I need advice on lense purchase!

08/01/2005 06:34:15 PM · #1

I am looking for a new lense. I would like to use it primarily for portrait purposes, but I was wondering what others thought.

//www2.shopping.com/xPO-Canon_Zoom_Super_Wide_Angle_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus_Lens

Is this a good one?

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

08/01/2005 06:59:25 PM · #2

may be a little wide unless ur trying to do full body portraits. if you try to shoot upclose (like for a headshot or something) with a wide angle, objects closer to the lens tend to distort and may look unproportional to the rest. i.e. if you took a headshot, the subject's nose might appear larger in comparison to their face since the former is closer up to the lens. because of the crop factor, if you're trying to do headshots, shoulder-head, or even torso-head a lens around 50mm might be good. also you may want to consider the 85mm f/1.8.

what kind of portraiture are you going to be doing?

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

08/01/2005 07:02:59 PM · #3

since you chose an L lens i'm assuming you want something L...so have you looked into the 24-70 f/2.8 L? there's some quality control problems on that lens i have heard. but if you get a good copy or send it back to canon and get it recalibrated it should be a very nice lens.

edit: oh duh, you already have that lens

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 19:10:08.

08/01/2005 07:15:27 PM · #4

Actually my son has that lense, I get to borrow it sometimes when he isn't feeling overly protective. :)

I can tell a big difference in the canon L lenses vs my tamrons. The sharpness and detail on the L is pretty significant.

I need a good wide angle lense also, Im just trying to decide if I should go wide angle or portrait.

Please feel free to send me links on what you think would be best.

Wide angle and Portrait.

Thanks

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 19:16:24.

kjennings

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/01/2005 07:20:56 PM · #5

how about the canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM, a good portrait lens as well.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/01/2005 07:24:53 PM · #6

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Well you're not exactly compairing the best tamron lenses... I just did a bunch of test shots for somebody with my tamron 17-35mm. The shots are all in here.
//photobucket.com/albums/v494/kyebosh The ending numbers of the shots are the F stop used. All shots are processed from raw and are 100% crops with no sharpening whatsoever.

PS: the 2's are really 2.8's. All shots were at 17mm as well.

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 19:31:52.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/01/2005 07:27:02 PM · #7

50mm f1.8 for $80

0r

50mm F1.4 for about $400

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/01/2005 07:30:28 PM · #8

Originally posted by louddog:

50mm f1.8 for $80

0r

50mm F1.4 for about $400

if we're breaking out the primes... 35mm L *drools* it's unbelievable. Also the 85L/135L lenses are superb.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/01/2005 07:34:04 PM · #9

The " Classic " portrait lenth is 80 mm, so with a 1.6 crop that would translate to 50mm, but the reason for the 80mm rule wasn't the resulting crop, but that the length tends to be most flattering in it's results. If you are looking at L only lots of people shoot all their head shots with the 70-200 ( 2.8 is or 4, whatever, if the light is yours to create) but i have not often seen great results below 40mm or so, because the lens takes in so much of a view that faces tend to look bloated and moony. I love shooting with the 10-22 but the face shots could not be called flattering.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

08/01/2005 07:40:27 PM · #10

If you're looking to do portrait work, and want good control over DoF, the 16-35/2.8 L (or the 17-40/4 L, also a fine lens) will be marginally effective because of the short focal lengths. You're already familiar with the 24-70/2.8L which for portraits-with-a-zoom would have been my first choice. I'd say you really have to choose whether you want something "focused" on portrait or on WA.
If you decide WA, and want zoom, the 17-40/4 is one heck of a value. The 16-35 is also a great lens, but at over double the price for one stop and one millimeter, not as good a value. That choice comes down to personal preference as to whether the extra $$$ is worth it.
If you want portrait and want zoom, and don't want to duplicate the 24-70, look at the 70-200/2.8 L as suggested by kjennings. It is an outstanding lens for candid portrait work, and the long focal length combined with the fast f/2.8 aperture gives incredible control of DoF. One of the finest tele-zooms ever made. Even the IS version is only a couple hundred dollars more than the 16-35/2.8 L.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/01/2005 08:17:15 PM · #11

Just thought this might be of interest and certainly the issue that got me wondering about the quality of my tamron lense as compared to my sons L.

Taken with fetors 70-200 f.2.8

Tripod

Taken with same settings except with my Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD for Canon- Hand held

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 20:18:29.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/01/2005 08:19:00 PM · #12

With the 16-35 and the 17-40, my homework yielded that besides one stop difference, the 17-40 is sharper at the wider end and the 16-35 is sharper at the not as wide end.
Both are great lens, but neither makes a great portrait lens.

08/01/2005 08:25:06 PM · #13

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Just thought this might be of interest and certainly the issue that got me wondering about the quality of my tamron lense as compared to my sons L.

Taken with fetors 70-200 f.2.8 Tripod

Taken with same settings except with my Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD for Canon- Hand held

this should be expected as the 70-200L is a much better lens than the tamron you used. In the 17-35 range I find the tamron is actually equal to the canon (17-40L) in every group of test shots i've seen. In some case the tamron was even better, now i don't want to lead you to believe that that's always the case, they are pretty much optically equal. If the canon is worth $200+ more dollars for the build quality, weather sealing, and faster focusing, then get it. But this specific tamron is no slouch.

08/01/2005 08:42:18 PM · #14

So it's looking like I need the 70-200 f.2.8/with IS ?

Well, since he is going into the Military soon, I'll just use his...LOL

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/01/2005 08:46:09 PM · #15

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

So it's looking like I need the 70-200 f.2.8/with IS ?

Well, since he is going into the Military soon, I'll just use his...LOL

lol! If you get his cool! BTW the non-IS is slightly sharper and cheaper if that matters.

LowLght

Nikon D70

08/01/2005 08:47:31 PM · #16

You might check //www.thecamerabox.com I picked up a 50mm 1.4D for $200 just a few weeks ago which was about $100 cheaper than everywhere else. that was for a nikon but i think they carry canon too.

08/01/2005 09:27:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by LowLght:

You might check //www.thecamerabox.com I picked up a 50mm 1.4D for $200 just a few weeks ago which was about $100 cheaper than everywhere else. that was for a nikon but i think they carry canon too.

how is it possible to beat out huge camera stores by $100?

ps: //www.resellerratings.com/seller10258.html so far a good rating, very few votes though.

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 21:27:58.

CorySmith

08/01/2005 09:29:39 PM · #18

ok when i leave she will inherit my 70-200, 24-70 and 50 1.8 for a while
she needs a super wide
or a great fast tele

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/01/2005 11:25:39 PM · #19

Okay, I just ordered the lense Nusbaum used in his capture of this photo. Canon 85mm 1.8.

I am hoping to try it out on my daughter soon. We have a costume closet just begging to be rummaged thru. I may not get nearly as good a photo as his, but hey, I have to try, because this is the sort of photography that I have sought to produce for a long time.

Message edited by author 2005-08-01 23:26:36.

aled

Canon EOS-D30

08/02/2005 12:25:00 AM · #20

This topic really annoys me, actually it's more down to the manufacturers e.g. Canon. Whenever I read a review I get annoyed by the comparisons with the "L" series lenses. The whole thing is a giant con perpetrated by all of the colluding major manufacturers. The budget lenses are made to perform poorly on purpose so that they can suck more cash out of you. If Canon et al. think that they are going to extract the ridiculous sums of money that they charge for their "proper" lenses then they are in a dream world. In fact buying one of their budget lenses and feeling ripped off has put me off buying anything else at all from them and even changing brand. The truth is it costs them only marginally more to produce an L lense as it does to produce low end garbage. Just take a look at the difference between the kit lens supplied with the 20D as compared with the equivalent D-70. There is no comparison the Nikon wins hands down yet priced their lense a little more honestly. Fluorite injection has been around now for over 10 years and costs the same to manufacture as cheap glass - fact. It is just corporate greed that forces down the standards, and peoples willingness to pay stupid money for standard products that could be sold with a healthy profit at fractions of the RRP......
I am disgusted with them all, and now feel better having got it off my chest...

rebelo

Nikon D70

08/02/2005 03:24:50 AM · #21

alen: amen, brother! That was a great rant and totally how I feel. It's a piss off, but it's life.

ergo

08/02/2005 03:59:50 AM · #22

Originally posted by aled:

The truth is it costs them only marginally more to produce an L lense as it does to produce low end garbage.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of this "truth." Got a spreadsheet (genuine from the manufacturer) showing manufacturing cost for L and non-L lenses?

From my limited experience, there rarely is an absolute for absolutely everyone about any of this. Some L copies are better or worse than others. I spent US$70 on the 50mm 1.8 last month, and have been as pleased with that as I'd been with my 24-70. My personal truths: Do I wish the 24-70 was cheaper? Definitely. Am I glad I still saved up for it and bought it? Definitely.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

08/02/2005 08:57:47 AM · #23

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Okay, I just ordered the lense Nusbaum used in his capture of this photo. Canon 85mm 1.8. .......
I am hoping to try it out on my daughter soon. We have a costume closet just begging to be rummaged thru. I may not get nearly as good a photo as his, but hey, I have to try, because this is the sort of photography that I have sought to produce for a long time.

Despite what everyone said in this thread (all these posters who are in such a hurry to spend tons of your money for you) you made the right choice.

To all of you who reccommend the purchase of a 70-200 2.8 IS to someone inquiring about a lens for portrait work -- ya wanna buy a bridge?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/02/2005 09:52:58 AM · #24

Originally posted by rgo:

Originally posted by aled:
The truth is it costs them only marginally more to produce an L lense as it does to produce low end garbage.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of this "truth." Got a spreadsheet (genuine from the manufacturer) showing manufacturing cost for L and non-L lenses?

From my limited experience, there rarely is an absolute for absolutely everyone about any of this. Some L copies are better or worse than others. I spent US$70 on the 50mm 1.8 last month, and have been as pleased with that as I'd been with my 24-70. My personal truths: Do I wish the 24-70 was cheaper? Definitely. Am I glad I still saved up for it and bought it? Definitely.

Actually this is very true. I can't say for a fact Canon does it because I have never worked there, but every company I have delt with does it. Do you really think it costs Canon $500 more to make a 20D over a 350xt? I'd guess manufacturing cost on the two are the same and parts may cost them a little more for the 20D. The L lens probably do cost a little more to make because they have better glass, which canon probably buys from a supplier and it probably costs more then the other glass they buy. However, the difference in price of manufacturing should be no where near the difference in the consumer prices they charge (if it is they need to hire me as a consultant to fix things).
They charge more for the 20D and the L lens, simply because they can.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II