marshall_dackert Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 a couple of questions really... i am about to purchase a 20D, up-grading from a minolta dimage 7i, and i'm wondering if i should skip the kit lens and purchase others. i'm currently looking at getting a canon 50mm 1.8 and then mulling over either a sigma 24-70 2.8 or the canon 100mm f2. here's the kicker... i need a lens that will take shots of my paintings without the distortion im getting from the minolta (paintings are upwards of 5 ft) and i am also doing some still studio work shooting books for a publishing co. for brochures etc. i also love portraits, macro and the general walk-around (i have not done this stuff professionally) any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sallis Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I would recommend going with the Canon primes if you're after low distortion and high quality for copy work. The 50 1.8 should do for the larger paintings, but maybe you should consider the 100mm 2.8 macro instead of the f2 for the books (and if your into macro anyway). You may find that it is better for copy work as macro lenses are usually very well corrected for distortion and other aberrations, particularly close up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkbmac Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 The 50 1.8 would work fine for the copy work. It focuses close, and doesn't have the distortion a wider lens would give you. You'll need a little owrking distance to get the entire 5' of painting in there. I would keeep the kit lens for a general walk around lens. If you get a good sample, it will be plenty sharp for most of your general walk around and portrait stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto_de_la_torre Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I have a 20D, and I tried an EF 16-35 f/2.8L ans well as 28 to 70.The EF 16-28 with the 1.6 20D magnification factor work as ~27- ~55mm; and the EF 28-70 like ~45-112mm. If L lenses canon are too expensive; try Sigma or Tamron they also have a very good quality lenses f/2.8 at all ranges. If you want image stabilizing there is a lens from Canon that covers your ranges EF-S 17-85 4/5.6 IS. That with the amplification factor you get the equivalent to ~28-135mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkbmac Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 When doing copy work Sharpness is crucial. That is why I suggested the 50 1.8. I'm sorry, but the lenses you just suggested, while they have the "L" tag on them aren't as suited for copy work as the prime lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshall_dackert Posted January 9, 2005 Author Share Posted January 9, 2005 thanks all, looks like the 50mm will work for me... the other lenses, 100mm and the 24 -70 sigma were just general lenses for the non-document shots. i can't afford the L lenses yet and can't see myself purchasing them until my income from photography increases. i love the idea of the sigma zoom but i've heard great reviews of the canon prime, so i flounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 For what you want to do, the EF50/1.8 MK2 may do the job but you may also want to consider the EF50mm/2.5. It has a flater field and lower distortion for copying purpose. You may also find it's manual focus works better too. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I think 100mm is too long a focal length if you're trying to capture 5ft wide paintings. Much better to go with 50mm, though on a 20D this will also be fairly long for that kind of work - you'd need to be 12 ft away. The regular 50mm f/1.8 lens does exhibit some mild barrel distortion that would be noticeable with a picture frame at the edge of the image, so a macro lens would be better. Consider the Canon compact macro 50mm f/2.5 or the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG. You could also consider using PTLens, a part of the Panorama Tools software suite for correcting image distortion, particularly if you decide you need to use a wider prime - e.g. 35mm f/2 to capture your larger paintings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Get a macro lens. Any would do. These are much better than ANY ZOOM (L's included) simply because they are designed to do flat-field copy work. The 100's are better, simply because they would allow you to step back-- and thus light your work more evenly. These lenses do NOT distort at all, and are optimized for close up work (most lenses are optimized for infinity). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_lee2 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I say to buy the kit with the lens, and if the lens isnt up to par, you can always sell the lens afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 <p> <i>I would recommend going with the Canon primes if you're after low distortion and high quality for copy work. </i> </p> <p> I would recommend going with the Canon primes if you're after high quality (in general) and if your budget is low. The <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Sigma</a> 50/2.8 macro is <a href="http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">optically excellent</a> but so is the <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm">Canon 50/2.5</a>, which is also known for low distortion. </p> <p>On the zoom side, as far as I understand the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is possibly the best 3rd party mid-range zoom. It's a very good lens. A friend of mine uses it on the EOS3. He says it is very good. He tested it against the 28-70/2.8 USM L and says the results are very close. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008T9j">Here</a> is a user which compared it to the 1300$ 24-70/2.8 USM L and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008SgU">here</a> is a comparison to the 1600$ 70-200/2.8 USM L IS. If you ask me, it has <b>very</b> impressive performance for a 370$ lens. If I were in a market for such a lens I'd get this one.<p> <p>Happy shooting, <br> Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now