michael_vassallo Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I am interested in a new lens and I can't decide which to get the 24-70mm f2.8 or the 70-200mm f2.8 I won't to shot full body pics of models with alot of background blur. This is someones work I like and would like to acheave something like. What lens do you think he uses the most. http://www.amaginations.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gluteal cleft Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Typically for models, you go to the telephoto end to "thin" them. However, that means that you have to have a lot of room to back up - especially if you want a full-body shot. So if you know that you'll always have the room, go for the 70-200. If you know that you won't always have room, and can only buy one lens, get the 24-70. If you can, get both, and you won't have to worry. steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob_napthine Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 G'day Mike! He's got some fantastic models on that site, huh? On his FAQ page there's an Ask Andy box, he seems like a straight up kind of bloke, I'm sure he'd answer you. But, that is how he works, how do you work? The shorter the focal length the closer you'd need to be. How comfortable are you getting that close vs longer tele = greater shooting distance. Oh hang on, I just thought about the closeness thing... Get a 14mm rectilinear :) OK, from the other POV, how close does the model feel comfortable with? What do you have already? Is what you've got no good? Considering they are both not inexpensive lenses, what about hiring both for a session with your model, then judge by what you like best. Maybe the model could give you feedback, too. Good luck mate. Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveish182 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Considered a decent prime lens? I guess you're using 35mm or full frame digital. You could get a 100mm f2 or 85mm f1.8 and have an extra stop or more of light and an even more out of focus background than with the other lenses. Also the quality of the lens should mean that you'll have a better image wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_vassallo Posted December 4, 2005 Author Share Posted December 4, 2005 Well to start I have a Canon EOS20D it came with a 18-55mm lens and I bought a Sigma 55-500mm for shoting pics of surfing. I must say I am not at all imprest with this lens it is to slow and 1 out of hundreds is sharp. But I guess you get what you pay for and I was afraid to reck a $4000.00 lens out on the beach all the time in the salt air. But back to what I want to do with this lens I would like to shot model on the beach and my girlfriend is a cheerleader for the Tampa Bay Bucs and I would like to shoot from on the field and there is not alot of room down there. Will both lenses give me the same blur or is one better then the other. PS. Thanks for all the advice so far this forum has been the most responsive so far. This is a pic of my girlfriend that another photographer took and he was on the field in front of her.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/11/29/gallery.cheerleaders/content.4.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob_napthine Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Hi Mike! Holy sh!t. That's your GF? You lucky bastard. :) I'm not a pro photographer, so my comments are only worth what you paid for them :) But, I'd get the 70-200mm and a Canon extension tube which will allow you to focus closer than the lens on its own. You might want to look at a 1.4X teleconverter if your budget allows. I don't use Canon, but from all the info available, you won't find these L-series lacking in any way. See if you can get your hands on a copy of Canon Lens Work III, The Eyes of EOS. It's a great book, even if you don't use Canon. If you've got the money, go for it, man. You've got a stunning model to work with and you can get on the infield. I gotta say, I envy you! A lot. We don't really have cheerleaders down here in Australia. It's a shame, it really is. Good luck mate. PS Please post some of your shots on photo.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengt_rehn Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Longer and faster lenses give more background blur, but a 70-200/2,8 on a Canon 20D means a angle of view corresponding to 112-320mm on a full frame SLR. I am afraid that such a narrow field of view will limit your possibilities more than the 24-70/2,8 would ( a lot of the pictures in the portfolio was in the 35-100mm range in full frame terms). I think a change to a full frame Camera like Canon 5D would be of great value for you since you will gain about 1,5 stops in blur effect compared to the 1,6x crop SLRs. I dont do this kind of photography myself so I hope that someone who actually does will give you more depht insight in this art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Why not consider a Tamron 2.8/28-75 and a Sigma 2.8/70-200? You can buy both lenses for the price of one Canon L and optically they are either almost as good or sligthly better, depending on who you believe. Mechanically the Canon's are much better but for amateur use it shouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 What is your budget? Do you have a tripod/monopod? Do you have a weight problem? What will be your typical distance from the subject? How big you want it to be in the frame? Is prime an option? Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_vassallo Posted December 5, 2005 Author Share Posted December 5, 2005 Well if I am on the field I will only have about 10feet to work with as far as distance from the subject. But the other shots I would like to do such as the ones on the beach I will have alot of room. So if I can only afford one lens can I do and get the same effects with the 24-70mm as I would the 70-200mm lens. I have considered the sigma lens but like I said I was not that impressed with the 55-500mm I bought so I was wanting to get somthing better but I can only get one. I wish canon website showed a better variety of pics with each lens they sell. Well I just dont know if that Sigma 24-70mm would make me happy or if I will be frustrated if they are not super sharp. There are a few more pics I took of Deanna on my web site plus pics I shot of surfing on the Gulf of Florida. www.surftribesurfboards.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_vassallo Posted December 5, 2005 Author Share Posted December 5, 2005 http://www.surftribesurfboards.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_vassallo Posted December 5, 2005 Author Share Posted December 5, 2005 I do have a tripod and a mono pod, weight is not any problem I dont mind a heavy lens. Well budget I can afford the 70-200mm f2.8is but that would be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_l__miami_ Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 I am in a similar situation. I would like to find a lense for taking photos of my girlfriend at the beach and when we travel abroad. I have an EF 28-135mm IS, but am considering selling it and upgrading to an L series lens. I am debating between the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or the 24-70mm f2.8L Also i heard that L series lenses might be TOO sharp because it shows too many blemishes on the face. is that true? I look forward to your advice! Thanks! 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