Which lens to use?

[maswu]

Hi, i was wondering if anyone could tell me what canon or third-party for canon lens you guys think is best for portrait and sceneries...my friend was telling me to get the 17-40 f/4L lens...but i wanna get opinions from you guys too...TIA =)

[Russ]

Assuming you are using a 1.6x crop camera (xxxD or xxD), then the 17-40L is a good bet for landscape, but the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is also good. The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is also good but rather expensive.

For portraits, the 17-40 is OK at the 40 end, but you should consider a 50mm 1.8 II or a 85mm 1.8 to complement it. The former is very good value and extremely sharp but plasticky. A more expensive alternative is the 50mm 1.4 USM but it costs 3x as much as the 1.8 II. The 85mm is a superb lens optically

If primes are not your cup of tea, you may also want to consider super wides (Canon 10-22) and complement it with a 24-85 or 24-105 L IS. The 24-85 can be bought for $300 or so second hand, is quite sharp and great value. The 24-105 is of course a great lens but costs $1,300 2nd hand, or 1,700 new.

[maswu]

I'm fine with primes =) but i'm kinda looking for lens that has IS or similar capablilities...unless anyone can tell me that IS is not necessary for prime lenses =)

Quote: For portraits, the 17-40 is OK at the 40 end, but you should consider a 50mm 1.8 II or a 85mm 1.8 to complement it.

oh and what do you mean by complement?

[Goldenstars08]

The EF 17-40 F/4 L is a good lens for sceneries as most will use about F/8 or smaller to get beter D.O.F. I personally like the colour of L.

As for portrait you can get the EF 50 F/1.8...A sharp lens to start taking portrait. I am using this lens for portrait, sharp.

For Tamron 17-50 2.8 is good for general walk around shoot. F/2.8 really help in low lighting handheld photography.

So you need to know what you need...Hope this help...

[maswu]

i have my 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 IS already...so i dun tink i really need a f/2.8...but will it be better if i get the 50mm f/1.4?Is it worth the money for that little bit bigger aperture? I have read reviews but i'll appreciate opinions from you guys too =) also...is there a gd lens for both portraits and landscape? and i also like to take pictures of random pple doing things or playing, what lens do yu all recommend?

[Frijj]

I think EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice for u. If u look hard enough, you can get in for $1000 2nd hand w/ hood.

I'd choose this over the 17-40 L for the longer range, wider max aperture and IS. And it's sharp to boot! Overall, it can be used for more situations. Go for it unless u plan to go FF within the next few mths.

BTW, any one wants to trade a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS with my 17-40 L? Heh heh. Kidding.

[Frijj]

Oops... in your case, u're better off getting the EF-S 10-22 or a fast prime.

I love primes.

If you're on a budget, get the 35 f/2. I prefer the 35mm fov on a 1.6 crop than the 50mm fov. It can be used for portriats and as a general walkabout lens. Landscape.. depends on what u like lah!

[maswu]

hmm...icic...10-22mm??hmm...not enough zoom to capture random pple leh...and its ex man! but thanx btw...anymore suggestions? =)

[Benosaurous]

i would agree with frijj,

generally prime does the best for portraits, 50mm if you are on FF, 20-30mm if you are on cropped, if you just want to play around get the 50 1.8II cheapest lens around. generally look for aperature with f2 or lesser deliver good enough bokeh, moreover they are good in low light conditions.

for zoom lens, basically they are better with walk around purposes.

if you are looking for walk around + portraits, there's a few threads debating on that.


if you are asking for street candid portraits, you should be looking for the f/2.8 zooms.
17-55 f/2.8 is (if you dont plan to go ff)
16-35 f/2.8L (alot of debates on this)
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L

note: they all cost more than 1.5k if you are looking for cheaper ones, do a little research with the 3rd party lens.

[maswu]

icic thanx for ur suggestions =) anyone else? =)

[Russ]

Oh, you have a 18-55 IS already. The 17-40 pretty much covers a very similar range. If the 18-55 suits your needs as far as zoom range is concerned, then the 17-40 will suit. But if it is sharpness you want, then the 18-55 is already quite good. The 17-40 will be nicer to handle, more well built, have better contrast and colours, but don't expect it to be much sharper than the 18-55. What do you not like about the 18-55 that makes you want to change?

I suggested the 50 1.8 as it is cheap, super sharp, large aperture.

When I said to complement, it means to be deployed when 17-40 won't do, e.g. lower light, larger aperture, extra sharpness, slightly more telephoto....

What type of portraiture do you intend to do? The 85 is very useful if you do face+shoulder type shots., but is a bit too long for whole body portraits.

[chalib]

Originally Posted by Benosaurous i would agree with frijj, generally prime does the best for portraits, 50mm if you are on FF, 20-30mm if you are on cropped, if you just want to play around get the 50 1.8II cheapest lens around. generally look for aperature with f2 or lesser deliver good enough bokeh, moreover they are good in low light conditions. for zoom lens, basically they are better with walk around purposes. if you are looking for walk around + portraits, there's a few threads debating on that. if you are asking for street candid portraits, you should be looking for the f/2.8 zooms. 17-55 f/2.8 is (if you dont plan to go ff) 16-35 f/2.8L (alot of debates on this) 24-70 f/2.8L 70-200 f/2.8L note: they all cost more than 1.5k if you are looking for cheaper ones, do a little research with the 3rd party lens.

24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200f/2.8L for street candid portraits? Have you tried lugging these lens for long hours? These are bricks.....

For TS, please consider the weight of the lens to suit your need as well....

[Goldenstars08]

Originally Posted by maswu i have my 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 IS already...so i dun tink i really need a f/2.8...but will it be better if i get the 50mm f/1.4?Is it worth the money for that little bit bigger aperture? I have read reviews but i'll appreciate opinions from you guys too =) also...is there a gd lens for both portraits and landscape? and i also like to take pictures of random pple doing things or playing, what lens do yu all recommend?

Er the EF 50 F/1.4...
Yes worth the money if your direction is in to portrait...

[Benosaurous]

Originally Posted by chalib 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200f/2.8L for street candid portraits? Have you tried lugging these lens for long hours? These are bricks..... For TS, please consider the weight of the lens to suit your need as well....

yes i do not own them, but i do know the weight. and seriously the 17-55 is not much lighter.

with weight of 17-55 645g
24-70 950g
70-200 f2.8 1470g

f2.8 are all like bricks.

first thing first i would agree that anything more than 700g are too heavy for walkaround, i wouldnt want to carry them around too.

but if i am looking for good quality street candid photos, i will get these lens, primes are hard, at least i feel that way, when you do see some good candid you might not have the time to walk a few steps around to catch the best angle, not to mention with space constraint on the streets. I brought my 50 1.8 prime for still life portrait photos, as in to photo my friends posing for me, so i can take my time to find the better angle and lighting for the best shot

and u do see event and wedding photographers with the 70-200 around, its just the matter whether you mind to take up more effort(sweat and tears) to take better photos or not.

for casual wise, the kit 18-55 is more than enough.
lotsa debates with 17-40L, the choice is the ts.

[maswu]

thanx guys...hmm...?how about events and weddings?is it good if i use my 18-55mm IS and complement it with 50mm f1.4?

[maswu]

guys...i am tinking of getting the 85mm lens for portraits...what do you tink? and is there a big difference between the 85mm f1.2L and 85mm f1.8 other than the aperture?

[Benosaurous]

85mm is a popular lens for portraits, and the 135mm L too. they are good for events and wedding (that people dont move so much around in a designated stage)

regarding the f/1.8 and f/1.2 is the issue of money again therefore you have a better budget go for it!

[maswu]

Originally Posted by Benosaurous ....regarding the f/1.8 and f/1.2 is the issue of money again therefore you have a better budget go for it!

ok but budgets aside, which one do yu tink i shud get? i mean for the long run...the f1.8 or the f1.2L?

[Headshotzx]

Hey, you were from St Andrew's? Just checked your blog..

If money is not an issue and you don't have a telephoto zoom, get a 70-200 2.8L IS.

Between the 85 1.8 and 1.2, I'd pick the 1.8 in a heartbeat because I can't bear to spend 2.8k+ more on a prime and get 1 stop difference. Im not a professional. You might be different though =)

[Frijj]

Originally Posted by maswu ok but budgets aside, which one do yu tink i shud get? i mean for the long run...the f1.8 or the f1.2L?

Seriously, 85mm is quite long on a 1.6x crop. So you might find yourself not using it as much as you'd hoped to once you get it.

Between the f1.8 and f1.2L, of course the colours of the L are nicer, but is it worth the 5x (approx) more you pay for it? If I needed a 85mm, I'd just stick to the f1.8. I had this lens and sold it off. I just didn't use the 85mm focal length enough on my 20D.