|
The cool thing about portraits is that you don't need super high contrast or ultra sharpness wide open.
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
caberham posted:Oh I cracked my 85 1.2 don't be an idiot like me. I immediately went and hugged my 85 1.2 after seeing this. That sucks so bad  I still also have the 85 1.8 because I think it's much better for anything that moves at all. Nothing wrong with the nifty fifty except the focus (speed and noise).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Wow, pretty much an even split between the 50mm & 40mm. I guess I could always drop the $300 and get both but then why not just get a better lens or the $300? This hobby is going to put me in the poor house. Thanks for the advice, fellas.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:Wow, pretty much an even split between the 50mm & 40mm. I guess I could always drop the $300 and get both but then why not just get a better lens or the $300? This hobby is going to put me in the poor house. Thanks for the advice, fellas. As long as you are having fun and enjoying what you are doing! Gear talk for us hobbyists is water cooler talk. If anything goes wrong you can always sell or trade it away. Then there's bigger bodies, travel bags, pelican cases, tripods, tripod heads, flash units, remote triggers etc. Oh yeah then you might get into film after all that shebang. Then you might spring for nex Or smart phone camera.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
I have the 40 2.8 and recently it's spending as much time on my camera as my 24-105L, 100L macro, or 70-300L do combined. It's fantastic on full frame. Get it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:I have the 40 2.8 and recently it's spending as much time on my camera as my 24-105L, 100L macro, or 70-300L do combined. It's fantastic on full frame. I have a crop sensor
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Still better than the 50 :]
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:I have a crop sensor It's even better on crop? :-)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:It's even better on crop? :-) +1 - Little tight, but as long as you're not trying to take indoor photos of groups of 10 people it's really not THAT big of a deal. It's a superb little lens.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Set your 17-50 to 40mm and walk around with it like that, and see if you like that focal length. Then do the same thing with the 17-50 set to 50mm. Buy the one you liked better, or if you didn't like being stuck at a single focal length, save the money and keep using your 17-50.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I did this with my 18-55 and the 50 prime. the 50 prime was much easier to get the shots i wanted with and it felt like it was doing something my other lens couldnt do (besides the much wider aperture). I took a picture on each from the same position and the 50 prime won out every time.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I've been super pleased with the 40mm on a crop sensor (SL1) as a newbie, fwiw. It has only felt too tight in a couple situations, otherwise it's quick and sharp, and makes casually carrying the camera around much easier than with the kit lens.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
I didn't find the 40 tight at all on a recent trip to Rome with my 7d. All I carried for that trip was the 10-22 and the 40 and didn't notice or get bothered by that focal range gap. What sold me on this lens over the nifty 50( other then the fact that I have a Sigma 50 f1.4(non art,))was the quality of construction on the 40mm vs the nifty 50. I just didn't want a lens with a noted glass jaw on a trip where if the lens went down I would have a big focal length hole.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
You guys have been helpful over the last year or so as I've upgraded my gear. I feel like I haven't lived up to my end of the bargain. Therefore, here are some pictures of cattes.Canon 6D Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC IMG_1297 IMG_1301and 70-200 VC  IMG_1321IMG_1297
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
What would a decent price be for a used XSi-range Canon body be? I've got a friend who's interested in photography and wants to come with me to some events but only has her camera phone, and dropping a tiny amount on a backup body wouldn't be a bad idea for me anyway. I'm set as far as lens' go for two people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:What would a decent price be for a used XSi-range Canon body be? I'd check completed sales on Ebay, but maybe $100?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Check on KEH, too. And depending on your budget, that could be a 30D or 40D too.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Got my 5D classic last week. Having a lot of fun with it! Amazing what moving to a full frame will do, it's like night and day from my t3i. I have the cheapo 50mm and a 40mm... any other lenses I should be keeping an eye out for portraits? Or am I good? I do some studio stuff and a lot of outdoors. No scenery or such, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I tend to shoot full-frame portraits with my 70-200 and end up in the 80-100mm range most of the time. Consider an 85mm f/1.8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Mt 85 1.8 is my favourite portrait lens. I sometimes use my 100 2.8, but 90% of the time it's my 85. I'd love a 1.2 someday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I like the 135/2 for portraits. The 85/1.8 is good too, but the CA is pretty bad when it's wide open. I'd kill for an 85/1.2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I like the 135/2 for portraits. The 85/1.8 is good too, but the CA is pretty bad when it's wide open. I'd kill for an 85/1.2. True, but CA is easily dealt with in post. Doesn't bother me much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Seconding 135/2. It's the best, buy it before Canon releases an IS version for 1,800$
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I'm planning on a big purchase later this summer and have settled on two lens I know I will get a lot of use out of, the MP-E 65mm and the 100mm f/2.8L IS. These two cover macro well enough of course, which is my main focus, and the 100mm is great for portraits, from my understanding. Question is, what's a good walk around lens? Is there an all-in-one that's around $800-1200 that I could be looking at? I'm currently using an APS-C body, but the only reason I can see myself upgrading would be to move to full frame, so that's not likely to happen right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I'm planning on a big purchase later this summer and have settled on two lens I know I will get a lot of use out of, the MP-E 65mm and the 100mm f/2.8L IS. Just to confirm, you know that the MP-E has a minimum magnification of 1:1 right? It can't be focused on anything farther than about 5 inches away. It's a bad rear end tool for macro but it's very special purpose. Another option that a general walk around may be the new 24-70 f/4. It has a surprisingly high max magnification. Like 1:0.45 as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I'm planning on a big purchase later this summer and have settled on two lens I know I will get a lot of use out of, the MP-E 65mm and the 100mm f/2.8L IS. These two cover macro well enough of course, which is my main focus, and the 100mm is great for portraits, from my understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Get the Canon 17-55/ 2.8 IS USM. It's a great walk around lens for APS-C
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
The 100mm won't be a very good portrait lens on APS-C unless you're either outside all the time or shooting in big enough rooms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Prime: Sigma 30mm 1.4 Zoom: Sigma 18-35 1.8
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
I upgraded to a 6d about a month ago and i can't believe how much it's made me love photography again - i take it everywhere! The only problem was i didn't have anything wider than 50mm, which i must admit wasn't nearly as constraining as i thought it would be. I had been looking around for deals on a walkaround zoom lens and just found a bgn grade 24-105fl f4 for $540 on keh! Now if i can just get a good deal on a cpl ill be set!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Just to confirm, you know that the MP-E has a minimum magnification of 1:1 right? It can't be focused on anything farther than about 5 inches away. It's a bad rear end tool for macro but it's very special purpose. Yes, I'm an amateur entomologist and am buying the 65 specifically for stacked macro shots. The 100mm would be more for in situ bug shots, and then portraits, etc. evil_bunnY posted:35/2IS or Sig 50 Art. Just one of those would really cover landscapes, candids, etc? I know they're well regarded lenses, but I want something to put on my camera for a "I don't know what's going to happen" kind of day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Some people don't like the idea of a prime being their walk around lens, but personally my default is my sigma 35A. If I know I need the range then I'll bring the 24-105L.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
85 1.8 should be one of those lenses all Canon owners look into, the quality is amazing for the price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Some people don't like the idea of a prime being their walk around lens, but personally my default is my sigma 35A. If I know I need the range then I'll bring the 24-105L. Same here with the Sigma, but I toss in a 135/2 in my bag too because it's really compact for a medium-long lens. Quantum of Phallus posted:85 1.8 should be one of those lenses all Canon owners look into, the quality is amazing for the price. The quality is also amazing for how tiny it is!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:85 1.8 should be one of those lenses all Canon owners look into, the quality is amazing for the price. I shot some portraits of coworkers for the company website using this lens, and I was amazed at how nice they turned out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Just one of those would really cover landscapes, candids, etc? I know they're well regarded lenses, but I want something to put on my camera for a "I don't know what's going to happen" kind of day. 35mm equivalent is a great "I don't know what's going to happen" FL. Wide enough for most amateur architecture or landscape type stuff, not so wide that portraits are impractical. I find it's possible to cover 95% of my shooting with 2 focal lengths, 3 tops. 28+50 equivalent or 35+105 or something along those lines. In Canon the obvious long lens is the 85mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Just one of those would really cover landscapes, candids, etc? I know they're well regarded lenses, but I want something to put on my camera for a "I don't know what's going to happen" kind of day. A used Tamron 17-50/2.8 is rarely a bad idea; when you move to a FF sensor sell it at no/little loss and grab a 24-70 VC. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I'd kill for an 85/1.2. Look into the Sigma 85 1.4. Its about half the price and just as sharp with much less purple fringing. Sigma is going to announce a new Art version later this year, too, so the used price should fall even more for the current version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
The 1.2 lenses have vanishingly small use cases. Just get the Sigmas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Get the 100mm f2
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:31
|
|
