Charlie-CNP wrote:
If you want something sharp that is good for all around, I might suggest adding a 35mm prime lens to your collection. Your T2i is technically a camera with a crop sensor (multiply the focal length by 1.6 on that body to get the actual focal length). So for instance a 35mm lens would equivelate to a 56mm lens with the crop factor. A 50mm focal length is technically good for all around shooting if you are not doing this full time. If you got an 85mm lens as you mention, on a crop sensor that would be a 136mm lens. The longer the focal length that you go, the more compression the image experiences..etc.  Good glass is also much more worth it than upgrades of the camera body most of the time, and with a 35mm lens with your current camera body, you wouldn't break the bank either.

Also, on the note of zooms, I tend to stay away from them as they can have soft focus issues, barrel distortion..etc. You won't really get worthy zooms until you get into the L glass for Canon which can cost you much more than it is worth if you are not a full time shooter using the lens regularly. good luck

Thank you for mentioning the cropped sensor! Sensor size is something I learned about recently, which is odd to me that somehow I'd never heard of it before now. But I'm glad I did before purchasing the 85mm and suddenly being able to view molecules when I only expected a moderately tight frame.

That being said, is the 60mm lens I have is an EF-S lens. Does this mean it's calibrated for a crop sensor camera to work as a 60mm? Or is it behaving like a 96mm right now and I just never noticed because I've never viewed it through a full frame camera? (Though I hear EF-S lenses aren't compatible with full frame cameras, so I'm guessing it's calibrated for mine).

Maybe I'll wait until I can upgrade to a full frame sensor before I start selecting primes based on their specific focal length.

The 24-105mm in an L series lens that I can afford, so that of course sweetens the deal significantly. Some reviews talking about significant distortion and less than sharp images have me a little worried though. I'm a sharpness snob and I'd like to produce the sharpest portraits and head shots possible. Is this lens completely not ideal for portraits?

Kelsey Bullock Retouch wrote:
The 24-105mm in an L series lens that I can afford, so that of course sweetens the deal significantly. Some reviews talking about significant distortion and less than sharp images have me a little worried though. I'm a sharpness snob and I'd like to produce the sharpest portraits and head shots possible. Is this lens completely not ideal for portraits?

I think this lens if you have limited funds is a good deal & will work well for portraits when used in the right conditions ie: lighting & camera settings.

Seismic Images wrote:
Some like zooms, some like primes.

I think the 50 f/1.4 or 85 1.8 are good lenses at reasonable price, but so are half a dozen other lenses people have mentioned.

I quite agree. The EF 50 f1.4 and the EF 85 f1.8 are brilliant lenses, and are particularly effective as a pair if you are shooting with one of the cropped sensor Canons such as my EOS 7D. The 85 f1.8 also gets a lot of use on my full frame Canon 5D Mark II.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 330139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Kelsey Bullock Retouch wrote:
Hi everyone!

I am working with a Canon T2i (yes, I know I'm due for an upgrade, but it's doing well by me for now), and I'm looking for another lens to add to my slowly growing collection. I'm currently working with a Canon 60mm f/2.8 USM macro and (rarely and only when I desperately need to pan back and include the whole scene) the 18-55 kit lens.

I've dabbled a few different kinds of photography, but my current focus is portrait/headshot photography, dance rehearsal and performance photography and the occasional walk around street photography. I am not a professional, but have potential to become so. Because of this my budget is low, and I'm looking for something under $1,000.

I want something very sharp with a lower focal distance than 60mm, because sometimes indoors I can't fit the whole subject in the frame (especially at dance rehearsals). My idea for now was to purchase one 85mm f/1.8 to satisfy my need for an upgraded portrait lens, and one 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens as my very sharp walk around lens. The resolution on my T2i is good enough for cropping, so would that ability compensate for any desire to have a zoom? Or should I go back to my original idea for a lens purchase which was the 24-105mm L series zoom, which gives me the focal length freedom but isn't nearly as sharp?

Any info is greatly appreciated. Thank you so much, everyone!

First things first, forget about a budget when it comes to a lens.  Save up for a bit longer if it's more expensive than what you currently have.  With that said, pick the lens that will do the job you need to get done.  What size is that?  What aperture is that?  Only you can answer that, nobody here can really.  I bet there is a photographer here on MM that has had a great experience and another with a horrible experience with every single lens out there.  I don't know what you primarily do as far as photography, so I can't speak as to which particular lens you should get.  But you know what you do, you know what kind of speed you need, and you know better than everybody.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that whoever responds here with a particular lens is trying to help you out.

afplcc wrote:
3.  The advice not to skimp on your glass is something you can take to the bank.  Don't be ashamed of the body you're using or apologize for it.  Quality glass trumps body almost every time when it comes to importance is shaping the shot or producing a quality result.  Buy the best lens you can afford.

Definitely agree. Here's a good youtube video on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

Warrenjrphotography wrote:
Don't waste your money on lenses. Spend your money on more lighting equipment and books.

I got caught in the same trap as you early on with the whole sharpness craze and prime lens non sense.

I now use a simple but very effective kit of two cheap zoom lenses which are the canon 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS.

I could not tell the difference image quality wise between the 85 1.8 and my kit lenses even after using exclusively the 85 1.8 paired with an 18-55 for 3 months on a crop body.

Having an effective focal range of 28mm to 400mm gives you way more versatile than any of these over priced prime lenses and your photos won't end up having the same perspective to them which primes are known for thanks to their fixed focal length.

I guess all the owners of high grade lenses are all shmucks and delude themselves into thinking L glass is better. Whatever

Warrenjrphotography wrote:
Don't waste your money on lenses. Spend your money on more lighting equipment and books.

I got caught in the same trap as you early on with the whole sharpness craze and prime lens non sense.

I now use a simple but very effective kit of two cheap zoom lenses which are the canon 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS.

I could not tell the difference image quality wise between the 85 1.8 and my kit lenses even after using exclusively the 85 1.8 paired with an 18-55 for 3 months on a crop body.

Having an effective focal range of 28mm to 400mm gives you way more versatile than any of these over priced prime lenses and your photos won't end up having the same perspective to them which primes are known for thanks to their fixed focal length.

I too have an extensive collection of photography and art books.  But if you learn best by books (as opposed to mentoring or workshops or video), there's always the library.  If the public library doesn't have a good selection (and inter-library loan isn't an option) than walk in to the nearest University library (especially if they've got a visual arts program).  You won't be able to check anything out but you can pull it off the stacks and read it.

Lighting equipment?  Depends upon what you're shooting.  Lighting lends itself to a lot of DIY options.

I still stand by my initial position that good glass trumps the importance of the camera body for most work.  Can you get good results with a kit lens or even a used off-brand lens?  Of course you can.  Hell, a good photographer can produce amazing work with a homemade pinhole camera.  But try shooting good work in a sports venue with overhead lighting or at night under the lights while the subject is at a distance without a professional quality telephoto or zoom.  Try shooting in venues where (clubs, performances, sports, street photography, museums or galleries) where you can't bring in your own light...you're stuck with the on-site lighting.  I agree that it's useful to invest in lighting.  But I think you undervalue the impact of good glass.

Ed

the lonely photographer wrote:

I guess all the owners of high grade lenses are all shmucks and delude themselves into thinking L glass is better. Whatever

No the L glass is better as in it's faster and offers higher quality but they can actually afford it.

I can promise you that most could not tell the difference between a photo taken with the kit lens and an L lens with around 10-20 photos shown taken from someones portfolio that used both lenses for their photos.

Scott Kelby is going to produce Scott Kelby photos no manner what camera or lens that he's using. That's another thing to keep in mind when talking about gear.

afplcc wrote:
I too have an extensive collection of photography and art books.  But if you learn best by books (as opposed to mentoring or workshops or video), there's always the library.  If the public library doesn't have a good selection (and inter-library loan isn't an option) than walk in to the nearest University library (especially if they've got a visual arts program).  You won't be able to check anything out but you can pull it off the stacks and read it.

Lighting equipment?  Depends upon what you're shooting.  Lighting lends itself to a lot of DIY options.

I still stand by my initial position that good glass trumps the importance of the camera body for most work.  Can you get good results with a kit lens or even a used off-brand lens?  Of course you can.  Hell, a good photographer can produce amazing work with a homemade pinhole camera.  But try shooting good work in a sports venue with overhead lighting or at night under the lights while the subject is at a distance without a professional quality telephoto or zoom.  Try shooting in venues where (clubs, performances, sports, street photography, museums or galleries) where you can't bring in your own light...you're stuck with the on-site lighting.  I agree that it's useful to invest in lighting.  But I think you undervalue the impact of good glass.

Ed

This is a portrait based website, forum, and discussion. The OP never mentioned that he's going to need fast lenses to shoot sport venues.

Anyways, when shooting in ideal lighting the difference in quality between lenses is minimal and you will notice the biggest change in quality when it comes down to your lighting.

You can make your photos look 3 dimensional and add a lot of depth and pop to your photos with good lighting but a good lens and not good lighting won't give you that.

So I still think that investing in better lighting and into a website such as kelbytraining and/or books & lectures while shooting as much as possible and upgrading your light will be anyones best bet.

Sure, the more expensive lenses are great but in my opinion should be reserved for those that are professionals, have the money, and are at the pinnacle of their ability.

But basically doing something as small as getting a $70 Yungnuo 560II speedlite, a softbox or light stand to use your flash off camera, and adding in a rim light and using this setup outside or indoors will give you a larger increase in image quality, dimension, and options than any $2,000 lens will give you or really any lens for that manner.

Like I said, I started out as the OP. I ended up getting the 50 1.8 first. Didn't notice much of a difference between my kit lens.

Once that I started to get into off camera lighting and bought and used my first umbrella and speedlight that's when I noticed the biggest jump in image quality.

Next, I got a 17-55 2.8, I didn't see the difference in quality there either.

I then bought the 85 1.8, while having nice bokeh capability's I also did not see much of a difference.

I finally just sold the 85 1.8, bought a 55-250 & 18-55 and now stick with that set up and have continued to upgrade my lighting and I still see the biggest jump in image quality when it comes to learning and using your lighting equipment properly and adding in accent lights while also learning PP skills that also increase the quality of your photos.

The lens used comes last in my book.

Warrenjrphotography wrote:
This is a portrait based website, forum, and discussion. The OP never mentioned that he's going to need fast lenses to shoot sport venues.

(snip)

People can have differences of opinion on things.  I happen to disagree with you.  But you're being just a little bit snarky in your disagreement with me.

1.  The OP indicated that she (not he) shot a range of things in her initial post (including some stuff that you seem to believe is inappropriate for this website, forum and discussion).  This is a photography forum.  While the most common denominator is that the work discussed here involves models, there are plenty of discussions that come up regarding photojournalism, landscapes, sportswear, street photography, bodyscapes, and fetish concepts and themes that a lot of people would say aren't always about portraiture.  The OP specifically mentioned "dance."  If that means shooting ballet during a performance, that's even more challenging than shooting on an NFL sideline or in an NBA arena when it comes to light.

2.  I'm glad you've had success playing with lighting as a way to shape your results.  The OP did specifically ask about zoom vs. prime.  Fine, your argument that it's the wrong question is a legitimate one to raise.  But to then get snarky b/c I point out there are some instances where you're not in studio or can't use speed lights, or some instances where a kit lens won't cut it is to make this personal rather than focus on the OP and her question.

Ed

Kelsey Bullock Retouch wrote:
Some really interesting discussion going on here!

OP here (and I'm a lady, by the way!)

Just checked out several different lenses at Samy's. Actually ended coming home with a 40mm f/2.8 pancake because it was on sale from $199 down to $150, and since I was considering getting it before I took it as a sign that I was meant to purchase it now! Really versatile, good DOF and super sharp, just so y'all know! I'm planning on doing a few self portraits tonight to get a good feel of its portrait capabilities!

I think I've decided on the 24-105mm L f/4. The f/4 doesn't really bother me and is enough to create a nice smooth blur. Seems sharp enough, though I didn't get to test in the most ideal light conditions of the shop.

I also tried the ABSOLUTELY STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS 85mm f/1.2 ii. The most beautiful lens I've ever seen in my life. Pictures don't do it justice, and its shots are absolutely spectacular. Most definitely going on my long term wish list. If you can afford the $2,000(?) it costs and you're into portraiture, you have to get it. Plus your subjects will love looking into that stunning orb of glass at the front.

There was also a Tamron kit lens of a standard vocal length (17-55 or something like that) that was pretty good that I tried. Pictures were sharp, but the autofocus sound was irritating.

Hope this helps anybody else looking for lenses!

Sinc you're in L.A...and have the advantage of Samys Camera (damn I miss them)...rent the 100 f2.  You'll love what it can do and it's VERY affordable