Lens help - wide lens?

[teresa_santosus]

I am not a professional photographer. I take a ton of photos of my children. I have

the Canon Rebel EOS XT. I am looking for a lens that would be good for both

portraits as well as social functions (weddings, etc) - A few people have asked that

I take photo for their weddings (they know it isnt a professional thing, they just do

not have a photographer and I am doing it as a favor). I was looking at lens reviews

and I was debating if I should get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - on the review

site one of the posted samples of his pics (link:

http://www.ericjphotography.com/blog/ ) and I just LOVE the photos he takes. He

said he uses this lens - so I was wondering about others opinions and if they also

have samples. I like his photos how he gets close up to the subject, but also has

that wide angle (where you can see a lot the background as well). Are there any

other lenses like this - what type would I need. I beleive this is a prime lens -

would it also be good for indoor portraits of my kids, etc. - I do a lot of

indoor/outdoor shots of the kids. Sorry for all the questions - I know I am clueless.

Before I ran into the review on this lens I was contemplating the Canon EF 50mm

f/1.8 II - I know it also has great reviews but I can not seem to find many sample

photos with this and am not sure if it would be good for what I am looking for (the

close ups with the wide scenic background). Both lenses are in my price range.

 

Here are some samples of what I mostly take (please note some of them are with

my old cybershot - not all taken w/ the Rebel).

http://teresasphotos.synthasite.com/

[apetty]

On the XT, the 85mm is more like a 136mm and you will get a lot closer than what you thought. I have the 85mm and the 50mm (both my cameras are crop sensors) and the 50 is better for indoor shots. Less room to back up inside.

 

I am a big advocate of the 50mm. Its cheap and it takes good pictures. It will give you the range an 85mm would give on a full from camera (well, 80mm)

 

IMO

[mendonphoto]

What is your budget?

 

You need to figure out what focal length/range you need. I get the impression from your post that you're really not sure, so it will be difficult to make good suggestions. Wide angle, normal, or telephoto?

 

Both of the lenses you mentioned would be great, but they will not get every shot for you. You keep talking about "wide angle", but both of those lenses will be telephoto (the opposite of wide angle) on your camera.

 

If you want the best quality, you are looking in the right direction (but your bag will be filled with a bunch of primes).

 

If you want good quality but still some flexibility, look at some of the mid-range to high-end zoom lenses. Specifically for your camera, there are several from various manufacturers in the 18-55mm f/2.8 range. For portraits, one of the 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses might be a bit more useful. The 24-105 f/4 from Canon would be excellent, but it's pretty expensive.

 

Most people that shoot weddings have AT LEAST two zoom lenses - usually three. Some shots call for ultrawide. Some call for telephoto. Most call for something in between.

 

...Then there are macro shots - which require their own special lenses.

[ken munn]

I'd second the suggestion of a 17/18-50/55 f2.8 lens as the main weapon in your armoury.

These are available from Canon and the third party manufacturers. It will be wide enough for

group shots, and long enough for head and shoulder portraits. At f2.8 it is fast enough to

allow you to work in most interiors without flash. However, adding a flash unit like the 430EX

or the 580EX might be a better investment than another lens.

[g dan mitchell]

85mm and 50mm on the cropped sensor XT are short telephoto lenses. They are

often used for portrait photography, where you want might want to fill the frame with

the subject and perhaps throw the background out of focus by using a large aperture

to produce a narrow depth of field.

 

In general, on your camera "wide angle" refers to focal lengths that are shorter than

about 30mm. What you might think of as "normal" wide angle lenses for your

camera often go to focal lengths as short as the 16mm, 17mm, or 18mm. Ultra wide

angle lenses for a cropped sensor body have even shorter focal lengths - the Canon

EF 10-22mm lens is one example.

 

If your EFS 18-55mm it lens is not cutting it for you, but you are happy with its focal

length range (which covers wide to portrait lengths) then you might look at the Canon

EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. Although it is a bit more costly than the primes, it is a

very versatile and high quality lens that should cover the range of things you

describe.

 

Dan

[teresa_santosus]

I probably do not want to spend over $400 right now. So I guess if I wanted a wide shot, I would have to stay away from the primes? I would be willing to purchase used (for a cheaper price) that way I could have two options - wide angle shooting as well as portrait shooting - or does this not make sense. I guess I really need to do my homework when it comes to lenses.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Teresa, I looked at the website you linked. Some very nice professional photojournalism-type photos. Looks like they were taken with a variety of lenses, telephoto to fish-eye.

 

Canon 85/1.8 is indeed a very nice portrait lens. It'll work well for wedding and kids photos outside, and for posed photos inside. But this lens is too long for indoor candid photos, e.g. kids playing. 85 mm is not exactly wideangle.

 

Wideangle and shallow depth-of-field requires a fast wide lens, preferable on a full-frame body. e.g. Canon 35/1.4 L on a 5D. Nice setup for photojournalism-type shots, but very expensive for non-professionals.

 

I second the recommendation for a 28-75/2.8 lens (e.g. Tamron) and a 430 EX flash. With this lens you can compose group shots as well as zoom in on details. A f/2.8 aperture means you can work in low light, and you'll need less flash power - the photos will have less of a deer-in-the-headlights look. 75 mm f/2.8 will yield significant background blur. A good general portrait lens. Canon's 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4 IS are also very good choices but much more expensive.

 

On top of the main 28-75/2.8 you can add on a 70-200 zoom lens or a prime like 85/1.8 or 100/2 for a more compressed view.

 

Suggestion - scope out a location where you want to take the wedding pics, take your kids with you, and practice photographing and posing your kids.

[teresa_santosus]

Thanks Dan - I am going to look into that. I do not mind spending a bit more if I am going to get what I am looking for.

[teresa_santosus]

Thanks Arie - I am also going to look into the lenses you suggested. Thank you for explaining their functions to me as well - it is a big help.

[teresa_santosus]

Thinking about it, perhaps, I could get the 50mm for the indoor portraits of the kids, etc. and then look into the other otptions for my outdoor and wide angle shots - perhaps this is the way to go, and considering the 50mm is a reasonable price, it is probably doable.

[teresa_santosus]

Oh - I wanted to ad, I currently have a Quantaray 70-300 mm - Was purchased a few years back so that I could get some practice - It actually is a pretty good lens for the cost - but obviously not good for indoor use (cant focus in low light, way too long for portraits, etc).

[arie_vandervelden1]

Even 50 mm is pretty long for indoor kiddie photos. I have the 50/1.8. It's a nice lens, good value, and works well for outdoor candids and indoor posed shots. But it's been collecting dust for the most part since I got my Tamron 17-50/2.8

 

Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a standard zoom designed for crop-factor cameras like your XT. Tamron 28-75/2.8 is its full-frame bother, same optical design. 17 mm is nice for landscapes, but if portraiture/kids/weddings is your primary goal then I'd compomise the wide 17 mm end for more focal length (75 mm). Go for the 28-75 I say.

[teresa_santosus]

Arie - If I get the Tamron 28-75, would you suggest getting a seperate lens for indoor portraits or would this lens be sufficent? Sorry for all the Questions.

[ken munn]

Arie, at 28mm on a crop box (45mm full frame eq) Teresa might struggle to get everyone in on

the classic wedding group shots.

[trebor_navilluso]

Theresa after looking at your photos, seeing your budget of $400 and sensing a desire for a zoom as well, I have the following suggestion.

 

Get a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 macro zoom $300 and a Canon 50mm1.8 prime for $80.

 

This fits your budget and gives you the best of both worlds. That zoom is very handy, sharp and of high image quality overall. And that 50 prime is outstanding image quality for the price. It suits your needs better than the 85 would based on your shot's compositon. 85 would be too much, you'd run out of room in the house for shooting you'd have to be so far back

[teresa_santosus]

Trebor - thanks for the suggestion. I could definitely get both lenses if they were in reason (which the ones you suggest are). Would the Sigma provide some wide angles - It is something I will be looking at getting in the near future (a lens that can provide wide angles). Thanks for the info.

[g dan mitchell]

Actually, I think you could get by without the 50mm prime if you have something like

the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens.

 

There is nothing wrong with picking up an inexpensive 50mm prime if you think you

need a little bit larger maximum aperture, but there is a very good chance that you

would eventually use it very little if you had this particular zoom. Not only can you

shoot most of the subjects you describe with it (boost the ISO a bit if need be for

low light) but its versatility (no need to switch lenses as often) is really valuable,

especially when you are trying to photography kids.

[teresa_santosus]

Thanks for the info. - Saving $ is always a good thing :)

[photo_dark]

every beginner photographer should own the 50 1.8. It really does open up the door to other styles of photography that you may not have deemed possible, and allow you to improve what you already do.

[teresa_santosus]

What do you guys think of the Canon EOS 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5? I saw a lot of good reviews for it and loved the sample pics I saw.

[colin_james]

In your situation, I'd suggest getting zoom lenses to cover any ranges you need before even considering prime lenses.

<p>

Primes certainly have their advantages in certain situations, but versatility (in terms of focal lengths) isn't one of them; one zoom lens can easily cover the same focal range of 4 or more primes.

<p>

Some may argue that image quality from primes is better - and quite correctly so - but it's all relative. In your situation I'd suggest that the image quality from a good quality zoom will be more than saticfactory. Some may argue that primes have the advantage of being "faster" (ie you can use them in lower light situations before getting camera shake) (which is also a very valid argument) - however - often a "slower" zoom lens can be more than adequate if you can use a higher ISO setting - or if you can use a flash - or if you can use a tripod. Additionally, prime lenses (when used wide open) often give a very limited depth of field; when used artistically this is a good thing, but for general photography it can also bite you in the bum.

<p>

Hope this helps :)

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Colin

[teresa_santosus]

Thanks for the explanation Colin. Are there any zoom lenses in my price range that you would recommend?