Which lens for candid shots

[William Michael]

> But how can you achieve correct framing this way? (without looking through the viewfinder) <

 

Good morning,

 

Practice; using a wide enough lens; being far enough back; cropping later.

 

WW

[Spearhead]

<i>Practice; using a wide enough lens; being far enough back; cropping later.</i><P>Right, plenty of people do this with a variety of cameras. Once you get used to it, there's much less need for cropping. "Hipshooting" is a fairly well-known technique, there's even a book by Ken Heyman called "Hipshot." It did get easier with autofocus.

[dan_mcclain]

I second the 85mm f/1.8. I have Nikon gear, not Canon, but I love the focal length of the 85mm and the flexibility that the f/1.8 aperture provides. Long enough for candids, and fast enough for indoor use. Every time I use mine I wonder why I don't use it more often.

[shuo_zhao]

The 50 1.8 is never a bad choice (both Canon and Nikon), especially since you're on a budget.

[photo_dark]

If there's one thing I love about this board, it's the fact that the same people argue about the same things (technique and equipment choices) meanwhile the OP is nowhere to be seen, and may have fallen off the face of the earth for all we know.

 

In response to the first question, something fast-ish (f2.8 maximum), IS being a benefit, longer lens being a benefit, quiet autofocus being a benefit, small size and un-noticeability being a benefit.. Almost every canon lens out there covers at least one of these points (aside from the cheapocrapo kit lenses, 50 1.8 notwithstanding)

 

So figure out what your budget is, what your style is, what your needs are, what your subjects are, and then go to the camera store and try out a few lenses that seem to fit the above stated qualifications.

[tdigi]

Good point David, very funny and true.

[Ian Taylor]

any lens will do

[prayermedic]

For candid I like my 200 2/8 L it makes me work a bit but allows me just enough distance to keep it candid.

[samoksner]

The longer zooms are hardly convenient for candids of friends and such. I would suggest the 50mm f1.8, it's fast (IS won't replace that), it's small so you aren't lugging a big obvious kit with you and the background is great (no lens compares for the price).

[Spearhead]

I agree with Ian. I shoot very close, and do fine getting candids, with lenses from 20-40mm usually. I don't like longer lenses, it loses all intimacy.

[luisarguelles]

Use a prime lens resulting in something about 35 to 50mm effective focal length.

Almost all of my pictures in the following folder have been taken with a 50mm lens:

</p>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=459261

[bluphoto]

I did a bit of candid street stuff when travelling in Singapore. I had my camera set on my tripod and then tilted it back so it was pointing straight UP.

 

I then fold up my tripod and carry it horizontally by my side - with the lens pointing forwards. The weight of the camera meant that it was hanging upside down from head of the tripod, but turnign a photo over has never been my biggest challenge.

 

I then had a cable release in my opposite pocket, with the cable taped along the tripod leg.

 

Most of my shots suffered because of the low angle, so I'd just throw the tripod over my shoulder insteal, although that might look a bit suspicious in a night club or restaurant!

 

I guess you could do the same thing with the camera strap round your neck and a cable release in your pocket.

 

Of course none of that answers your question about lenses. Although the 70-200 is a nice lens (I use mine a lot) the pale barrel colour doesn't exactly blend in. I've often wished I could have got that lens in black! It's quite long too (physically) especially with the lens hood fitted.

 

On a crop camera like the XTi, I think the 85/1.8 would be hard to beat for head and shoulders shots. Solid feel to the lens too - decent build. Maybe a little long to frame accurately with the above methods, though, but great for shooting at medium distances.

 

In all honesty, it depends on what sort of framing you're looking for - ranging from head and shoulders to full-length or more.

 

If you don't already have the 50/1.8, shame on you! - Nah, just kidding, but for VERY little money it's optically a good lens with a decent focal length too. (85mm equiv) - It's also about as discreet as you can get.

 

If you're looking to get a wider prime - as Luis says with an equiv of 35-50, then you're starting to move up the price ladder again. That'd be looking in the 20-35mm range. Maybe borrow or rent a 17-40 to see how you like it - although admittedly it's not a prime.

 

best of luck.

Guy

[yakim_peled1]

>> Practice; using a wide enough lens; being far enough back; cropping later.

 

I'm skeptic (sp.?) but I'll try.

 

>> any lens will do

 

You are right in the sense that you can shoot just about anything with any lens, depending on your style and experience. Nevertheless, for certain tasks, several lenses will be better suited than others. For a beginner, I think it will be easier for him to start with those.

 

 

>> meanwhile the OP is nowhere to be seen, and may have fallen off the face of the earth for all we know.

 

Is he now in Australia? :-)

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[William Michael]

`sceptical` would be better, I think:

 

I am a `sceptic` [noun], or, I am `sceptical` [adjective] (about this or that).

 

 

***

 

 

As to the OP, I saw him, (and his friends) riding Kangaroos into the sunset . . . and he was shooting from the hip.

 

The pictures will be posted shortly.

 

Cheers,

 

WW

[sbp]

In places where subjects are camera shy, Guy's "camera strap" technique has worked

pretty well for me. With a fast 35mm on full frame body or 24mm on cropping body, I

shorten the strap to raise the camera on my chest, and use a cable release in my pocket. In

more relaxed environments, I like the 135 f/2 - sharp and fast. The 70-200 f/4 offers great

value for money in an L lens, but the white barrel definitely makes it hard to remain

inconspicuous.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I am a `sceptic` [noun], or, I am `sceptical` [adjective] (about this or that).

 

Is the second c pronounced as k?

 

>> As to the OP, I saw him, (and his friends) riding Kangaroos into the sunset . . . and he was shooting from the hip.

 

:-)

 

 

 

Happy shooting, Yakim.

[William Michael]

Yes,

 

I would term it an HARD `c` sound, as in the little bug: `tick` (or the sign when you get the maths question correct).

 

 

skep / tick

 

 

and

 

 

skep / tick / al

 

Sorry I did not take the trouble to do all that jazzy HTML stuff, to get those funny pronunciation symbols.

 

WW

[yakim_peled1]

10X. I was thinking it is pronounced as the word susceptible, where there's a soft c. To a non-native English speaker the writing and spelling can be very confusing at times.... :-)

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mike dixon]

Just use the American spelling: skeptic. Much less confusing.

[yakim_peled1]

You are right. It is really easier. However, I'm not necessarily looking for easier life. I just like to know more. Don't know why but for some reason I am more comfortable with British, rather than American accent. Anyway, it's nice to know that sceptic and skeptic are like colour and color.

 

BTW, my outlook 2003 speller did not recognize skeptic and color till now. I think it is funny that a US product is not familiar with US writings. Oh, well. I just added them.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[William Michael]

Oh, I dunno:

 

what`s the confusion with . . . `gaol` . . .

 

English, english is very simple . . .

 

:) WW

[William Michael]

. . . and `goal` . . . which I `meant` to have `sent`, of course, with the previous: but you would have `sensed` that, because you can sniff those `scents` out easily: anyway a good English Dictionary only costs a few `cents`.

 

Very simple: just like Complex Numbers and Matrixes . . .

 

WW

[yakim_peled1]

With such good friends, managing modern English is a task not too difficult. However, every once in a while I try Shakespearian English and there I really get lost. At times it sounds like a mixture of Latin and English.... :-(

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.