ben_jamin Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 How is everyone doing? Well I'd just ordered the EOS 10D so now it's time to chose some lenses, I do half of the shooting indoor and half outdoor, so I need: 1) a great lense capable of low light condition for indoor. 2) objects will be mostly my 7 months old daughter, and some extremely active and fast swimming african cichlid fishes in the 55 gallons tank, so AF has to be fast and accurate so I can catch the best moment. 3)Photo will often be printed on 8.5x11. I realize that most great lenses like the L series cost an arm and leg, so I'll have to get one at a time and I do not think I could afford to pay more than US$1000 for each lense, there's a couple lenses that I'm considering now, but I'm open for any other suggestions as well: 1) for potraits and in extreme low light condition, how about either a)50mm f/1.4 USM, or b)50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro? I do not want a loud lense because my daughter get distract easily and she would just keep staring at me instead of smiling....haha :-) which one would you chose and why? 2) for big events like wedding, birthday party and such, I wouldn't want to keep swapping lenses back and forth incase I missed the best moments, so I have my eye set on the 17-40 f4L, it cost half of 16-35 and it appears to be a great lense, I do not know how fast is the AF but if it's slow then I'll consider other alternatives, any suggestions? 3) for outdoor potraits, flowers, insects, and other close up, I'm considering either the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, or Tamron 90 Macro, from what I heard the Tamron do pretty well, I do not know the price difference but again, I'm after fast AF, great image quality, and well built. thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nabeeko Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Ben, For the price and build, you can't beat the 50mm f/1.8 MK I(Metal Mount). These can be found for almost one third the cost of a f/1.4 and would be a better portrait lens compared to a 50mm f/2.5 Macro. The lens isn't too loud IMO. Although the USM is quieter, it doesn't justify the 3X price. THIS LENS IS VERY SHARP. The 17-40mm 4L is a wonderful set of lens. If the wedding is indoors, you might have some problems (although you can bump up the ISO levels). Gives somewhat of a wide angle. THIS LENS IS VERY SHARP AND THE CONTRAST IS SUPERB. All this plus extension tubes for your macro shots and you'll end up saving approximately $150-$200 for something else (maybe a 420ex). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 >>These can be found for almost one third the cost of a f/1.4<< I have never seen one that is in *good* condition for less than $150.00 and that's only half of the 1.4's cost. Just to make things clear. The average price of a MKi in good shape (today) is at least double the cost of a brand new MKii. >>I'm after fast AF, great image quality, and well built.<< I like the 24-70L for a "most-purpose" lens. It's a tiny bit more than what you are willing to pay but, may worth looking into it as it would be your main lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 "I have never seen one that is in *good* condition for less than $150.00" I got mine in superb condition for $100.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaur_virunurm Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I don't have a 35mm prime (for my 300D) and I miss it. 50mm is very good for shooting a baby during her first months, as she is a single, static subject; you are shooting mostly HER, not her surroundings, and 50mm is OK for that. But as she grows up and starts moving around / playing with other kids / tearing stuff down from your shelves etc, you want to catch both her and her playmates & toys. And you will find out that 50mm on a D10 will be a bit too narrow for that. So my suggestion would is to get a 35mm prime, the closest you can get to a "normal" lens in the digital world. Of course, 28 is also an option, or a zoom; you should probably borrow them all and test out which is the best fit for your style of shooting & bank account balance. Noise is a non-issue. Actually you will see that you will try to attract your subject's attention by all kinds of methods. (Attaching jingling toys hanging to your expensive camera, wearing a diaper as a hat, making sounds that you used to associate with a nuthouse environment only, etc). Toddlers are quite well aware of their parents' presence (for example, she can hear much better than you do - hmm, can she hear the noise of USM motors that grown-ups cannot?) and sneaking up to her is usually not an option anyway. Of course, once you start shooting from the floor level, the camera will look like a very interesting, usually denied toy to her and she will move in your direction FAST in order to grab and eat it. But a quiet lens will really not make a difference here, your taking shooting position is louder than any camera. Weddings etc... how often do you shoot them and how much investment is it worth? Birthday party pics are the most boring thing in photography, having an L class lens for them sounds like buying a Ferrari for going shopping... but its your choice, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_jamin Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Thanks everyone for the lightning fast respond!! I'd considered the 50mm F1.8 MK II, I was a bit worry about the cheap quality and not so ideal bokeh that most people complaint about, I'm always careful with my equipments but if the 50mm F1.4 doesn't perform twice or three times better than the F1.8, then I can definitely save the $200 and get the 1.8 MK II instead. Perhaps I should consider this one as the backup lens? Now as the all-purpose main lens, I'd just checked the price and the 24-70L F2.8 cost almost twice as much as the 17-40L, but if it is that much superior then by all mean I could use the $200 that I'd saved from 50mm 1.8 prime and save up a little bit more to get 24-70L, with the 1.6x crop factor the 17-40 will become 27.2-64 and 24-70 is going to be 38.4-112, I suppose more coverage is also good. As for weddings and such, I don't do much of those, but it would be nice to know that I have the right equipment to cover those events. My first priority is family potraits(both indoor and outdoor), I hope it's not a waste to get just one L lens, I can rule out the noise level, but I really want a fast AF though, it really frustrated me whenever the lens keep hunting for focus and I always missed all the great shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 >>I got mine in superb condition for $100.-<< when? Adorama's price for a E graded is $157.95 The *current* Ebay avg is $150-160.00. I am talking about ongoing, current, avg sale prices. And, in that respect I have not seen one advertised from reputable stores for less than $150.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 >>My first priority is family potraits(both indoor and outdoor), I hope it's not a waste to get just one L lens,<< I have been using the 24-70L since it came out and it has worked great to "catch" my kids doing what kids do without "disturbing" them :) The lens focuses fast, it has great optics and will look great in large prints. It is wide enough to allow some indoor shooting and long enough to get some isolation. A great keep-on-the-camera lens. It's excellent for formal portraits as well. The build quality is top notch and it will last you a lifetime. You can add more lenses as you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 don't make it too complicated. IMO, the first and most important lens on a 10D is the 50/1.4. If you are shooting a lot of kids you can leave than lens on most of the times and use your feet to zoom. </p> If you are shooting indoor/tight spaces, a 17-40/4 would be very nice and the price is right. </p> I have a 100/2.8 macro and I love it as a macro lens but also for portraits, but I use it on a EOS 3 body and not a DSLR as it becomes too long w/ the 1.6x crop factor IMO. The Tamron might be worth looking into but the diff is not that big. Perhaps I'd consider something like a 28-135 IS as a general purpose lens first. </p> <center><img src="http://www.svenburg.com/photo/lukashand.jpg"></center> </p> <center><i>Canon 10D and 50/1.4 @ f/1.8</i></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 The 24-70L, while excellent, is a lot more than the 17-40L, as you've noted. Compare the pricea of these two lenses with that of the 16-35L, and you see that what you're paying a premium for is more light-gathering ability. The need for the fastest, most expensive lenses is arguably lessened when using a dSLR like the 10D, since you can bump up the ISO at will, and the noise factor is so low, and easily cleaned with inexpensive products like Noise Ninja. I think focal length is more of a consideration, and on the 10D/300D, I think you'd be much better served by a 17-40L plus any 50mm prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Yes. The 2.8L zooms are $1100-$1500. (16-35, 24-70, 70-200). The 4.0L zooms are $550-700. (17-40, 70-200). Choice is yours. Frankly, the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L is a powerful combination. The 17-40/4L may be a 4, but for portratis the 50/1.8 is what you want and it is fast enough to get the job done. I would not wory about the build quality of the 50/1.8. If it breaks, buy TWO more and you will be still ahead of the 50/1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 another reason to get the 50/1.4, apart from the nicer bokeh, see http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ is that it shares the 58mm thread w/ the 100/2.8 USM Macro, so you can share filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_jamin Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 So, the 17-40 4L + 50 1.8(or 1.4) is a cheaper and more practical combo than getting a single 24-70 2.8L? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 definitely, because the 24-70, apart from being big & heavy gives you a 38-112mm coverage vs. a 27mm and up on the 17-40. If you know that the 24-70 (38-112) is your abosolute mainstay, then it might be worth it, but as I said, don't make it too complicated. IMO, just get the 50/1.4 along with the hood ($34!) and a B+W UV filter and start there. As you shoot for a couple of weeks, then you'll now what you need and what your preferences are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_jamin Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Pat, I just noticed that you're from the DC area, so did you get all your equipments online or did you get them through local camera store? it would be nice if I can check them out or even test some of these lenses in person. I'm willing to wait and save up the money for some good lens(such as the 24-70), but I think for the type of shooting I do, it's more sensible to save the money for additional equipments I'll also need (flash, BG-ED3, and 1~2GB card), so as suggested I'll get the 17-40 + 50 prime for now, then down the road I can add a 70-200 4L to complete the setup. I hope you guys know that I value every single advice that you've given me, and I greatly appreciated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_jamin Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 I'd just checked out the 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8 at (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/), base on that review and the lens survey on other sites, I think it's safe to say that I probably would shell out the extra money for the additional micro USM and better bokeh. Sorry for the stupid question but what's the deal with zoom at the feet thing though? is this technique accurate or reliable though? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Ben, I'll contact you offline. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 <i>when? Adorama's price for a E graded is $157.95 The *current* Ebay avg is $150-160.00. I am talking about ongoing, current, avg sale prices. And, in that respect I have not seen one advertised from reputable stores for less than $150.00</i> <br> <br> eBay - I believe in march. Key on eBay is timing and patience - there will be some that sell for high price, it will get noted as a "hot item", and then lots show up - watch each one, several will sell high but a few will sell low. Also watch for people who do not know what they have. It is not *too* difficult to find listings for EOS 650 with lens - seller doesn't specify lens, but you can see the distance scale on the lens and see that it is 50mm - and it's not terribly uncommon for the 650 with non described 50/1.8 mk I lens to go for under price of a well described 50/1.8 mk I. <br> <br> eBay prices on the mk I tend to be higher when Adorama/B+H are out of stock on the 50/1.8 mk II. <br> <br> It requires a little detective work and may require re-selling of a body that comes with it, but they can be found. It should be noted that the EOS 650 was the first EOS camera Canon sold, and often sold it with the 50/1.8 mk I - the 35-70 zoom that was common with the 630 and I *think* 620 hadn't been made yet when a lot of 650's were sold, and possibly never bundled with the 650. I think the 50/1.8 was bundled with the 650. It sure shows up a lot with 650 bodies - but look at the picture and make sure you see a distance scale on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 <i>Sorry for the stupid question but what's the deal with zoom at the feet thing though? is this technique accurate or reliable though? :-)</i><p>Well, with prime lenses, you can't zoom with your hands, so you "zoom" with your feet by stepping closer or further away...... get it? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benbangerter Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 You can't zoom with your feet. When you move closer to or further from your subject, you are changing perspective. Zooming does not change perspective, just the crop. Changing the lens focal length at a fixed position and moving the camera forward or backward to alter what is included in a scene are not at all equivalent. See my comments in the thread "85mm 1.8 on film body and 50mm 1.4 on DSLR 1.6 crop" in this forum for an illustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 >> You can't zoom with your feet. Funny. I do it all the time (I have 5 primes). What a lucky person I was that I didn't knew this all along. However, what will I do from now on? :-)) >> When you move closer to or further from your subject, you are changing perspective. Wrong. When you move closer to or further from your subject, you are changing what comes into the picture but perspective stays the same. Only when you change the focal length you are changing perspective. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 >>eBay - I believe in march<< Lucky guy! :-) Yes, I have seen things on Ebay for MORE than the NEW price at B&H!!! Some people (I think) have "auction fever"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benbangerter Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Yakim, you are wrong. >> Only when you change the focal length you are changing perspective. Dead wrong. Did you look at the image I posted? Perhaps you do not understand what perspective is, and we are discussing different concepts. Two definitions of perspective from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary are: "2. (a)the appearance of objects or scenes as determined by their relative distance and positions; (b)the effect of relative distance and position. 3. the relationship or proportion of the parts of a whole, regarded from a particular standpoint or point in time." John Hedgecoe discusses this, with illustrations, in "The Photographer's Handbook," in the Third Edition it is p. 105. If you give this concept some thought, and perhaps a bit of study, you will come to understand it properly. Perhaps your response was a knee-jerk reaction, prompted by the fact that the effects of changing lens focal length or camera position are so frequently misstated. Well, this is all a bit pedantic and tedious I suppose, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Yet why is it that we can tell that one photograph we view was taken with a wide angle lens and another with a telephoto lens? It is because we know how a scene we view appears to us with the angle of view provided by our eyes. If someone views an 8"x10" print from a distance of 15 inches, the diagonal angle of view is 46.2 degrees. From the Canon EF Lens Specification Chart, the diagonal angle of view of a 50mm lens (which is generally regarded as a "normal" focal length) is 46 degrees, for a 24mm x 36mm image. So if the photo was taken on 35mm film with a 50mm lens and minimally cropped (to 8x10 rather than the 8x12 2:3 full-frame aspect ratio) the photo will appear "normal" to the viewer. If however the photo was taken with a 24mm lens, with an angle of view of 84 degrees, and minimally cropped, the viewer will perceive it as a wide-angle shot. Similarly, if the photo was taken with a 200mm lens, with an angle of view of 12 degrees, the viewer will perceive it as a telephoto shot. So if our angle of view of an image departs markedly with the angle of view captured by the lens (and modified by any cropping) it will not appear ?normal? to us, but as a wide-angle or telephoto view. The depth of field of an image also affects our perception, with telephoto shots in practice generally exhibiting less DOF than wide-angle shots, and this can be a clue as to the focal length used. The included image shows, on the right, a scene photographed with an EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 lens on a 300D, with focal length settings of 105mm, 50mm, and 28mm top to bottom, with more-or-less identical crops on the left. Shutter speed and f-stops were adjusted to keep the same exposure value, and approximately the same depth of field for the series. Don't the crops on the left all appear to show the same perspective? That is because the camera was on a tripod in the same position for the three shots. At the end of the day, none of this matters all that much. A photographer does what he or she needs to do in selection of point-of-view and lens focal length (or crop) to create the desired image. But I do think it is useful to understand the basics of perspective and composition so as to better control the process. What I have stated here is correct, and as clear as I can make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_munch Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 With apologies to the original poster, Philip Greenspun sums up the facts re. perspecitve nicely: http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_munch Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 ...and about half-way down in this thread, Jeff Spirer provides a parsimonious perspective on perspective (sorry, couldn't resist): http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0089nQ 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