vadtel Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hi guys. Need your advice here. I already have equip. mentioned above plus 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. What is your opinion: do I need to add either EF 28 1.8 or EF 35 2.0 in case going wider (I have only 24-70, which is 2.8; extra stop means ISO 800-1600 or even-3200 difference)? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulletsalvador Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 wow the iso is extremely high. i usually shoot with an iso of 100 and definitely never go above 400. just because of the noise and unattractive grains. do you have or at least considered a flash? the 580exII, though heavy and large in size. works extremely well indoors. lastly, i can't give you advice for your lens selection, as i have no experience with them. sorry. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 For indoor portraits, you'd want flash IMO, but not just flash, you want bounced, reflected flash: http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/ I own a Flip-it! and it improves portraits more than any other single item I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadtel Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share Posted February 24, 2008 Thanks guys! but flash is not an option here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulletsalvador Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I own a Sto-Fen diffuser and it too works rather well. When lighting conditions are horrible I shoot direct flash and post-process to make it more natural. Here are a few examples: <a href=" title="Valentine's Day by albert.cantaloupe, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2274948049_93310f6832.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Valentine's Day" /></a> <a href=" title="The Boys by albert.cantaloupe, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2267005933_0cb0d1f14a.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="The Boys" /></a> <a href=" title="Birthday Girls! by albert.cantaloupe, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2275098617_0bb8763fa0.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Birthday Girls!" /></a> =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 If bounced flash is relly not an option, you should either consider a tripod/monopod (babies aren't that fast yet) or to use your primes (and live with the resulting shallow DOF). Depending on the type of shots you plan and on the space available, you might eventually need something wider than the 50. Between the 35/2 and the 28/1.8 my choice would be the 28/1.8 if lowlight is your main use for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pturton Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I love my 35L for quick available light shots of my grandchildren. It is about as wide a FL as I like to use with my crop bodies for frame filling head and shoulder images. Since getting this lens my 50 f/1.4 seldom gets used for my family candids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 "Thanks guys! but flash is not an option here." Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 What about the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM, to go along with your 50mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_witkowski Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Bullett: Noise Ninja is your friend. In any event, I'm a happy with my Sigma 30 1.4 on the 40D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 >>> Either EF 28 1.8 or EF 35 2.0 . . . I have 50 / 1.4 and 85 / 1.8 and 24 to 70 / 2.8 and an extra stop means ISO 800-1600 or even-3200 difference . . . flash is not an option <<< Given the parameters: the 35F1.4L and the 24F1.4L are the answer: that is TWO stops each. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadtel Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share Posted February 24, 2008 Colin, I will use a flash (no monolight!) and it wouldn't prevent going up with ISO numbers (as it would be balanced with ambient). Yes I thought about 35L but $$$! So your opinion that 35 2.0, even a stop faster then 24-70, is not an answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 >I already have equip. mentioned above plus 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 ... I have only 24-70, which is 2.8 Just familiarize yourself with what you already have, with and without flash. Use any of these to soften the flash output: http://abetterbouncecard.com/ http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/ http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/home.php?cat=273 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 >>> Yes I thought about 35L but $$$! So your opinion that 35 2.0, even a stop faster then 24-70, is not an answer? <<< Well the 35F1.4L is a TWO stop answer; the 35F2.0 is a ONE stop answer. What about the Sigma 30mm, does that take you fancy? The point is you pay for speed: end of story. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Franky, I do not understand why, for `for low light indoor baby portraits `[sic] you cannot just use the 50mmF1.4 you already own. At a Subject Distance of 6 feet, you have an horizontal FoV of 3 feet 6 inches, and, at that SD, a DoF of about three inches. How big is the baby? And how small is the room? *** Perhaps I misread the intent of the question, and you were actually asking: `Do I NEED to get a wider lens?` But I understood the question to mean: Do I need to get a FASTER wide lens, in the EVENT I choose to take wider shots. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Bill, I've always meant to ask ... ... what exactly DOES "[sic]" stand for/mean? Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Vadim, Personally I think that people often mis-understand flash. I think that in your situation you're making a rod for your own back if you don't use it. Ultra-fast lenses may get you a correct exposure, but don't forget that the price to pay is an extremely shallow depth of field (typically just a few millimeters) - which would no-doubt prove extremely limiting. I'm sure that the very word "flash" when used in the context of babies conjures up images in the mind somewhere between a lightning strike and an X-Ray, but there is no reason for them to be that way - Couple of 580EX's - Couple of LightSphere's you can have some very soft & natural light, with the resultant flash being hardly noticeable - but something you have complete control over. You might like to have a read of ... http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/ Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 -- "what exactly DOES "[sic]" stand for" I always took it as a somewhat shortened form of "sigh" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_koetterhagen Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I received my 35L recently, and purchased it for capturing low light images of our first baby which is due in May. I have been practicing with our pets, and this lens is absolutely awesome in low light conditions! I also purchased the 17-55 2.8, and let me tell you that the 35L 1.4 blows it away. If Canon made zooms in the 1.4 variety, I think I would take out a HELOC to buy them all! I'm fairly new to this, but the power of a fast prime is simply unbelievable! Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 [[Franky, I do not understand why, for `for low light indoor baby portraits `[sic] you cannot just use the 50mmF1.4 you already own.]] Indeed. An excellent question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 >>> ... what exactly DOES "[sic]" stand for/mean? <<< (CS) (No Offence to PC) I do not trust wikipedia, so I will write what I meant it to mean, and then read the link: that should be fun! I could look like a real DH :) `sic` means: (simple terms) `I have taken these words (the actual words are usually indicated by inverted commas), from a previous text and quoted them verbatim`. `[sic]` means the same as the above but it is usual to use SQUARE brackets [ ] around the `sic` when the words being quoted form and flow as a part of the new sentence one is writing. (As I did above) `sic` literally means `so` or `thus`, it is Latin: (the literal meaning does not seem to fit well this most common practical applications now.) (More) often, if a quoted phrase or sentence is used to stand alone, and NOT form part of the flow of a sentence, as I did above, it is common to use `op cit`: `op cit is used at the end of the quoted words and it is usual to place `op cit` in curved brackets, thus: (op cit). `op cit` literally means `in the work already quoted` and is an abbreviation of `opere citato`, which is also Latin. *** >>> I always took it as a somewhat shortened form of "sigh" <<< (RT) :) I am not sure of this is dry humour, or not, but even if it wasn?t I laughed. (No offence meant), as it was more laughing at me, for (unconsciously) using `sic` than at your interpretation of it. :) Ah now to look up wiki . . . WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryknight Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 'sic' is usually used when quoting something that has a spelling or grammatical error, so that people reading your quote won't think the error was yours. Example: "I am not sure of [sic] this is dry humour..." :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 >>> 'sic' is usually used when quoting something that has a spelling or grammatical error, so that people reading your quote won't think the error was yours. <<< (JK) Bravo! Very slick . . . I like it! I know of that common use too . . . and yes, typo: `if` (still smiling at it) regards, WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_stull Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 William is right... 1.4 speed does cost. The 28 1.8 has better manual focus than the 35 2.0 and is 1/3 stop faster. If money is tight go with the 28 1.8. Outside of Canon, the Sigma 30 1.4 is a great option. These lenses only give you a normal perspective, however. The 24L is truly the one one you want with speed to go wide if you can afford it. 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