login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > prime vs. zoom? choosing new lens and need help! Search   Reply
Retoucher
Kelsey Bullock CS4
Posts: 119
Los Angeles, California, US


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!
May 19 13 09:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,474
Fullerton, California, US


Moderator Note!
Moved to Photography forum.
May 19 13 10:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charlie-CNP
Posts: 2,471
New York, New York, US


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
May 19 13 10:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,829
Eugene, Oregon, US


24-105 f4 IS.

A little over $1000 at $1149 at B & H.

I have used this lens working for a famous dance photographer.

He has 4 of them and all are very sharp and fast to focus.  He uses it on both his full frame and crop bodies.

My own is the 24-120 f4 in Nikon version which is also very sharp and works well for me on crop bodies.
May 19 13 11:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,037
Sisters, Oregon, US


Don't "foof" your money away on a low budget or off brand lens. Save till you can afford an "L" series lens if you are sticking w/Canon. Your lenses are an investment that will last years and hold value. The 24-70 L lens is a fabulous lens. If you want a prime for the described use, a 35mm L as fast as you can afford should work well and last a very long time -long after you've been through several bodies. You will likely move to full frame in your next body upgrade and you won't have to "upgrade" L lenses.

My 2cents worth.
May 19 13 11:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,037
Sisters, Oregon, US


Sorry, DP
May 19 13 11:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 1,810
Beverly Hills, California, US


don't let the equipment nazi's beat you up over the T2i, I got a lot of shit about how entry level it is. when I compared it to a 7D a lot of 7D owners had a fit over it. The truth is  the 7D and the T2i have similar guts,  though the Af is supposedly better on the 7D... possibly. I have 2 7D's now   because of the feature set and WFT available.  complicated as hell to configure, and the instructions from Canon are cryptic as well. I shoot pageants,  like you I have trouble getting the stage all in, with all the know it alls dispensing advice about FF vs cropped, and how the crop gives you more reach,  its bull.  I have a 24-70mm 2.8 L.   it's closer to a 35mm in FOV, not enough to get all the stage in.  unless I walk back a few rows  in the auditorium.   NOT always possible. There are EF-s lenses built for the cropped sensors  that will do a decent job, I dunno if you are planning to upgrade later on. those lens choices you suggested won't give you much FOV if you are too close. I would suggest the 24-70mm V1  it  might just be a tad over your budget, but it's the most useful range.
I still shoot with my T2i   why?  because of weight.   all that crap in the bag adds up fast, especially that 70-200mm 2.8L IS  II, and other stuff,  you'd have to be the  HULK to lug it around. When you get old  and your hands get crampy from a heavy ass camera, its stops being fun. Spend the money on some good lenses.
May 19 13 11:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Kelsey Bullock CS4
Posts: 119
Los Angeles, California, US


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?

May 19 13 11:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Barnes Photography
Posts: 202
Palmerston North, Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand


One trick is to see if you can rent lenses from somewhere locally - then you can go into the place and try them out and rent one for a day if you think it's the one you want. Then you can hammer it on subjects and lighting conditions you will use it for and see if it is suitable before you slap down too much on a lens.

I use primes generally for MM stuff, but the lens I leave on my main camera when I put it away is an 18-200mm because of its flexibility.
May 19 13 11:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Images by MR
Posts: 7,292
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


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.

May 19 13 11:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,829
Eugene, Oregon, US


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?at … 4261208183 has 1357 reviews of this lens and is rated with 5 stars.
May 20 13 01:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Southern Oregon Photo
Posts: 197
Klamath Falls, Oregon, US


I would suggest the 24-105 L. It will give you a wider angle and a good reach with the crop sensor. It is very sharp and the IS will make a difference with camera shake
May 20 13 01:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 1,926
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom


Keep the camera you already have.

Get the Canon 85/1.8 - perfect for headshots.

Find a copy of the old model Canon 35mm/2.0 - you'll probably have to buy used, but it should be under $200 - filter size is 52mm. Brilliant little walk-around lens on either a crop frame or full frame camera. prints well up to A2 (17"x22"). Both my kids have this lens (on a 20d and a 30D). I'm using a 35/1.4L on a 5D3 body - but I'll happily borrow a 35/2.0 from them when I want a small light lens.
May 20 13 02:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
digitalpixshb
Posts: 105
Napier, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand


canon EF 17-40 L lens i have one on a crop camera and love it sharp as[ Arthur st john shoots with one on a crop frame] and i also have the 60mm   efs lens and love it it sharp as too
May 20 13 02:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris David Photography
Posts: 373
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


I own a 24-70 2.8L and 24-105 4.0L IS and while both lens were out of action getting fixed I had event shoots that week and I ended buying a $650 Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 EX DC OS HSM to use with a 60D for that meantime (Sigma are confusing with their naming system). The lens was sharp and performed surprisingly well -far better then what I was expecting - Its my first time buy a third party lens and definately won't be the last.
The 60D is my secondary camera and I use a Canon 1Dsmk3 as my primary. This lens will only work on crop cameras and has approx 27mm-80mm range which falls on the standard zoom range. Shooting wide open at f2.8 paired with image stabilizer (OS) gives good usability for event work and half the price of Canons competitor.
On a price over performance comparison its hard to beat.
May 20 13 03:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Seismic Images
Posts: 500
Morisset, New South Wales, Australia


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.
May 20 13 03:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
kane
Posts: 1,481
Tarnos, Aquitaine, France


IMHO, the best bang for the buck in this focal length is a used 28-70 2.8L.  You can get them for about $700-800.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … eview.aspx
May 20 13 04:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Fisher
Posts: 1,776
Miami Beach, Florida, US


http://www.johnfisher.com/images/1tami5061fs.jpg
Tami Donaldson, catalog image shot with the EF 85 f1.8 on a cropped sensor Canon camera.

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

May 20 13 04:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 1,944
Charlotte, North Carolina, US


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.

May 20 13 06:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
redbanana
Posts: 775
Lexington, Kentucky, US


I don't shoot canon but I would suggest primes as much as you can until you need a zoom. It's been my experience that zooms tend to need services for recalibrating much sooner than a prime. When it comes to third party lens ill agree that most are junk but there are some nice little gems out there. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is one that has proven to be just as good or maybe a little better than any other 35mm 1.4 on the market. At the $900 price tag it pushes past all the rest with the performance to back up your choice.
May 20 13 06:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


On a crop sensor camera like the T2i the EF 24-105 f/4L is a great general purpose lens.

May 20 13 06:55 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 5,956
Fairfax, Virginia, US


I don't shoot Canon so my advice will be more general (but I think it applies none-the-less).

Your thread header was prime vs. zoom.  The answer is...it depends upon what type of shooting you want to do.

1.  If you're going to do a lot of candid street photography or sports or wildlife than you've gotta get a zoom.  You can't tell the Blue Heron to stand still so you can get 30 feet closer.  Or freeze the play so you can run to the endzone and shoot the catch.  Weddings and photojournalism:  you get two bodies (with a different lens on each).

2.  Although zooms are popular for bokeh with portraits and boudoir, you can also achieve that result with a wider aperture on a prime.  My personal experience is:  I tend to put a prime on my body and stick with it.  If I want to get closer or further away, I either use my feet or I crop post-production.  It's really hard to beat the inherent sharpness of a good prime lens.  So for a range of photography (including product photography) you'll benefit from a prime.

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.

Ed
May 20 13 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phantasmal Images
Posts: 515
Boston, Massachusetts, US


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

May 20 13 03:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charlie-CNP
Posts: 2,471
New York, New York, US


OP: if you want to test lenses before purchasing, check out lensrentals.com. I can tell you from my personal experience that I prefer primes to zooms for sharpness and clarity. I also enjoy them because they make me focus more on composition and making the image vs. zooming in from a million yards away to get the shot. This comes in handy when you want say an 85mm shot to be an 85mm shot when you upgrade to full frame, or a 50mm shot to be a 50mm shot..etc.
May 20 13 03:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Kelsey Bullock CS4
Posts: 119
Los Angeles, California, US


These are some really amazing responses, everyone. Thank you so much for taking the time to help me out! I'm going to venture out to Samy's tomorrow to test some out for myself, so hopefully that will help me decide along with your tips!
May 20 13 08:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Warrenjrphotography
Posts: 67
Hammonton, New Jersey, US


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.
May 20 13 11:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 1,810
Beverly Hills, California, US


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

May 20 13 11:25 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 5,830
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Personal suggestion for $1,000 lens budget and a T2i (the camera I used until very recently)

Tamron 17-50/2.8 - $300, sell your 18-55 IS for $100ish, for a total cost of $200
                           they cover the same range and the tamron kicks the shit out of
                           the kit 18-55

50mm 1.4 - $250 - great for portraits on a crop camera, though your 60 fits this range
                so it's either keep the 60, or sell the 60, get this, and add $100 to your
                budget

100/2 - $300

70-200/4L non IS - $500


If you don't need macro of the 60mm... Sell it, and use the 50/1.4 instead. If you do, don't get the 50, and get the other 3 lenses. All in all, four very solid lenses, within your budget.
May 20 13 11:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Will Snizek Photography
Posts: 1,386
Beckley, West Virginia, US


Technical capabilities of lenses aside, I personally like to work with only prime lenses.  I think I pay more attention to the subject and what I'm doing with prime lenses.  It is nice to keep a zoom lens around though for when you're not sure exactly what you'll be doing though.
May 21 13 12:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 5,956
Fairfax, Virginia, US


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

May 21 13 07:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Warrenjrphotography
Posts: 67
Hammonton, New Jersey, US


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.

May 21 13 11:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Warrenjrphotography
Posts: 67
Hammonton, New Jersey, US


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.

May 21 13 11:35 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Kelsey Bullock CS4
Posts: 119
Los Angeles, California, US


Some really interesting discussion going on here!

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

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!
May 21 13 08:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 5,956
Fairfax, Virginia, US


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

May 22 13 02:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
j3_photo
Posts: 19,849
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


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

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

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 big_smile

May 22 13 03:10 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers