Forum Thread

Recommendation lens for Canon full frame body?

JackB1579 95 30 October 24, 2015 at 12:42 PM
My finance is 2K, and i am looking for 3 lens, wide angle, zoom, and closed up lens (like 24-70 or 50mm) so what is your suggestion? I mostly working with on portrait field, and indoor shooting. What i am having right now is 24-105 is usm, 50mm 1.8, 75 300 f/4-5.6. My favorite is 24-105 but because of f4 that annoyed me when shooting indoor, 50mm focusing is a crap . SO i wonder what is your suggestion for lens upgrading ?

21 Comments

1 2

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#2
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2007
Temporally unavailable
27,326 Posts
3,617 Reputation
#3
Indoor kinda restricts you to 2.8zooms and fast primes.

With limited budget I think you'll have to go with primes. Basically all Canon primes area good.

50mm 1.4, 35mm,85mm,100mm,134mm


The sigma art primes are awesome and I feel are way better than the Canon L.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jul 2013
L2: Beginner
95 Posts
30 Reputation
Original Poster
#4
Quote from fyu View Post :
Indoor kinda restricts you to 2.8zooms and fast primes.

With limited budget I think you'll have to go with primes. Basically all Canon primes area good.

50mm 1.4, 35mm,85mm,100mm,134mm


The sigma art primes are awesome and I feel are way better than the Canon L.
Thank! for 50mm 1.4, i heard people complained about focusing, and they rather go with 1.8 ii stm instead, is that true? yeah about art lens sigma, i'm thinking about it too!

Quote from bargeit View Post :
your probably better going to a photo website

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/...hould-buy/


http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/
nice website, thank alot!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by JackB1579 October 24, 2015 at 07:37 PM
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
16,640 Posts
997 Reputation
#5
Quote from bargeit View Post :
your probably better going to a photo website

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/...hould-buy/ [thewirecutter.com]


http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/
Ken Rockwell is an idiot. His photographs are terrible, and his advice is poor. He often contradicts himself. He tells photographers that he always exposes using "Pro Mode," like all pro photographers. That's what the P stands for, he says. Avoid his website; it's garbage.

DPReview.com and FredMiranda.com are frequented by very serious and professional photographers who use this equipment to take great photos and they actually know what they're talking about. In the DPReview forum, members post their work in a gallery, so you can tell the good photographers from the wannabes.

To answer the original question: Don't switch from an f/4.0 lens to an f/1.4 lens in order to get more light for indoor portraits. Instead, get more light. Hard stop. I see photographers online all the time who dump thousands on equipment like this for low-light photography. The results are always crap. Always. For indoor portraits, you want more light. Get a 600EX and maybe a ST-E3 and learn how to use them. You can't turn a badly-lit scene into a good photograph. It doesn't work that way.

When you change aperture, you change how the portrait looks. Don't think of aperture as an exposure control. Use light as your exposure control, and use aperture to control how the photo looks.

For your lens choices, you're right that the 50mm f/1.8 is only fair, and their 50mm f/1.4 isn't great at focusing, either. The 85mm f/1.8 is a lot better, or you could spend the whole $2,000 on either the 50mm f/1.2 or the 85mm f/1.2. The 85mm f/1.2 is a professional portrait lens. The f/1.2 setting gives a very creamy, soft look that other lenses can't mimic.

Another possibility for a more versatile portrait lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but that lens is so heavy that few portrait photographers use it in a studio. But it looks very good at 70-100 f/2.8. It also costs around $2,000, and it's just amazing. But very heavy and large.

Your 75-300 lens is not a very good lens. So what would I do if I were you? I'd keep the 24-105 and sell the other two. Then i'd get some combination of these:
85mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.2
50mm f.1.4 Sigma ART
40mm f/2.8 pancake (it looks silly but works well)
70-200mm f/4.0 IS (the IS part matters)
600EX-RT and ST-E3

For indoor portrait lighting, check out www.strobist.com, or try Syl Arena's book "Speedlighter's Handbook"
Reply Helpful Comment? 1 0
Last edited by Rebound October 25, 2015 at 06:39 AM
Joined Jul 2013
L2: Beginner
95 Posts
30 Reputation
Original Poster
#6
Quote from Rebound View Post :
Ken Rockwell is an idiot. His photographs are terrible, and his advice is poor. He often contradicts himself. He tells photographers that he always exposes using "Pro Mode," like all pro photographers. That's what the P stands for, he says. Avoid his website; it's garbage.

DPReview.com and FredMiranda.com are frequented by very serious and professional photographers who use this equipment to take great photos and they actually know what they're talking about. In the DPReview forum, members post their work in a gallery, so you can tell the good photographers from the wannabes.

To answer the original question: Don't switch from an f/4.0 lens to an f/1.4 lens in order to get more light for indoor portraits. Instead, get more light. Hard stop. I see photographers online all the time who dump thousands on equipment like this for low-light photography. The results are always crap. Always. For indoor portraits, you want more light. Get a 600EX and maybe a ST-E3 and learn how to use them. You can't turn a badly-lit scene into a good photograph. It doesn't work that way.

When you change aperture, you change how the portrait looks. Don't think of aperture as an exposure control. Use light as your exposure control, and use aperture to control how the photo looks.

For your lens choices, you're right that the 50mm f/1.8 is only fair, and their 50mm f/1.4 isn't great at focusing, either. The 85mm f/1.8 is a lot better, or you could spend the whole $2,000 on either the 50mm f/1.2 or the 85mm f/1.2. The 85mm f/1.2 is a professional portrait lens. The f/1.2 setting gives a very creamy, soft look that other lenses can't mimic.

Another possibility for a more versatile portrait lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but that lens is so heavy that few portrait photographers use it in a studio. But it looks very good at 70-100 f/2.8. It also costs around $2,000, and it's just amazing. But very heavy and large.

Your 75-300 lens is not a very good lens. So what would I do if I were you? I'd keep the 24-105 and sell the other two. Then i'd get some combination of these:
85mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.2
50mm f.1.4 Sigma ART
40mm f/2.8 pancake (it looks silly but works well)
70-200mm f/4.0 IS (the IS part matters)
600EX-RT and ST-E3

For indoor portrait lighting, check out www.strobist.com, or try Syl Arena's book "Speedlighter's Handbook"
wow thank bro for your advice!! I had 2 430ex ii and maybe i will get another 600ex as master or youngou 622c. for my 75-300 usm i think i cant sell it as it really cheaper now, maybe $50? for 70-200mm and 85mm, i'm thinking about it too as both are really nice for portrait. ummm will it be better to with sigma or just stick with canon brand?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
16,640 Posts
997 Reputation
#7
Quote from JackB1579 View Post :
wow thank bro for your advice!! I had 2 430ex ii and maybe i will get another 600ex as master or youngou 622c. for my 75-300 usm i think i cant sell it as it really cheaper now, maybe $50? for 70-200mm and 85mm, i'm thinking about it too as both are really nice for portrait. ummm will it be better to with sigma or just stick with canon brand?
If you do off-camera flash, using a 600EX as a master is expensive, because when you gave multiple flashes, you usually don't want to fire one that's attached to the hotshoe. Although, you can use 600EX off-camera as a master if you attach it to the camera with a long ETTL cord. Then you can control settings and trigger all three strobes from your camera's built-in menu. Syl Arena sells these on his website.

I was thinking of the 70-200 f/4 as a tele for sports, not portraits. The f/4 might not be too good for portraits because you might want the faster aperture to soften the focus.

The Sigma ART lenses are reputed to be excellent (I don't have one). www.canonpricewatch.com links to the best prices and deals on Canon equipment (I have no affiliation with them). I hope that link doesn't run afoul of the Slickdeals rule, but it's a pretty special-purpose website.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Rebound October 26, 2015 at 04:05 AM
Joined Aug 2005
L8: Grand Teacher
3,997 Posts
1,316 Reputation
Pro
#8
Quote from Rebound View Post :
Ken Rockwell is an idiot. His photographs are terrible, and his advice is poor. He often contradicts himself...
I don't agree with you often elsewhere around here but that was an excellent post and spot on.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2013
L2: Beginner
95 Posts
30 Reputation
Original Poster
#9
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If you do off-camera flash, using a 600EX as a master is expensive, because when you gave multiple flashes, you usually don't want to fire one that's attached to the hotshoe. Although, you can use 600EX off-camera as a master if you attach it to the camera with a long ETTL cord. Then you can control settings and trigger all three strobes from your camera's built-in menu. Syl Arena sells these on his website.

I was thinking of the 70-200 f/4 as a tele for sports, not portraits. The f/4 might not be too good for portraits because you might want the faster aperture to soften the focus.

The Sigma ART lenses are reputed to be excellent (I don't have one). www.canonpricewatch.com links to the best prices and deals on Canon equipment (I have no affiliation with them). I hope that link doesn't run afoul of the Slickdeals rule, but it's a pretty special-purpose website.
Thank for a nice advice and what i talked about is 70-200 f2.8 is II. yeah for 600ex maybe i will go with yongnou 622c instead as it cheaper and it can act as master for off camera flash!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
16,640 Posts
997 Reputation
#10
Quote from JackB1579 View Post :
Thank for a nice advice and what i talked about is 70-200 f2.8 is II. yeah for 600ex maybe i will go with yongnou 622c instead as it cheaper and it can act as master for off camera flash!
You said your budget is $2,000, and Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 II is about $2,000 by itself. Although it is excellent, you need to try it at a store. It is huge and heavy, and you will be reluctant to carry this huge $2,000 piece of glass everywhere. An 85mm f/1.2 is a better portrait lens, and far smaller. You need to be certain that you can deal with the size of that 70-200, cause it's huge.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2005
L10: Grand Master
12,662 Posts
4,824 Reputation
Pro
#11
Quote from Rebound View Post :
You said your budget is $2,000, and Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 II is about $2,000 by itself. Although it is excellent, you need to try it at a store. It is huge and heavy, and you will be reluctant to carry this huge $2,000 piece of glass everywhere. An 85mm f/1.2 is a better portrait lens, and far smaller. You need to be certain that you can deal with the size of that 70-200, cause it's huge.
It's sizeable but not huge. I think for indoor it's a bit much. I have the Sigma personally and it's a great lens and less money too. It's worth considering but I personally would go for the 85mm L Prime first.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Vague questions receive vague answers . . . . . .
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
16,640 Posts
997 Reputation
#12
Quote from LiquidRetro View Post :
It's sizeable but not huge. I think for indoor it's a bit much. I have the Sigma personally and it's a great lens and less money too. It's worth considering but I personally would go for the 85mm L Prime first.
Well, if you're just going for a hike with your friends or walking about in a city and you think you might want to grab a few photos of your friends or the kids, the 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big. It's like having a dog -- there are just some places you can't bring it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2005
L10: Grand Master
12,662 Posts
4,824 Reputation
Pro
#13
Quote from Rebound View Post :
Well, if you're just going for a hike with your friends or walking about in a city and you think you might want to grab a few photos of your friends or the kids, the 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big. It's like having a dog -- there are just some places you can't bring it.
I would agree, it's range is fairly impractical for a walk about anyways. I use mine for sports mostly but it does compact things nicely for a portrait. However the user said indoor so while the 70-200 is a great lens I think it's too long for most studios probably. It's like a 3 or 4 lb lens so heavy but not absurd. If your shooting a 3-4 hr you will notice it for sure.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2007
Temporally unavailable
27,326 Posts
3,617 Reputation
#14
Quote from LiquidRetro View Post :
I would agree, it's range is fairly impractical for a walk about anyways. I use mine for sports mostly but it does compact things nicely for a portrait. However the user said indoor so while the 70-200 is a great lens I think it's too long for most studios probably. It's like a 3 or 4 lb lens so heavy but not absurd. If your shooting a 3-4 hr you will notice it for sure.
impractical?

I saw an older dude in Tibet rock one of those on a 5ds, and a 16-35mm on a 1dx.
He was a smoker too.
I was thoroughly impressed.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2005
L10: Grand Master
12,662 Posts
4,824 Reputation
Pro
#15
Quote from fyu View Post :
impractical?

I saw an older dude in Tibet rock one of those on a 5ds, and a 16-35mm on a 1dx.
He was a smoker too.
I was thoroughly impressed.
Not saying it's not possible and not impractical for the weight reasons, I carry mine around all day at the race track, or airshow etc. Totally doable. . Impractical for the range. It's just not a walk around lens most of the time for say a picture of your family on vacation in front of that landmark etc. Either way this is for studio work the OP said. Studio tends to be closer not 75 feet away.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 2
1 2
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard