good lens for family photos

[marta3eciak]

<p>Hi All, <br>

Here's my dilemma. I've had my Canon 350D for about 4 years now. I recently purchsed the 50mm 1.8 marks II lens. I have invested most of my money in lighting equipment and accessories. I am very happy with my 50mm, and the photos I'm getting combined with my studio lightin but I'm stuck for sapce in my studio. I have a family to photograph in 2 weeks. I can fit them in my studio but I can't get far back enough to fit them in my camera:( I would love to get the 5D and the 24-70mm L or the 28-105 in the next year, but for now I need a sharp lens with a wide angle. I photographed with the 28-105 IS( i beieve it is) and it's a fine lens. But I'm seriously considering the 28mm 1.8. My question is what would you recommend to get so I can a family in, they're not going to be traditionaly posed photos, but rather experimental and "funky", so the distortion of the image (wide angle effect) isn't that much of a factor. I've also done some research on the 17-40L. . I'm attaching some ohotos just to show you what I've done so far using my kit lens and the 50mm. As you can see the newborn photos are barely fit in the frame. (This is becuase I have no room to move back) I hope I made myslef understood and your help is greatly apprecited because I must tell you I dint start my day without a coffee and photo.net<br>

p.s renting a lens for a day or two is not an option because I live too far away to get to a shop where I can rent one. </p>

 

[marta3eciak]

<p>sorry here is my portfolio with all the photography I've done so far.<br>

<a href="http://callmartafoto.com/portfolio.html">http://callmartafoto.com/portfolio.html</a></p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>28mm is essentially equivalent to a "normal" focal length on your camera - roughly like using a lens of about 50mm on an old 35mm film camera or on a full frame DSLR. The point is that this isn't a wide angle lens in your case.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is certainly an option. I used one for a while on the very same body that you are using. I had mixed results with it. I love the lens for stopped down landscape and similar photography on full frame cameras but I ended up being less than totally thrilled with it on crop sensor bodies. It isn't the best lens around if you shoot at large apertures.</p>

<p>If I were looking for a zoom to cover this range I'd get the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. It is a bit more expensive, but it provides some real value for the money for cropped sensor shooters: f/2.8 and IS, larger focal length range, and image quality at least the equal of the 17-40.</p>

<p>Regarding rentals, some people I know have been pleased with borrowlenses.com, a company that has reasonable rates and will send the lens to you as part of the rental cost. You might check that if you end up needing to rent.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[marta3eciak]

<p>Hey G Dan, <br>

Speaking of the 17-40, If I were to shoot at F8 would I be ok? why do you say the non full-frame bodies gave you trouble,? because of the cropping issue? it's pricey.<br>

Yes, absolutely, you're right. The 50mm lens will act something like a 65mm on a non full-frame body, I just thought the extra 22mm would give me ability to move further back. The 17-55mm 2.8 sounds nice but if I'm going to invest that much money, wouldn't I be better off with a 24-70 L series since I long to have the 5D anyway. I have been told to get a second hand 5D with the lens as a kit but that's too much money for me to come up with at the moment and I have people who want to be photographed.<br>

i was thinking more like a fixed focal length lens, or maybe a Sigma lens, like 17-35? </p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Canon 17-55/2.8 IS<br>

or, on a budget, Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC. </p>

[ilya_e]

<p>If you are thinking about FF body then forget about 17-55. Its a good lens but the dust issue stinks. It sucks up dust like a real vacuum cleaner. 24-70 is one of the best lenses I've owned. Get it and you won't be disappointed.</p>

[marta3eciak]

<p>Thanx guys for your input,<br>

So you think I should wait, save and treat myself? From the beginning I was very interested in the 24-70. But then I thought whether to get the body/lens kit (refurbished)? I guess my mind was made up awhile ago but I'm still not 100% sure if there is THAT lens that would just as good as my 50mm 1.8 but a 20mm? (fixed length). Just reading upon the 20mm 2.8. (again it's the space issue)<br>

Still searching..<br>

Please if you have hands on experience with any lenses you would consider, share with me.<br>

marta 3eciak</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a less-expensive alternative to the Canon 24-70. It doesn't go as wide and the build is not as solid, but I've found it's quite sharp even at f/2.8. Got it used for US$325 but new it's not much more.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I thought I would toss in my opinion. I just recently bought the 17-40 for my 20D. While I plan on using it mostly for landscapes, I could see myself using it as a studio lens if I needed something wide enough.</p>

<p>The reason I chose the 17-40 over other choices was for a couple of reasons. #1. The photos I take are mainly outdoor photos that I will either have a tripod for, or enough light that I dont need the large aperture. #2. For the price of a used 17-40 it was difficult to find anything else that had the build quality I wanted (for hiking etc) and IQ.</p>

<p>Lastly, even though I dont have a FF like the 5d... I do have canon film (shhh I said the f word) that I can slap the 17-40 on if I want to take advantage of the Ultrawide 17 side of it.<br>

 

<p>After 2 weeks and a couple hundred photos with this lens I couldn't be happier, haven't been disappointed that it is f4 yet (however if you do a lot of indoor, non-flash photography there are probably better alternatives).</p>

 

</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I have the 28 1.8 and the 17-40 and I use the 28 far more often but on a full frame body. I love the 28 for family shots but it does seem to have a bad reputation but I really like it. The 35 2.0 has a good reputation on here but I prefer to stay with USM lenses but its something to consider.</p>

<p>Why I would choose the 28 over the 17-40: Its much smaller and lighter, over 2 stops faster so you can shoot without flash in many instances and its cheaper. The 28 is not a super sharp lens by reputation but I compared it to my 17-40 at F4 and I could not see any difference so its certainly good enough for most. </p>

<p>You may also want to look at a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8, both are very good pretty compact lenses but they lack the USM focus and build quality of the Canons. Still very good lenses especially for the money ( both under $500)</p>

<p>By the way nice photos, you would probably like putting the money you save into an 85 1.8. </p>

[wneuetc]

<p>I've got the 17-40L and it's a great lens. Very sharp, excellent contrast and offers great saturation. Hard to fault. A true wide-angle on my 5DII, but should give you a nice range on your crop body. Also have the 28-105, and while another very nice zoom, it would probably be too long for what you want to do (and can already do). <br /> <br /> Main reason I'm chiming in here though is to say wow - what a great portfolio! Amazing work. Investing (and learning) lighting and composition was (obviously) a wise strategic decision. Your shots totally rock. When you gear up the kit, it will be even more amazing. Please keep me posted on your new stuff.<br>

-Wes</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Low budget: the EF-s 18-55 (IS version)</p>

<p>Mid budget: Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC version)</p>

<p>Higher budget: read what the other posters wrote...</p>

[marta3eciak]

<p>Hey All, <br>

Thanx so much for everyone's opinions. I love this forum. It gives you options and something to think about. I would love to own the 24-70L 2.8 , but I have to forget about it now. I'm leaning towards the 17-40L because I plan to own a ff body so I think it will be an investment for life. The 28mm 2.8 is cheap enough to buy now so I might just get that one to get me by and plan to get the 17-40L in the nearest future. I think that would be my best strategy. Thanx again for everything.<br>

cheerio<br>

marta 3eciak</p>

[marta3eciak]

<p>p.s I purchased the 17-40 f4/ L and here is (untouched) what I was talking about earlier. small kitchen and I fit them all.. plus! very happy so far. And the distortion adds a nice effect. Thank you all for your responses. Happy Easter<br>

cheerio<br>

marta 3eciak</p><div></div>