 Sara Jensen |
Lens confusion - hairbrained idea? Ok, here is my problem...I posted this on another photo board, but I think I'll probably get MUCH more help from here. I am going to be starting from scratch in September. I own right now a 2000 rebel and the kit lens. I have a magnifier lens that my father-in-law gave me for doing close up pseudo macro photography. That made it so I didn't have to keep removing dust from the inside of my camera after doing the poor man macro (reversed lens). Anyway, in September I will be getting a canon 20D. I am also getting the 70-200 IS lens - YAY =). Here is the thing though. I need a portrait lens because I will be, once I'm used to the camera, going into hospitals and photographing kids with cancer, and their families. It is just going to be a normal portrait session like they would get if they were able to leave the hospital and I'll be doing it for free for them, giving them a CD of the photos and probably printing out 4 or so for them...again, free. The rooms aren't big, I won't know if I will be able to use a larger room or courtyard, so I may be working very close to my subjects. I would rather not have to use a tripod if I don't need to, they bug me. The conditions will be low light most likely, though I'm hoping to get 2 flashes (550's probably) and set one up as a slave off to the side along with having a lightsphere and a ringlight. I don't know that I will be able to plug anything in you see...hospitals are jealous about their electricity as a norm. Good grief...is there a question in here somewhere? =) Ok, so lenses...I was thinking about the 17-85 IS, but I am now wondering if maybe a hairbrained idea of mine might not actually be better. I have heard such a huge difference of opinions on the 17-85 and with my luck I'd get a lemon. So, what do you think of this idea... I could get the 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro AND the 50mm f/1.8 II for less than the 17-85 which would make it more likely my husband wouldn't have a hernia if I got the extra flash. I have seen some great portraits out of the 60mm macro (plus, then I'd be able to do macros which I love to do) but I don't know if it would work in the hospital situation. I would have that extra stop that I don't get with the 17-85, but I wouldn't have the IS so it comes to about the same thing there I think. Any opinions, suggestions, comments? Sara
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sara Jensen |
Alright...I've been thinking and as excited as I am about being able to use a lens for dual purposes (portraits AND macro) I don't think that would work in hospital rooms. Really...it is probably going to be about 10 ft wide rooms most of the time so I'll have to go for something with a MUCH shorter focal length like the 17-85. *sigh* Sorry...just was so excited at the thought of saving money and yet still getting a macro along with the portraits. Ok, so now that I have gotten that idea very quickly out of my system...those with lighting what do you think of this? Using 2 550's with lightspheres on them. Would that be good enough lighting do you think for portraits in a small confined space? I'll probably be able to use a ringlight for most of the individual close-up portraits of the child, especially for little kids, but for the group shots and shots from farther back do you think that would cut it? I think I'm sort of thinking "aloud" here mostly trying to finalize exactly what all I need before I get to take the plunge in September. I tend to really really over-plan but I don't think that is always a bad thing. =) Sara
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Given the cost of the items you are considering, you'd be able to afford the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM, which is what I'd recommend. Sigma's 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC might also be appropriate for you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||