aubreyp

The Canon 35mm f2 is a great lens. Only drawback IMHO is the loud focus. I *loved* this lens on my crop body. The 28mm f1.8 isn't bad either.

You might try referencing painter's styles of that era. I'm sort of doing this in a series I completed recently:

 

http://www.rendermack.com/photo/photos/ams_style/index.html

Primes are a slippery slope. I do almost 100% of my shooting with primes & 5D these days. Each

one has its own characteristics and feeling that make the images it produces or the process of

using it special. Maybe your daily kit will be small, but your collection could be big.

 

My favorite lenses from the last few years are:

 

1) Canon 35 mm f2

2) Canon 85 mm f1.8

 

I'm currently evaluating some non-canon primes:

 

1) Zuiko 21 mm f3.5

2) Zuiko 50 mm f1.4

3) Zuiko 100 mm f2.8

4) Nikon 28mm f2.8 AI-S

 

I really enjoy USING the Nikon 28mm. It seems to have it the sweet spot of the wide view I like, as

well as a beautifully smooth focusing mechanism and great close focus. I really like the IMAGES

the Canon 35mm produces. They are sharp, rich and beautiful, but I hate the sound/feel of the

focus mech.

 

My 3 lens travel kit consists of the canon 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and Nikon 28mm 2.8.

I upgraded from a 10D to a 5D, and don't regret it at all. I don't think I'd upgrade from a 40D to a 5D. However, I'm not a landscape photographer. I hear good things about the Canon 10-22mm, and it should be just fine for landscape work. You *could* investigate manual Nikon 18mm lenses if you didn't want to spend the money or be locked into the EF-S with the 10-22. Still not terribly wide on the 40D though.

 

Nikon 18mm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/18mm.htm

 

There's one on ebay right now for about $340.

The Canon 50mm 1.4 would also not be a bad wedding and portrait lens on the 20D. It's very fast, solidly built and focuses reasonably quickly. It's about $300.

 

The 85mm f1.8 is a nicer lens though. Probably too long for anything but head and shoulders portraits, or far away candids on a 20D.

If I had your cash and wanted a zoom, I'd grab the 24-70 f2.8. Shoot with it for a few months and see if you miss:

 

1) Wide angle coverage

2) super telephoto coverage

3) Faster lens

 

Then get something else to rectify what you decide you need later.

I've been testing my Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 against some of my wide angle primes (Canon 35mm f2, Zuiko 21mm f3.5, Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS) and it's been holding up pretty well (on a 5D). It's a good lens for a good price. You can get it for about $250 these days.

You can also make "snapshots" in the develop module that keep different versions of your corrections. I often use these for saving different crops. I know some people automatically make virtual copies before they start working on images so the original view is still available. I think this is a good idea and will start doing it now that I know.

 

Maybe the workflow could go something like this:

 

1) Import photos into dated folders

2) Make virtual copies into collection based on shoot/project/etc

3) Correct virtual copies and use snapshots to save different crops

 

You may want to make more than one virtual copy if you plan on testing different development treatments.

 

I export to Photoshop to do most of my development, so usually I import the Photoshop file when I'm done and then use snapshots to save the different crops that I will later export for printing or submitting to the client.

Lightroom has really been a boon for my "fast" to "normal" processing. Each photo taking a minute to maybe 10 minutes. If I'm really working on a photo, it can take maybe 30 minutes to 6 hours. I don't do full magazine quality retouching though.

 

I'd say about 1-10% of my shots are worth showing/editing, but it takes a certain amount of shoot editing to figure out which ones those are. If you're spending too much time in post, I would encourage you to be pickier about which photos you show. It never hurts to have a smaller, stronger body of work.

Widescreens are nice for landscape oriented photos, but you loose height on your portrait orientated photos.

 

I bought an Acer display last year and I love it. I saw it at the Macintosh Store next to an Apple monitor and it looked a whole lot better.

 

The model I got was the AL2416WD (I think!). It's pretty important to check them out in the store though. My company bought a few 22" Acers and they are just terrible for photography and color work. I'm happier with my Acer than the Dell 24" I borrowed a few years ago. Dells are really good overall, but their falloff at the edges makes accurate color work very difficult.

 

My friends who work at an animation studio buy Trinitron CRT monitors with all the same tube part numbers so their colors will be closer and easier to match. They are still unbeatable for color reproduction, view angle and WEIGHT. If you don't have space restrictions and you don't move often, I would consider getting a used good quality CRT.

 

I think the Nec and LaCie monitors will be out of your budget at $1200+ each.

Here's the same composition with a filter...<div></div>

I have a Quantaray DMC-UV filter on my Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. I noticed a lot of flare at

night when I was shooting, so I tried the shot again without the filter. The results are

attached. As you can see the lens exhibits less flare without the filter. Granted these are

severe lighting conditions.<div></div>

Don't buy gear just to buy gear. My GF would call me a hypocrite, since she thinks I have too many lenses...

 

After you shoot for a few more years, figure out what you like to shoot, and which lenses would help you make the most out of your focus. The lenses you have right now are fine (except may the 75-300). If you use that one often, consider replacing it with a long prime or the 70-200L f4. You may also consider the Canon 35mm f2 for your "normal" lens.

 

Sometimes I spend a whole day or week shooting with just one lens. You really get to know the lens this way and it forces you to think about your compositions. When you have to walk around your subject to get the composition you want, it helps you to see closer, and find things you didn't notice before. For me this is the essence of photography.

I used my Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 for a number of years on my 10D. I still have it, but now I'm spending 3x-4x it's cost replacing it with primes (nikon, olympus) to use on my 5D. The Tamron is a fine lens for it's cost. I looks to be about US$300 now. Strangely it's almost 300 GBP as well...

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/17_35_Di/index

 

You could also look at getting an 18mm or 20mm Nikkor prime. I really love the old Nikkor lens I bought recently.

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/

 

Check out the links on the bottom of the page for the MF Nikon ultra-wide lenses.

I have a 5D and though the low-light perf is good, I rarely use the 3200 b/c of the noise issues, the 40D isn't going to be better.

 

You'll want a fast focusing, large aperture lens. The 50mm 1.4 is probably a fine solution. The problem with the 50 1.8 you have is the focusing speed and low-light focus accuracy are not very good.

 

If you get an external flash, I recommend getting the gary fong lightsphere. It does wonders for diffusing external flashes.

 

You might also try using the on-camera flash, but dialed back a few stops, that way it adds just a little light, without killing all the natural light.

You can start off by reading the reviews at Fred Miranda:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2

 

I was recently in the market for a wide angle prime and ended up getting the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AI-S, which I really love (on a 5D). You may not want to manual focus with the 40D though.

 

I've used the Canon 28mm 1.8, and it's a fine lens. It's just not spectacular. You may not notice. My favorite "normal" lens on my crop body was the canon 35mm f2, because of the excellent image quality and close focusing distance.

See this article on Lab color portrait treatments. Dan Margulis goes into great depth in his Lab color book.

 

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=22524

 

I generally do a HIRALOAM sharpening pass to enhance local contrast and then a standard sharpening pass (still in the L channel) to make details crisper.

This doesn't directly answer your question, but have a look at this article on "the decline of fashion photography".

 

http://www.slate.com/features/010510_fashion-slide-show/01.htm

The 85mm is too long for a crop body in constrained quarters, unless you are doing face only. I used to shoot in my 14x14 bedroom and I used the 50mm 1.8 mostly. Remember the model has to be away from the backdrop to keep from casting shadows on it, which makes your effective studio even smaller.

 

If you're on a crop body, I might recommend the Canon 35mm f2, since it would be a little longer than "normal" and also has a very short close focusing distance.

 

I recently picked up an Olympus Zukio 50mm 1.4 for $50. Add in an adapter and you've got a reasonably priced, well built 50mm -minus auto-focus. Just a thought.

Thanks for all the info and opinions! I think I'll just stick to my Tamron for now. It's not very fun to use, but it appears to be a good choice until I can get a 16-35 f2.8 or *maybe* a Zuiko 21mm f3.5. I'll try renting the Canon 20mm and see if I like it as well. Maybe it will perform just fine for me. I saw one used for $260, which seems like a good deal.

Hi Mark U,

 

Thanks for reminding me to go back to 16-9. I found a good link here on wide-angles:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html

Hi Yakim,

 

I've been searching for a Zuiko 21mm f3.5 online, but I haven't found anything yet. I hear very good things about that lens.

Hi Bryan,

 

Thanks for the link on the Canon 20mm. I've read decent things about it on the Fred Miranda review forums. People on FM claim it's loud, though that's a funny thing to say about a USM lens. Now my Canon 35 f2 *is* loud.

 

I can't afford the 16-35, and I think the 17-40 would be too slow for me. Also part of the problem is that I am uninspired by my Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-f4. It's not a bad lens, and I used to use it a lot, I just don't get any joy out of it. Not the kind of joy I've been getting from the Nikon 28mm. I *could* buy the Canon 17-40, but it's not very fast. I tend to make a lot of hand-held night/dusk/indoor shots where the extra stop gets used a lot.

I've recently discovered the world of old Nikon lenses on my 5D via a recently

acquired Nikkor 28mm 2.8. I'm really enjoying the manual focus and the aperture

on the barrel. I'm thinking about picking up either a Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AI-S or

the Nikkor 18mm f3.5. Unfortunately, the resale values of these lenses is pretty

high. Before I drop $250-350 on one of these used lenses, I'd be interested to

know the optical differences between the Nikon and Canon lenses. Does anyone

have any experience with comparing these lenses?

 

I have found a lot of good information comparing the Nikons on these pages:

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/20mm.htm

 

But there's no comparison with the recent Canon 20mm.

 

Thanks,

 

-Aubrey

This is a big question, so I'll just provide part of the answer...

 

I think about what perspectives I need, then look at places like Photo.net and Fredmiranda.com reviews. After buying lenses for a while, I realized you get what you pay for, and so now I try and save up for the nicer lenses instead of getting cheaper lenses now. There are usually a few price/performance gems in any lens line. If you want those perspectives, it's worth digging to find them.

 

I also tend to shoot primes, since I like to be constrained in my artistic work. If I'm on a job though, I'll usually bring/rent a good zoom, so I don't missing anything.