85 1.8 USM, 50 1.4 USM and Sigma 30 1.4....I really love the 85 and 50, but since getting the 30 I just can't keep it off the camera :). It seems like every situation calls for the 30 but I'm still calling the 85 my favorite! I know when indoor recital season comes around the 85 will be King again and like everyone else said for head / shoulder portraits it is hard to beat.
I agree that the 30 isn't wide enough for cramped space trying to get full body portraits and like you said 24 would give you that little bit of extra room....What about the mentioned sigma 20 1.8? |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 10:12:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Cigarette savings?? |
Yes, and I've decided that I wanna go prime for both artistic and technical reasons. I've got Canon's 28, 35 and 100mm primes (non-L) on my list too. |
Get the 35 first. It's a great prime, and on your 1.6x cropfactor Rebel its angle comes closest to the way 'normal' people view the world. I use it as a walkaround.
For wide angle, the Sigma 20mm is a great prime. I am not a big Sigma fan, but this one pwns its Canon competitors. |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 02:07:24 PM · #28 |
One more lens: the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus?
|
|
|
|
07/30/2007 02:39:50 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The reason I'm looking at the 24mm is that I find myself bumping up against the wide end of my sigma (28mm) very often for full body shots.
|
I know its no wider, but have you had any experience with the canon 28mm 1.8?
I am interested in this lens although not many here own it. |
I can't find a lot of info on that lens. It almost seems it's fallen out of favor with photogs. |
I have one and it's now my walk-around lens. Sharp, nice bokeh, quick AF and the perfect focal length for use as a "normal" lens. |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 02:44:17 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have one and it's now my walk-around lens. Sharp, nice bokeh, quick AF and the perfect focal length for use as a "normal" lens. |
A very convincing case for it.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2007 02:58:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The reason I'm looking at the 24mm is that I find myself bumping up against the wide end of my sigma (28mm) very often for full body shots.
|
I know its no wider, but have you had any experience with the canon 28mm 1.8?
I am interested in this lens although not many here own it. |
I can't find a lot of info on that lens. It almost seems it's fallen out of favor with photogs. |
I have that lense and I like it. It's not my prefered lense but for low light photography in small spaces nothing beats it. My next buy for lense would be the 85 F1.8 though as sometimes I would like to be a bit closer to the action then what my 50 F1.8 can give me. F1.8 is a must for me in some occasions when I shoot concerts with poor lighting and no flash. There is only a single concert that I shot that I was able to take pictures at 800 ISO, 1/100s and F2.8, every other times it was around 1600 ISO, 1/60s and F2.0.
My walk-around lense is my new 28-135 F3.5/5.6 IS USM.
Message edited by author 2007-07-30 15:01:10. |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 03:09:27 PM · #32 |
I have the 24mm. I use it for low light when my 17-40 can't get enough light in it. I wish it had USM, but I didn't want to spend the money for L glass.
If you're going wide, really go wide.
edit: Changed presentence to pastence in some verbs
Message edited by author 2007-07-30 15:10:23. |
|
|
|
07/30/2007 03:29:39 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I have the 24mm. I use it for low light when my 17-40 can't get enough light in it. I wish it had USM, but I didn't want to spend the money for L glass.
If you're going wide, really go wide.
|
The 15mm fisheye is on my list too, but not so important. The big debate is between the 24 and 28. Currently I CAN do everything I need at 28mm, but bump into it quite often, so think just a little wider would be better.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2007 07:36:00 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
One more lens: the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus? |
This has kind of lost it's usefulness with the coming of digital. You can get a very similar effect with photoshop.
The downsides I see with the 24mm is that it's slow(er) at f/2.8 and no USM. The 28mm has f/1.8 and USM. Of course the 24mm f/1.4L USM is $1000 so out of the question... Is there a non-Canon equivalent you can look into? Or maybe you'll have to go for a zoom...?
|
|
