opinion needed

Hi!

 

I need some help or opinions about portrait lenses and consensus on a macro lens.

 

First: I need a portrait lens that will not cost me a fortune. I'm a serious photography enthusiast, but just

getting started. I have a Canon Rebel XTi. Can anyone tell me a decent lens to get for my camera, and not

expensive. I know in the future I will upgrade my lenses, but I want to work with them first to get a better

perspective and feel for the different types out there. I need a portrait lens now, I have a wedding coming up

in January, the couple (family) asked that I do their photos. But I can't afford a really good lens right now. It

doesn't matter if the lens is made by Canon or made by an after market brand, just as long as its decent enough

to work with, and give decent photos.

 

The second question is about a Macro lens someone is selling. Now I know when it comes to macro lenses, to get a

good one I'm looking at paying at least $1000-2000. Which I so do not have right now. The lens for sale is a

Tamron 70-300mm Di LD lens. Any thoughts on this one? Is it worth getting to play around with? Its selling for 160.

 

Thanks!

 

Lisa

-- "I need a portrait lens that will not cost me a fortune ... Rebel XTi"

 

Get the EF 50/1.8 (and if you can afford it get the EF 85/1.8 USM also).

 

-- "Now I know when it comes to macro lenses, to get a good one I'm looking at paying at least $1000-2000."

 

It depends on the type of dollars ... if you want a really good macro lens, don't buy a zoom lens. Buy a lens like the EF 100/2.8 macro USM, or the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. Both are excellent lenses. Both cost quite a bit below 1000$ (at least US$).

Hello Lisa,

 

You have more to consider here than I think you may realize.

 

#1 Portrait Lenses: Do a quick search here and you will get dozens of forum threads about inexpensive portrait

lenses, the most popular response being the Canon 50mm f 1.8 which sells for under 100.00 at B&H. However

depending on your situation sometimes a good zoom (one of the 70-200s) or even the 100mm macro lens is often

recommended for portraits.

 

#2 Macro Lenses: I don't have any experience with the zoom macros, but I did rent the Canon 100mm Macro this

summer and I cannot wait to make it a permanent part of my lens choices. It sells for under 500.00 at B&H.

 

#3 Things not considered: Saying yes to shoot a wedding when you seem to have no experience or equipment to do

so can go a couple of ways. You can get lucky and pull it off (Low percentage chance here) or you will take

this very special day of their lives and give them less then special photos to remember it by. I have no real

idea of your photo expertise, but given the questions and equipment listed and not listed above, you need to

consider a lot more than a portrait lens. Consider renting another body or two, you will likely need a flash,

extra memory cards, card reader and device for backing up photos is a good idea....You will hopefully get others

to add on here. I am not a wedding expert, but I do know that I did a wedding for a family member who had a

budget of zero dollars so I helped them out and I wish I would have just paid for a pro wedding photographer for

them instead. Even with two cameras, one with B&W film, one with Color,Me and another family member with phoot

experience (and she had a good eye for the artful shots) shooting, the results were less than spectacular. Even

if they told you they don't care, days, months, years from now they will wish they had better memories. If you

cannot say no, get your lenses and start practicing your shots. Think ahead of what you need to provide at a

minimum. Events during that day will get away from you in a hurry if you are not ready.

I don`t know what expensive is to you but have no problems doin weddings with a tamron 17 50 f2.8, also for economy the canon ef 50mm f2.5 macro is a gem for portraits as short tele and macro, but will need an attachment for 1:1 tho :)

My suggestion: get the Tamron 90mm Macro. A really good Macro Lens, and it would make a nice portrait lens too. It might be too long (for some) on a crop body, but I feel that it gives just enough distance to make your subjects feel comfortable with you clicking away.

Thank you Michael for your response.

 

"Saying yes to shoot a wedding when you seem to have no experience or equipment to do so can go a couple of ways. You can get lucky and pull it off (Low percentage chance here) or you will take this very special day of their lives and give them less then special photos to remember it by. I have no real idea of your photo expertise, but given the questions and equipment listed and not listed above, you need to consider a lot more than a portrait lens"

 

> The last thing I wanted, when posting this, was someone to look down on me upon their high horse. I do have experience enough not only with what I can produce with my camera as is, but with photography programs such as Photoshop CS3. The couple in question have viewed my portfolio, and are impressed enough with it, and my artistic eye, to ask me to do their wedding. I have also done engagement photos for another couple, who as well were impressed with the results. Because I may not have the best of equipment money can buy, does not mean I cannot produce photographs that stimulate the eyes and mind. Having a extra flash, memory cards, extra batteries are a natural give-in for which I have, but I did not mention them because they have no bearing on the question I was inquiring about. I would ask that you take caution when responding to posts, keep your personal sly insulting comments to yourself, nobody cares to read them. Because you are not confident in your results from said wedding shoot, does not mean I am. Perhaps you need to practice more and perhaps not think yourself a master who probably considers himself the next Leibovitz, Karsh or Ansel.

Thanks Rainer, Chris and Paulo for your responses!

Lisa, I am very sorry you took it that way as I was truly trying to be sincere and helpful. I am not a pro and have made my share of amateur mistakes and was only trying to help you\others possibly avoid the same mistakes. The forums are filled with beginners who overlook the little things (which is why I started with "I have no real idea of your expertise). I am very happy indeed that you do have both the ability and confidence to do a wedding that I now know I do not have (I will stick with wildlife). I am not knocking the equipment you have (the XTI is what I use too), I just made a bad assumption when I read the combination of XTI needing lenses for a family wedding and then seeing your page with no pictures posted. I wish you only the best.

Thank you. I did take what you wrote the wrong way. I just joined the site yesterday, which is why my page is empty. The portrait lens is what I am currently looking to get for the wedding, as I think it may help a little. The macro lens is not needed for the wedding for obvious reasons. I've got a good tripod, so I'm hoping that will help me out a little more in my shots, in relation to buying a cheaper portrait lens.

Hi Lisa, The above lens suggestions are all valid and of sufficient quality to be part of your gear for years to come.

Good image quality doesn't have to cost the earth, but you do need fast sharp glass. For the wedding you need to

source a back up camera. Since it is a family wedding see if you can find a guest with another Canon DSLR,

preferably an XTi that you can borrow in the unlikely event of Murphy resting on your shoulder. Have a spare charged

battery and cf cards and do some research on flashes, issues relating to depth of field and how to resolve camera

lock-ups. Try some practice sessions so you sort out camera settings (ISO, focus point selection, Av or Tv?, shutter

speeds, aperture settings, Raw or JPG?) before the day.. Look through some Bride and Wedding magazines in your

newsagent to get a few ideas. I have been in your position, it's not easy, but the results can turn out a lot better than

if the bride and groom rely on uncle Ted's point and shoot. Go for some candids, try to avoid long poses before the

shutter is pressed, don't be afraid of shooting in continuous or taking lots of pictures. Talk to the bride and groom

before the wedding to see what they would like, take a few informal portraits of them to see how it turns out. Finally

try spreading the burden a little by enlisting the help of another guest to also take shots. Best of luck. Neill

Lisa, Check out this thread for other portrait lens options: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00MlRH

Sorry Lisa, I may have also underestimated your ability. That 70-300 Tamron lens, I don't think it's true macro and possibly a bit soft, also slow for wedding use where the lighting is subdued. There is a quantum jump in quality between this lens and the two you should aspire to, a Canon 70-200 F4L or the Canon 70-300 IS (which is also slow). If the wedding, or the purpose for the lens is in bright daylight and you can shoot up around F8 it might be useful, but there are much better lenses around for more $s of course. Neill

And here is one on Macro lenses which often make good portrait lenses: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00MsgY

There's also a wedding forum on photo.net which includes lots of posts about "which lens".

Ef-S 60 f/2.8 will double as a macro (about as sharp as you can get and on a crop camera like you have) and it makes for an excellent portrait lens, $370 at Amazon. Does not focus quick as it is a macro lens, this is one of the most under rated lens but the reviews on it are excellent. Fredmiranda reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293&sort=7&cat=2&page=3 and at Photozone http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/162-canon-ef-s-60mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review

Kill two birds with one stone: Get the sigma 70mm DG macro f2.8. Effective focal length of 110 on your cam, perfick for

portraiture, also a 1:1 macro & it will work on a full frame body as well, the 90mm and 100mm will be a wee bit long once

the effect of cropping on an APS-C sensor is taken into account. You will be too far back when it comes to getting a

flattering composition, thereby creating too flat a perspective.

 

The 70mm has a focus limiter to speed things up either side of the limiter, works well on the infinity side of the limiter, for

macro shots you really want to be using manual focus.

I agree with Paul, PopPhoto gave the Sigma 70 DG f/2.8 Macro one heck of a rating...

"The Sigma is one of only a handful of lenses today that pulls down SQF numbers within the 90th percentile all the

way out to our maximum magnification (20x24 inches)."

Have a good one JoeR

Lisa, before you haul off and get snitty about the responses, you have to recognize that your original post did

not exactly mark you off as a "gearhead." Macros, very good ones, are certainly available for much less than

US$1000. You confuse real macro (defined as 1:1 ability) with so-called "macro" zooms that are really just close

focusing lenses. Your camera is fine, but an entry-level one and you admit you are just getting started. It's

also chancy to shoot a wedding without a backup for equipment failure, rare as that may be.

 

That being said, any decent 18 to 55 sort of zoom will provide a good range - the catch is that most of these are

fairly slow lenses. To get f/2.8 or better does put you into the $1000 and up range, alas. The cheapest

alternative is the 50mm f/1.8 "plastic fantastic" mentioned above. On your camera this is a nice portrait lens,

and you can use "sneaker zoom". If you are shooting during the service and the service is indoors, this may do it

with a judicious use of higher ISO.Taken together with the 18-55mm kit lens you probably already have, this will

do the job. Even the older kit lens will do ok if the light levels are high enough to allow you to shoot stopped

down somewhat. The newer kit lens with image stabilization would be much better and that lens is also very

reasonably prices and has reported good IQ.

Good morning JDM and happy thanksgiving. I appreciate that you have my back here, but Lisa and I have worked it out, and I think we're ok. Let's not get the thread closed over some misunderstandings over a phrase or two that could have been better stated. It contains some useful information that may help Lisa and others. Thanks for being there and thanks for adding some useful info on a thankful day.

Well, the thread asked for opinions... there are certainly a lot of them! I would advise against (I think other posters have already said as much) the close-focusing zooms as a macro. Get the 100mm macro (I have and like) or another such lens. Consider having on-hand a second camera body as a back up (rental if you're not ready to buy and can't borrow). If your main camera goes fritz, the wedding party can't just come back some other time. I do like the 24-70L for a portrait lens though... fast but bulky. A nice all around lens.

Lisa, I would suggest thet whichever lens you choose, ask the couple to bear the expense. Afterall, your effort is valuable family or not.

70-300 zooms made by Tamron and Sigma are labelled "macro", but in reality they only allow close focusing. They are not true macro lenses. Expect mediocre performance, especially in low light.

 

True macro primes include Sigma 50/2.8, Canon 60/2.8, Sigma 70/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Tokina 100/2.8, Canon 100/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8. All are stupidly sharp and they make wonderful portrait lenses. AF can be slow (especially with the off-brand lenses) and they are best used for posed portraits, rather than moving subjects (candids, wedding). The Sigmas are inexpensive, and the Tamron has a $90 mail-in rebate right now.

 

Canon makes some wonderful primes for portraiture: Canon 50/1.8, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2. These are very fast, very sharp, very contrasty, yet very affordable lenses. Bokeh is awesome and dof can be very thin when shot wide open. I love my 85/1.8. Sigma's offerings are 30/1.4 and 50/1.4. Canon's spendier primes are 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/2.

 

Be aware that 70-200 zooms are pretty long on APSC gear. That said, Canon's 70-200 zooms (f/2.8 or f/4, IS or no IS, pick your flavor) offer superb image quality. Be sure to check out Tokina 50-135/2.8 and Sigma 50-150/2.8. These latter two zooms offer f/2.8 speed and focal lengths more amenable to portraiture with APSC gear.

p.s<P>

I just read <I>Now I know when it comes to macro lenses, to get a good one I'm looking at paying at least $1000-

2000</i><P>The macro lenses I listed above sell for $250-$550 new. They are the best money can buy.

Tamron 90mm macro. It's good for macro and portraits. It's a focal length (and a lens) that I like for tight portraits with my 20D. It's a little long for portraits that show the subject in their environment, though. If that is what you are after, Sigma 50mm or 70mm macro would be a good choice. All these lenses are f/2.8, affordable, and optically superb.

 

I would not buy the Tamron 70-300 if I were you. As others have said, it is not really a macro lens and it does not have a wider enough aperture to separate your portrait subject from the (out-of-focus) background.

The 85/1.8 is a wonderful lens for portraits or almost anything else. The 85/1.2 L II is even better, but it's almost USD 2,000.00 new. It does give you the look of a 135 mm lens on full frame on cameras like yours, but the build quality and the AF system are much better than the 50/1.4.

 

Of the various 70-75-100 to 200-300 zooms out there at the moment, the Tamron 70-200/2.8 might be a very good choice. It's very sharp, lighter weight than others in its class and focues down to about three feet. That's no real macro lens, but it's closer than any of its competitors. The AF isn't that fast but it's otherwise quite good.It's about USD 700.00 new.