DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Say I were to stay with my canon...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 11 of 11, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/04/2004 01:47:36 AM · #1
So lets say I stay with my Digital Rebel.

I have $2000 dollars to spend on lenses/misc equipment.

First and foremost, I want to purchase the Pistol Grip Head and Manfrotto Tripod. So thats about 250. If you had 1750 dollars for lenses, which lenses would you get? Nevermind the Kit lens I have. And also, I want to start leaning towards portraitures, but also want to do everything else. As someone else has said, "A good photographer takes all kinds of photos"

I was thinking maybe a Fisheye Lens, and a telephoto with IS technology. What do you all think?
 06/04/2004 02:02:13 AM · #2
Lenses, well, if I had to do it again I would have skipped buying my 28 2.8 and 28-105 3.5-4.5 and bought the three lenses I use the most, right away. 17-40F4L, 50 1.4 and 70-200 F4L. Then, add two bright primes in the middle of the zoom range, which I plan to do - in this case a 28 1.8 (28 2.8 not bright enought) or a 35 1.4L and probably a 135 F2L.

However, everyone's different. You want to do portraiture. Well, classic focal length for portraits is 80-135 or so. On a 1.6x camera that's 50mm to about 80 or 100m at a stretch. Personally I use my 50 1.4 for headshots and they turn out brilliantly, and also have used my 70-200, which is great at the shorter end. The long end flattens the image somewhat, given that your subject is quite far away from you at a headshot distance at a 320mm equivalent. The problem with the 70-200 is that people are often scared of it and it throws them off guard. Some people have recorded great results with the 85 1.8, and for a double-duty lens the 100 2.8 macro, which is also on my short list.

Message edited by author 2004-06-04 02:05:02.
 06/04/2004 02:28:04 AM · #3
After a lot of extensive testing with my Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, I highly recommend it. It will give you plenty of shallow depth of field out at 70mm and f/2.8 for portrait work and it is nice and sharp throughout the focal lengths and aperture ranges. It's not the ULTIMATE lens for portrait work but it would certainly work well. It would cover you for general purpose work at the same time.

I have done some portrait work with my 50mm f/1.8 and run into several problems shooting at f/1.8. If you are closer than about 8' to your subject, the depth of field can be too shallow for great portraits. I think it would simply take more experience for me to get better with that particular lens for portrait work.

I think a good gameplan for purchasing lenses is to cover general purpose needs first unless you have some overpowering specific need to deal with. My bag currently contains the following lenses:

1. Sigma EX 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6
2. Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 Macro
3. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
4. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
5. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L

If I was buying all these lenses over again, I would have bought them in this order:

4, 2, 5, 1, 3

The 50mm is not my least favorite lens, but I do consider it a specialty lens. It does well in low light but it's not a great lens on a digital camera for close quarters indoor work in low light. The 1.6x crop factor makes the focal lenght too long for great tight quarters indoor work. The other issue with indoor work in low light is that the depth of field at f/1.8 is not the best situation for great photographs. Shooting at f/1.8 certainly allows you better chances of using ambient light instead of a flash, but your depth of field suffers along with it.

The Sigma 12-24 is definitely a 'specialty' lens and probably the least used lens in my bag. I bought this lens for specific types of photos, including landscape and architecture stuff. I don't shoot a lot of either, so it's only occasionally used.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L is a great telephoto lens. I also have the Canon 1.4x extender to go with this. When I need to reach out and touch someone, this lens usually does the trick. Its big and bulky and heavy. It attracts a lot of attention and isn't inconspicuous at all. It's best used on a monopod or tripod because of its weight.

A good macro lens is something I use frequently. The sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro produces excellent image quality, but the autofocus on it is terribly slow. The good thing is that I never use autofocus when I use this lens. When I am photographing something close up, the AF points on the camera are RARELY positioned over a point where I want to focus the shot. Also, when shooting macro, I will 'cheat' for extra depth of field when I need it. Knowing that the depth of field is 1/3 in front of and 2/3 behind the focus point, I will often focus into my subject a little deeper than normal to 'push' the total depth of field a little deeper into my photo.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is a work of art :) The only problem with it is that it's also big and bulky, weighing in at over 2 pounds. It makes beautiful photos though :)

Something else to consider would be to have a simple, inexpensive, general purpose short range telephoto lens such as the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I think I made a mistake by selling mine :( This lens, at $200, makes decent quality photos and its light weight and great for general purpose use when you don't want to sling over 4 pounds of camera/lens/flash around your neck. It's not as good in low light as some of the other lenses, but it's not a crime to use a flash :) When you are shooting at parties and other types of gatherings where the light may be low, use your flash :) The purpose of those photos is not for 'artistic' merit. You need to capture the people who are present and show that they are having a good time :) Another sightly more expensive alternative to satisfying your general point and shoot photography would be to purchase a simple point and shoot digital camera. I bought

THIS CAMERA just last week for this purpose. When I'm shooting at family/friend gatherings I will use this in most cases rather than lugging out the other gear.

Just some thoughts :)

06/04/2004 02:30:29 AM · #4
Originally posted by jmlelii:
So lets say I stay with my Digital Rebel.

I have $2000 dollars to spend on lenses/misc equipment.

First and foremost, I want to purchase the Pistol Grip Head and Manfrotto Tripod. So thats about 250. If you had 1750 dollars for lenses, which lenses would you get? Nevermind the Kit lens I have. And also, I want to start leaning towards portraitures, but also want to do everything else. As someone else has said, "A good photographer takes all kinds of photos"

I was thinking maybe a Fisheye Lens, and a telephoto with IS technology. What do you all think?

If you want more than one lens, then there are only two Canon IS zooms that fit in that price range. The EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens is about $395, and the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens costs about the same. I bought my daughter the non-IS version of the 75-300mm for her Rebel and she really likes it. I haven̢۪t had a chance to try it on my 10D yet though.

For portraiture, I̢۪d say skip the fisheye lens and go for the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens. They cost about $470 and I think it̢۪s a very nice lens. It̢۪s certainly more versatile than a fisheye.

--Mick

06/04/2004 02:37:10 AM · #5
John, your thinking is very similar to mine. I have been seriously thinking of the 24-70 as well but might well prefer a 35 1.4L for a 'normal' lens as I do have that 28-105 still. I have grown attached to it but am frustrated by its lack of a wide angle. My 17-40 seems to cover my walkaround needs and I find 2.8 to be too slow for a lot of lower-light ambient needs. I hesitate to drop so much on something that I might not enjoy as much as the 35 prime.

I want one of those S500s too. YOu like yours? I'd love to be able to use my CF cards in something I can put in a shirt pocket.

Message edited by author 2004-06-04 02:37:52.
 06/04/2004 04:10:54 AM · #6
Originally posted by jmlelii:
So lets say I stay with my Digital Rebel.


Lmao! You sure change your mind a lot.

Anyway, I'd reccommend the 28-135 IS (45-216 w/ 1.6x focal length multiplier). Not a wide angle and not a telephoto, but still a decent standard zoom range. It's the 1st lens I've bought (besides the kit lens) and it is a great all purpose walk around lens. I've been using the lens for about a month now and have been extremely pleased with it. Here are some photos I've taken with the 28-135.

My next purchases will be the 50 1.4, 70-200 4L, 550EX, and battery grip.
 06/04/2004 04:24:49 AM · #7
If I were you I'd buy a 550EX flash, ST-E2 transmitter (for the flash) and EF 24-70mm f2.8 L lens. That's about $1700 at B&H
 06/04/2004 05:37:53 AM · #8
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I have been seriously thinking of the 24-70 as well but might well prefer a 35 1.4L for a 'normal' lens as I do have that 28-105 still. I have grown attached to it but am frustrated by its lack of a wide angle. My 17-40 seems to cover my walkaround needs and I find 2.8 to be too slow for a lot of lower-light ambient needs. I hesitate to drop so much on something that I might not enjoy as much as the 35 prime.

I've been considering the Canon 35mm/2, which comes in at about $230. If you go for the 35mm I'd be interested to know how you like it.
 06/04/2004 08:06:09 AM · #9
Depends on what you mean by "portrait" work. Do you want to do headshots? Fashion or glamour, with would require full length shots a lot of the time? Casuals? Sports? Studio? "Environmental?"

From my perspective I'd consider 2 lenses, a flash and possibly an accessory to help.

Lenses
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L
I'm going with John on this one. I don't have it but I want it. It's a great lens and after shooting 2.8 as opposed to f/3.5 or 4 or 5 . . . you can tell the difference in background blur between this lens and others. The bokeh is smooth and sweet and its got the best range for shooting portraits.

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8
IS version
or
non-IS version
In this case I have and use this lens (IS version) and it gives quality that is difficult to find in any other lenses. I'm sure a great photographer could use a piece of soap, some string and 30 year old film to take a wonderful portrait but the biggest jump in quality of my portraits was when I mounted this lens on my 10D and shot exactly what I was shooting the week before. It is crisp, it is bright, the contrast is great and the bokeh is unbelievable. I've never had as much of a positive response to my work as when I invested in this lens; people noticed the difference (including my wife who immediately went from "How much did that thing cost??? to Wow, take more pictures of the baby!!)

Flash
You might also want to consider a flash unit as fill flash can make a lot of difference (you couldn't tell it from my work but I hear its all the rage).

Canon 550EX with stand
This item has more power, more reach than its smaller siblings (namely 420) and it has the ability to set just about anything you want manually. If you don't know how to use it today, you can grow into it (that's what I'm doing). All jokes aside, it really can make a difference.

Accessories
Canon ST-E2 flash transmitter
This little gem will allow you to set your flash off to the side or at an angle to the subject and trigger the flash from the camera by infrared signals this transmitter sends out. It'll trigger 550EX's or 420's. In portraiture having side lighting of some type can be a noticible improvement since straight on flash can wash out the features and leave a subject looking flat in the tonal quality of the image (no shadows or depth to the face when we all have characteristics to our face that everyone sees when they look at us).

ProMax LumiQuest System
If you invest in the 550EX (or even the 420 or one of the Metz's) you'll want this. Trust me, when you're using the flash unit outside this is absolutely the way to go. You can bounce flash off this and provide catchlights in the eyes or use this method to move your lighting away from the camera even more (say another 4-5 inches) which can also provide some of that highlighting (tho admittedly not much). I use this indoors, too, along with the next item.

Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce
Who knows why they wanted to hyphenate both names??? Anyway, this is a handy little accessory to use when indoors in a fairly enclosed space. In a cathederal it'll do precious little for you but in a house or at a more intimate setting it can bounce the flash so that it fills the room and doesn't leave as much area to show harsh shadows. For the price (about $16 USD) I'd say its worth getting and trying out.

Impact 5-in-1 42" collapsible reflector
If you're doing portrait work out of doors this item can make a ton of difference. It's pretty expensive but it's also versatile (multiple reflector colors). Finding someone to go along with you and hold it may be a problem but once you see what it can do to affect the final portrait; you'll start lining people up to go hold this for you.

Other considerations
I'm sure that there are other lenses you can check into as well but I'd suggest some of these as fillers or things to play with.

Canon EF 50 f/1.8
Fantastic little lens. I don't like the plastic housing its in after buying a couple of L's. It just doesn't have the same heft and I fear anytime I set it down that it'll just get broken if anything happens to it. From a photographic side, it has decent bokeh and the DOF is shallow but not too shallow at a decent distance. I echo John's comments that its difficult to get the proper distance with this lens without losing some definition because of the shallower DOF. Granted, you could stop it down but then why not go for a slower lens at the length that you actually want to shoot at. I used it a lot for my first portrait work because its inexpensive so I had it in my bag. Nowadays its my low light lens exclusively.

Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Now here you're actually starting to get somewhere. I have a friend that has this lens and it has a little more leg on it. The 85mm gets you out where you can frame those headshots a little better and the 1.8 on this seems to be a little deeper than on the 50mm that I have. You don't totally lose definition on the tip of the nose when you zoom (with your feet) so that the headshot fills the frame. It's a little more expensive than the 50mm but it's still a nice inexpensive lens. The one reason I don't highly recommend this is that I like the bokeh better on the 70-200 f/2.8 L.

Well, that's about it. I could also recommend the 135 f/2 L or the 85 f/1.2 L but I don't think either would be as versatile as the 70-200 although either is supposed to produce great bokeh while maintaining the high image quality of the L series. Frankly, while the 135 is absolutely at the top of the "accepted" portrait range on a film camera and beyond it for a digital, it is supposed to be one of the ultimate portrait lenses for Canon 35mm's. I've never shot it and I doubt that I'll ever buy it but the people who have it . . . yeah, I admire some of their headshot work. It's pretty specialized in that its a fixed focal length and its more expensive than other good lenses you could get to do the job. I'll say I like what little of its work I've been able to see on the web (and that may not be a fair representation of how much better it is than the 70-200 in real life).

Kev
 06/04/2004 08:21:48 AM · #10
Thank you all for the wonderful comments! It's much appreciated!
 06/04/2004 08:43:15 AM · #11
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

I want one of those S500s too. YOu like yours? I'd love to be able to use my CF cards in something I can put in a shirt pocket.


It just came in two days ago and I haven't had a chance to shoot with it yet. It's cute tho :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 06:00:32 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 06:00:32 AM EDT.