Next Lens to Get for Still Life

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Jim, please feel free to roll away. Your contributions have been very valuable. Thanks so much for including quality and pertinant images to look at. It's been good to have the value of the S lenses and crop sensors pointed out. I admit that I had fallen victim to the snobbish mentality. It was interesting to note that in my searching on photo.net, the majority of work that I LOVED was done with a 40D or D200-300! If these people are getting such great results it means I need to work harder. They did have better lenses than I do, so I want to make sure I give myself that advantage.<br>

FYI: Right here on photo.net!<br>

<a href="../equipment/canon/100-macro-usm">Review of 100 USM 2.6</a><br>

<a href="../equipment/canon/60-macro">Review of 60MM EFs</a></p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Back with a question. I was reading user reviews on Adorama and one person commented that while the 100mm macro was incredibly sharp for macro and small product, she had a hard time getting DOF for still lifes that aren't shallow. What is the benefit of using Macro for still life over say a normal 50, 80 or 100?<br>

Here are some still lifes that I love to give you an idea of the type of work I'd like to do.<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=913225">Antonio Diaz</a> (He appears to be using a Canon 40D with a 17-40mm f.4 L.<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=771051">Mikel Arrizabalaga</a> (Canon 40D. I don't know what lens)<br>

<a href="http://www.redbubble.com/people/hollycawfield/art">Holly Cawfield on RedBubble</a></p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Canon 17-40/4 is an ultrawide lens meant for full-frame cameras. It's a popular landscape lens. On crop it works as a standard zoom, albeit with limited zoom range and aperture. Folks who have moved from film to digital-crop are often seen shooting with this lens (I used a 20/2.8 for a while). Also, some folks who shoot crop and intend to buy a FF camera in the near future tend pick up this lens.</p>

<p>For crop cameras, Canon 17-55/2.8 IS gives you more zoom range, a stop more aperture, and IS. However this lens won't work on full-frame cameras. A good budget alternative is Tamron 17-50/2.8. I have both of these lenses and they are very, very sharp.</p>

<p>If you like Diaz' work, perhaps this is an indication that the shorter focal lengths are right for you. But not necessarily the 17-40/4. Analogy: if you examine you car needs and decide that a sedan is best for you (rather than an SUV or minivan or sports car or whatnot), that doesn't necessarily mean that a Volvo is the right car for you just because your neighbor has one. Maybe a Camry or Taurus or Lexus would be a better buy for you.</p>

<p><em>What is the benefit of using Macro for still life over say a normal 50, 80 or 100?</em><br>

At longer focusing distances, there isn't any benefit. But there also isn't any downside either, aside perhaps from slower autofocus. Of couse the macro lenses will let you focus closer, and at closer focusing distances they tend to be sharper. Regular primes tend to give you more aperture, yielding faster shutterspeeds and shallower dof.</p>

<p>I'm not much of a still-life shooter. But here's an example. Tamron 90/2.8 macro<br>

<img src="http://photos.photosig.com/photos/85/07/1480785-d5e561acb3805b7d.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="419" /><br>

<img src="http://photos.photosig.com/photos/79/58/1455879-3b34618cb023b4c8.jpg" alt="" width="669" height="490" /></p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Thank you, Arie for that clear explanation.<br>

Nice photos too. I especially like the leaf with water drops. Loved the bird photos in particular on your site.</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>FYI: Good articles about the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. Jim, they confirm that this is a very, very nice lens.<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">DigitalPicture.com</a><br>

<a href="http://www.canonlensreview.com/macrolensreviews/CanonEFS60mmf2.8MacroUSMLensReview.php">Canon Lens Review</a></p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>I've realized, it's no longer a question of which lens to get, but which one to get now. ;-)</p>

<p>I'm so pleased to learn that good lenses are within my budget. I was holding out for L series. I'm really enjoying finally learning more about lenses. Hey, what can I say. I used to shoot nearly all my work with a Rolleicord. I had 3 lenses and that was it. I had a 50mm and a basic zoom for my 35mm.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>I think that you are looking in the right direction. There really is no "ultimate camera" to buy. If I have been cursed with a lifelong passion for all things photographic, I have at least been blessed with the understanding that there never was a magic photo box that will capture what I see in my mind with little effort beyond selecting the right button. It never existed, and never will.</p>

<p>I have also been blessesd with the opportuninty to make money shooting images over the years, so I eneded up with a good excuse to explore various tools, and was able to offset the cost a bit (just a bit, though). I grew up with Hasselblad (my Mom worked in the corporate office of the distributer then), and after a short side track with a new Exacta VX500, I discovered Canon in 35 mm via the FTb, and never looked back. I still own, and use quite a nice FD camera and lens collection, but I have been an EOS fan since early on as well. I too happen to be an "L" lens snob in many respects (both in FD, and EOS mounts), but the APS-C camera format was just too much fun to pass up, and over the years, APS-C cameras have delivered immense photo pleasure when combined with the most appropriate EF, and EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>In the current state of digital development, it is no longer a simple matter of "doing the best you can" while waiting for FF relief. It occured to me long ago that my best and worst pictures were all about me, and had nothing to do with the camera at hand. Cameras are tools. Some early models of a particular class might obviously be examples of a steep techno-learning curve for the industry, but your 40D represents the real deal "adult" representative of a class that is here to stay, and is worthy of residing in your photo toolkit long enough that buying "special" non-L glass to suit it's wide to mid field needs should not even require a quiet moment of contemplation.</p>

<p>There are only three lenses that really rock the Canon APS-C world better than EF lenses sporting red rings, and they happen to be pretty much awesome in all respects. If you want to maintain snob status, simply resist going for third party compromise lenses in the class... The high end Canon EF-S offerings will serve you well for ages without complaint.</p>

<p>For the last wedding I shot on Easter Saturday, I also used an ancient T-90 with a fast 85 f/1.2 L lens attached. The film is out for scanning now, and I never doubt the outcome. I took the shots. They are mine, good or bad, and I can control that camera in my sleep. Some Bridal party shots were taken with an RZ67 at the local lake/park. A few Polaroids to tickle the party, and four rolls of 120 chrome and C41 film are off to be scanned at ScanCafe. So, a 25 year spread of technology can still play in the game of capturing nice images. Just like the countless images that sparked my interest when MF film defined all but the PJ photo snobs.</p>

<p>I suppose the core point I'm trying to really hammer home is that photography is not all that new. Photography is waiting for you and I. It has been that way right from the start. In no way are either one of us waiting for photography to catch up before we bless the world with great images. You and I both have the tools in hand. We know what accessories can help broaden the palate offered by those tools in the most useful manner, as opposed to deciding that "we need to think ahead to the next generation, which will surely make our work look spectacular". Don't ever accept a tecno-crutch. You will depend on it forever.</p>

<p>In my pocket during the last wedding (and almost always) was a 12 mp G9 pocket camera. Just in case.... I almost always use it in full manual mode, and it's hotshoe takes any of the dozen Canon ETTL strobes that I use for shooting commercial interiors. It certainly has no snob appeal at all, but at ISO 80-100, and using studio or ETTL strobes, it is a fantastic imaging device. It also makes great movie clips. Not as nice as my 7D, but it fit's in my pocket wherever I happen to be.</p>

<p>Get comfortable with your photo tools like old friends. Take them to their peak kit level. There will always be something new that offers the promise of an easier, or better solution to a particular photo problem, but you are the master, today and tomorrow. Before you throw what you already own under the bus for the promise of tomorrow, be really clear about what that promise might really deliver into your hands, other than a fleeting sense of techno-victory, and yet another promise for another day.</p>

<p>Take pictures! I have lot's of old junk (by current standards) that still capture fine images. Here are some Canon survivors I pulled out of past posts that include a few L, and DO examples of glass. And the classic 70-200 f/2.8 L IS girl portrait with an APS-C camera. That would be Bella. She is at a friend's place, and a 77 mm front element pointing in her direction from 12 feet away causes her to forget about her bone, and start posing right away.....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2960408661_d51f489da8.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2520208007_884c7c5f29.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4419099462_09ec1be2ef_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4405231235_6594a5800a_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>My Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens is on the way. Should be here by end of week. I'll post a comparison with the kit lens when I get it. Thanks so much for everyone's input and education on this!</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>I just wanted to check back and say that I'm thrilled with my Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. Jim, you were right on target that this is the best lens for my needs right now. It would have been a mistake to get the 100mm. I can comfortably work in the space that I have. Having the Macro ability is a pleasurable bonus. Here's a comparison I shot with the 28-135 kit lens and the 60mm. At first glance, it's not remarkably sharper, but if you zoom in, the half tone is definitely sharper on the 60 mm. The real pleasure that I've discovered is that it is so much easier to focus this lens! The image is clearer and I can tell right away when it's sharp.</p>

<p>Jim, thank you so much for being so persistent and supplying all the photos and intelligent perspectives. I bet I would have bought the 100mm if you hadn't been so persistent and this lens is a perfect fit.</p>

<p>No sharpening applied to this. The 60mm is on the right - just a quick studio test setting the zoom to 60 and leaving the camera in the same place to shoot. (I'm not sure if I can fit this size into the thread, so I'm just going to link:)<br>

<a href="http://perlesdartemis.com/forumfun/20100423_0009.jpg">Cropped comparison of lenses</a></p><div></div>