ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 As per the title! Does anyone know what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Pictures of the lenses themselves can be found on the manufacturer's websites (canon, nikon etc) You can also see ones that have been reviewed on www.dpreview.com If you want to check out the images from a particular lens, the Canon forum has an awesome archive thread Is that what you are looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Pictures of the lenses themselves can be found on the manufacturer's websites (canon, nikon etc)You can also see ones that have been reviewed on www.dpreview.com If you want to check out the images from a particular lens, the Canon forum has an awesome archive thread Is that what you are looking for? Bear in mind that judging quality of lenses from a small image on the web isn't very reliable. And without knowing the shooting conditions, focal length, distance, etc, even judging what sort of images they produce is problematic as well. Fred Miranda also hgas review of lenses. Luminous landscape has review and often includes detailed images. What are you looking for, perhaps I can find something specific to your needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) LOL that's too true... be aware that the Canon people there go a little over the top sometimes, too Fred Miranda is a great resource, but again, the people can get a little nutsy sometimes. Very good reviews and there are plenty of really helpful people, too. The forums at DPReview can get kinda nasty sometimes, but you might find a nugget... So what are you buying??? Edited August 29, 2008 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 I want a new lens and I've been bombarding kja with PMs for the last few months but I still don't know what one to get :D I want a really good one for portraits, with nice bokeh! [see, I'm learnin'! ] I like the pics her and Helen posted from the 85mm. I love the pics I've seen from the 50mm 1.2 and I like yours and Ripley's ones from your 70-200. I can't decide. I wish I could try before I buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Ruthless, my 70-200 doesn't have IS in it unfortunately. I couldn't afford the one that did. Your Canon 70-300 IS is a very good lens, do you have a problem with it? Have you got the 50mm 1.8? That is a great portrait lens. It's very sharp and stops right down. It's fast too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 Nothing wrong with the 70-300, but it's not a good portrait lens AFAIK. I don't have that 50mm, only my faux macro 50mm that you told me I had It takes nice pics, but it's quite clunky and slow to focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) That 50 1.8mm is a great lens for the money. I still use mine all the time. I have now ordered the 50 1.4 and it should be here next week - so my 1.8 will be for sale The 85 1.8 is super but it's a bit long sometimes - which can be good or bad depending on your situation :D You might like this length as it's good for doggies who aren't up in your face, too. Another lens I'm digging, and I do use it for portraits when I want something a little wider but with no crazy distortion is the Sigma 30 1.4 You will find excellent examples and not so good examples from all of these lenses - just like most things with photography, it's the person behind the lens that really matters. All of these are viable options. Another option is the 17-55 2.8 IS by Canon. I use this at weddings and for portrait sessions. Fabulous to be able to go from fairly wide to a nice tight face with one lens. It's pricey though - almost $1000. Edited August 29, 2008 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 Another option? :D :D :D Did you have to throw another option into the mix?!!! Prepare for another barrage of PMs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) Another option? :D :D ;) Did you have to throw another option into the mix?!!! Prepare for another barrage of PMs! Do you have a budget in mind? The other thing to consider is working distance. The longer the focal length the further away you will need to be. This can be problematic when working inside. Not so much a problem working outside. Then you got to consider the flexibility of a zoom, versus the generally higher image quality and better price of a fixed lens. Oh - and has anyone mentioned that the 100mm macro can double as a decent portrait lens? :D If budget wasn't a consideration, I'd be getting the 85mm f/1.2 on a 1.6X crop body. The cheaper option would be the f/1.8. I might be swayed to the 135mm f/2 on a full frame body (I tend to like the flattening effects of longer focal lengths). If I didn't already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS - I'd be buying it first - it makes a great action lens for dog photography and doubles as a very, very decent portrait lens. Edited August 29, 2008 by Luke W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 I don't want to go into the several thousands, but I would like a really good lens so I know I need to spend a bit. OH is subsidising it as my belated bday present! No, no one's mentioned the 100mm, thanks for that! Is that a true macro lens? When you say decent, do you mean it's ok but you can get better? Do you find the 70-200 heavy? I've been reading reviews and a lot of people are commenting on how heavy it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) If I didn't already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS - I'd be buying it first - it makes a great action lens for dog photography and doubles as a very, very decent portrait lens. I have and love this lens but it's a heavy monster, so be warned. Luke's right on it's versatility for sure. The portraits from it are just dreamy But for me, it's the last one I pull from my bag on most portrait sessions coz I prefer the smaller lighter lenses! As I've said before, it really depends on what you want from your lens ... and unfortunately, eventually you have to just decide and then go with it! There's always ebay and more shopping to do hehehe FWIW - I have chosen not to spend the mega-bucks on the 1.2 versions of the 85 and the 50 after talking extensively with many of my pro friends who have and use both the 1.8 85, the 1.4 50 and the 1.2s. I about drove them and me crazy with discussions. Although they wouldn't give up their 1.2s to a single one said that the slightly slower of these particular lenses were just fantastic. Most of them still routinely use the slightly slower glass on assignments, too. I dunno, just passing on what I found when I was searching for the kit to suit me recently. For me & my shooting needs, that extra bit of low light capability would be a lovely thing to have, but not at the cost of a heavier lens AND more money right now. It's never easy unless you have unlimited funds to just buy one of everything! I have and love the 100 mm macro - a true 1:1 macro - and it does do nice portraits. I just don't use it much because it's heavy and I like my others better for portraits. Edited August 29, 2008 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The 100mm is a true macro. Portraits are nice - but you can do better. I don't find the 70-200 heavy (I can hand hold it all day) - but I'm a big beefy bloke - it's on my camera 75% of the time. Get the 85mm f/1.8 - ...decision made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) The 100mm is a true macro. Portraits are nice - but you can do better.I don't find the 70-200 heavy (I can hand hold it all day) - but I'm a big beefy bloke :D - it's on my camera 75% of the time. I find it heavy, especially on my 30D. I have the 70-200 f/4 so it's lighter. I'm only a slip of a lass though but I'm tall so have long arms and long fingers to hold it all with. ruthless, if I were you I'd get the cheap 50mm 1.8 and see how you feel about that. To put this up again, here is a shot taken with my 50mm 1.8 fixed lens, not my telephoto one. ETA: I wanted to blur the background as it was very distracting but with dobes, they have long noses so I should have used a higher f stop but at least her eye is sharp. ETAA: Yes I know I should have cloned the pole out but who has time?! Edited August 29, 2008 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I think you would be pleasantly surprised with the 50mm/1.8, its pretty cheap as far as nice lenses go. That is a nice sample shot of Divani (I am guessing it is Divani!). I have one but its mainly been used for still life images. Ruthless: what lenses do you have already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 I have a 17-85, a 70-300 with IS and an old 50mm, 2.5 I think? The latter takes nice shots but takes a while to focus. I took this the day I discovered it in my camera bag and realised it also works on my DSLR! I bought it as a macro when I was in college about 10yrs ago [frightening to think I majored in photography, eh?!]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 What are you wanting to achieve? You have a few focal ranges covered there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 I find my 50mm too clunky and I imagine a better lens would take sharper pics too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 How do you find the 17-85 for 'portraits'? Any samples from that? I have used the 70-300 IS in the past so know what that is like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 Nothing worth posting I think it only goes to 5.6, I want to go a lot further! 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