 Sandy E. Homer |
choosing a lens (I need everyones opinion) I have been using a Tamron 28-300 f4.5 but as I have learned more about photography and have learned the value of a fast lens. I am thinking of getting a new lens. Right now I am considering a "Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens" or a "Tamron Auto focus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon SLR Cameras". I like the idea of the Canon 50mm 1.8f because of the light versatility and I like the 28-75mm because of the option for zooming it also has a fast lens but not quite as fast. I’m thinking of eventually purchasing both. But I would like to try one first. So which one should I try out first? Or should I get something else entirely? I shoot with a Canon 20D the majority of my pictures are portraits and weddings. But I do like to mess around with macro and when I have time I try to get creative. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
hey sandy, do a search on the sigma 105mm f2.8 macro.it has received great reviews on the macro end and is said to be very sharp for portraits.just a thought and no I don't work for sigma or own that lens. sam
|
|
|
|
||
- Bob Cournoyer Contact Bob Cournoyer Bob Cournoyer's Gallery  |
I have the Sigma lens that Sam mentioned. It's very sharp. However, you're stuck with the 105mm, which means you either back up or move forward physically to get a "zoom" shot and I think it cost me about $400. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Raymond |
I know zoom lenses have come a long way in the quality dept. but I feel your best quality and sharpest images come from the fixed focal length lenses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
well $69 for the 50mm and (just a wild guess) $300-$400 on the zoom? the 50 1.8 is a very very sharp lens for $69. you could just throw down the $70 and get it but also keep in mind that all that XR Di LD stuff means they've coated thier glass to help with CA and things so you'd have better color rendition and less flare where the 50mm doesn't have much. also with a 20D the 50 is going to act as a rough ~80mm so I personally would go with that considering you're shooting portraits.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
p.s. I walked around charleston one time with a 50 1.8 and acros 100 and got very very exceptional 11x14's with it even shooting wide open and a viewing distance of less than 1 foot, I was very surprised and pleased at the results.
|
|
|
|
||
- Sherry Stricklin Boles Contact Sherry Stricklin Boles Sherry Stricklin Boles's Gallery |
I have a 50mm (for Nikon). It was highly recommended to me and is an excellent portrait lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sandy E. Homer |
Thank you everyone for taking the time to answer my post. Your knowledge has been so helpful. Ok, I think I have finally decided. I am going to go with the Canon 50mm 1.4f it is more expensive then the 1.8 but I have read tons of reviews and I think it will be worth the investment. What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I know lots of photographers rave about how good the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is. It may be the best $70 lens you can get. But once you get your hands on it, it looks and feels like a toy. Be honest, it's a hunk of plastic. No distance scale, tiny focus ring, plastic lens mount. The 50mm f/1.4 lens is much more well built than the 1.8 lens. Metal lens mount, real distance scale, nice focus ring, non-rotating front element (so you can use a polarizer). I think it is well worth the extra cost. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
:) Sandy just reading your thread and noticed that Chris has changed his pic - after much encouragement LOL so didn't recognise you here!! Much nicer :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sandy E. Homer |
I am ordering my 50mm 1.4f lens today. I am so excited! Thank you everyone for your help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||