rafael_azofeifa Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Hello, I'm about to buy a Canon 30D and I'm looking for lenses. I'd like to shootmostly people. Indoors and outdoors. Portraits and full body. I've seen that LCanon lenses are rated as extremely good but very expensive, but I also see thatSigma has lower cost lenses and are very good too. Some of the questions I have (I'm not asking for answers to all of them but Iask them so you can know how much I know and where do I stand, as an example):- Do I need to go for a f1.2 or f1.8 in order to have better blured backgrounds,or do I need a telephoto?- Has anyone taken pictures from both Canon and Sigma, see the results and say"I see the difference in quality"?- Which would be a good place to start for less than $1000 or even lower?- I'm no pro but I wouldn't like to buy lenses that will make me later think"why didn't I ask for quality instead of this cheap thing"?- Is Sigma that bad compared to the L line of Canon?- Would it be better to save a bit more and buy 3 different lenses for differentthings?- Does Image Stabilization really makes a difference?- Should I be worried of buying lenses for just the 30D so after I change thebody I'd have to get rid of them?- etc. I tried to make a lot of questions just as a guide (I didn't do it in a forumand I got a lot of "that depends" and "but why do you.." so I better limit myposition well using questions so you see what I don't know). The main question would be: If you had to choose a lens (or more) for picturesof people (indoors, out, faces, bodies) in a not very expensive lens and highquality pictures, what would it (or they) be and why? Thank you very much. Rafael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philg Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 http://www.photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/ talks about this to some extent. A Sigma 30/1.4 would be a good start. You could add a Canon 85/1.8 for portraits. Together these would cost less than $1000 and cover 95% of portrait challenges. You don't need a a Canon L lens to get high quality; a prime (non-zoom) lens from either Canon or Sigma should be quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 KEH currently has a 50/1.8 MK1 (the more solidly built version then the MK2) for $99. If you act fast, it could be yours. There are not too many lens that could beat this one at this price or much higher price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_foale Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Hello Rafael. Avoid over cheap lenses. This year I bought a second hand 10D with a Sigma 28-300 lens, cheap and covers all ranges. But I've saved up my pennies and switched to a Canon 70-300 IS (hard to get hold of in the UK - I've waited 2 months). Having tried it for 2 days I've ordered the 28-135 IS to cover the rest of the range. Even when hand held it's far sharper than the Sigma on a tripod! But it is a lot bigger and heavier to carry around. Would IS be a better option than a cheaper fast lens in your situation? There are arguments for and against. As I mostly photograph landscapes and wildlife my requirements are a bit different from yours, so I suggest that you also look at 'Is IS really worth it' about 6 items ahead of this where there is a lot of information. Hope I've helped a little. Geoff. 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