 Jeremy Jones |
Lens Recommendation Thanks, P.S. Attached are some shots I got with the new 85mm lens (keeping in mind I'm basically a newb to the Digital SLR world).
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
Double Post... sorry... the newer one has attachments.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Jeremy, A couple of decades ago there was a real difference in the quality of images between prime and zoom lenses. Not so much anymore. The big differences between the two nowadays is simply the speed,size, and convenience. You won't find an f1.4, 1.8, or f2 in a zoom. 2.8 is as good as that gets, and with a significant increase in size and weight. You WILL find greater convenience in subject composition by being able to zoom in and out. If you appreciate the out-of-focus backgrounds afforded by the wider apertures, you will probably be better off with primes. The 50mm is your next choice going wider, and it does couple well with the 85. The 28-135 IS is a really nice lens, but has nowhere near the speed, especially at the long end. The 24-105L is top drawer quality, but with a maximum f4 aperture, it is over 2 stops slower than your prime 85. These zooms are also much bulkier than your prime 85 or 50. But for outdoor shooting where you want maximum shooting power with minimum equipment, quality zooms are hard to beat. The 85 is a quality lens, but you won't see any difference between it and the zooms I mentioned. Good luck
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
I'm inclined to agree with Michael. A point that I would like to add though, is that you stated you basically needed something with which to work in tighter spaces. I think the 50mm would be a good choice. There is surprisingly quite a bit of difference in the angle of coverage between 50 & 85mm. The shorter you get in focal lengths, the greater the difference between two lenses. For example, a 28mm is considered a normal wide angel, but when you drop down to just 24mm, it's considered a superwide. The real factor is going to be the lenses angle of view, Your 85mm has an angle of view of appx. 29 degrees where as the 50mm has 63 degree. Thats a whopping 34 degree difference. Where as a 300mm lens AOV is 8 degrees and a 600mm lens is only 4 degrees difference. But you had to double the focal length to squeeze out just 4 degrees. And especially if you do a lot of indoor shooting, the 50mm would be faster than any zoom out there. One last thing. The 350D uses the APS-C sensor which is smaller than full frame 35mm, so any lens you use is going to have a longer effective focal length. Your 85mm would be more like a 136mm lens on a film camera. Likewise, the 50mm lens would be more like an 80mm lens. The focal length factor is 1.6x by the way. So any lens you look at, multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get a feel for what the lens would be like on a 35MM camera. Basically, you aren't gaining focal length, you are loosing angle of view. The image size will always be the same for a given lens, but because the cameras sensor is smaller, you aren't getting the full image circle the lens is projecting. Whew! That was more involved then intented, sorry! Bob
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
Thank you for such terrific responses! Bob, aren't you both gaining focal length and loosing angle of view with the 1.6x factor? The 50mm sounds like a good choice, now my only concern would be how much use I'll get out of either one. Seeing that I'm fairly new to DSLR and photography, I can imagine my reluctance to switch back to the 85mm for any purpose (unless I felt the extra focal length was needed, which I'm not so sure I'd be able to discern at this point).
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Tobeck |
Ok Jeremy, you can stop making all us Canon owners drool. The 85mm 1.8 is an awesome close up portrait lens, one I wish I had. No Photoshop technique can match that silky smooth background blur you get at wide open. As your daughter ages and gets more active, though, I would suggest you look hard at the 28-135 IS zoom (or if you've got the cash, the 24-105 L IS). Once you have to start chasing her around, you'll quickly want to ditch a prime for a fast focusing zoom, and the image stabilization is a godsend. Save those primes for the quiet moments (and believe me, those will get fewer and fewer as time goes on!) and get the zoom to snap those great impromptu childhood moments.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Jeremy: First off, you welcome. I enjoy reading through the threads and answering peoples questions that I feel I might have useful answers for. Bob
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
Bob, thanks. I think I've got it now. An 85mm on my 350D is still only 85mm but the image will be cropped as if it were a 136mm. I've read lens reviews that were very unclear on this point and actually make it sound like you gain focal length which is obviously not the case. I'm loving the 85mm, especially now that it's warm outside (allowing for more distance between myself and my subject). However, the 50mm would have been better suited for inside portraits given that that 85mm tends to crop quite a bit in my daughter's room, where I'm generally taking pictures of her (with my back against the wall, literally). I've had my finger on the trigger to get the 50mm but know with a little extra effort I can make the 85mm work for me just as well. As for the zoom lenses, I've gotta say I'm a little spoiled already by the f/1.8... my kit lens is an f/3.5-5.6 like the 28-135 IS and it tends to blur easily in low light (e.g. indoors). Obviously the 28-135 IS is a better lens than the kit but given it's f/3.5-5.6 wouldn't it suffer the same fate regardless of the IS feature? Obviously I'm not going to get much faster than that in the zoom arena without forking over the bucks. I do plan to do more outdoor shooting as well and the 70-200mm f/4L has been tempting me too. I really wish someone rented camera equipment in the area! Then there's macro... ha. What an expensive hobby this can be, eh? :)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
Bob, thanks. I think I've got it now. An 85mm on my 350D is still only 85mm but the image will be cropped as if it were a 136mm. I've read lens reviews that were very unclear on this point and actually make it sound like you gain focal length which is obviously not the case. I'm loving the 85mm, especially now that it's warm outside (allowing for more distance between myself and my subject). However, the 50mm would have been better suited for inside portraits given that that 85mm tends to crop quite a bit in my daughter's room, where I'm generally taking pictures of her (with my back against the wall, literally). I've had my finger on the trigger to get the 50mm but know with a little extra effort I can make the 85mm work for me just as well. As for the zoom lenses, I've gotta say I'm a little spoiled already by the f/1.8... my kit lens is an f/3.5-5.6 like the 28-135 IS and it tends to blur easily in low light (e.g. indoors). Obviously the 28-135 IS is a better lens than the kit but given it's f/3.5-5.6 wouldn't it suffer the same fate regardless of the IS feature? Obviously I'm not going to get much faster than that in the zoom arena without forking over the bucks. I do plan to do more outdoor shooting as well and the 70-200mm f/4L has been tempting me too. I really wish someone rented camera equipment in the area! Then there's macro... ha. What an expensive hobby this can be, eh? :)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
I'm really bad about double posting on the BetterPhoto forums... this place needs an edit and/or delete feature for your own posts :)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Don't worry Jeremy. I see double, triple and even once in a while a quradruple post in some threads. Sounds like you got a good grasp on the lens conversion factor thing-a-mu-bob. It can be very misleading if you don't really understand what's going on behind the scenes. Many people are out there buying say a 400mm for their APS-C camera, thinking it will give the same magnification as a 640mm on a full frame. WRONG!!! The way the industry is trying to put it, a subject, lets say a tree, shot with a 400mm on a less than full frame DSLR, is going to give about the same proportion of subject to surrounding frame as a 640mm lens on a full frame, However, the subject and surrounding area will be same size regardless what camera you are using. When shooting with your zoom, I am assuming you are using available light, no flash? Have you tried uping the ISO so you can get a slightly faster shutter speed to reduce blur from camera movement? Then click in the box on the right that reads "EF Lenses 101" then click "focal length comparisons" Good luck and let me know what you decide. Bob
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Jeremy Jones |
I didn't mean to imply that my kit lens has IS - it doesn't. I understand the IS feature would allow me to shoot at slower shutter speeds but I'm not sure it would help a whole lot, especially when the subject gets to moving around a lot :) I think I'm going to go with the 50mm f/1.4 in addition to the 85mm. Again, I have the kit zoom if I feel that's needed but I should be able to work with the 50 and 85, even if it means moving a little to get the comp. I want (or cropping in post-processing). I've posted these in the other thread (a true double post that was) so I'll go ahead and post them here as well. These are from the 85mm f/1.8, most of them were shot in a small (13' long) room and I think they came out pretty good. It's just takes a few more shots to get her in the frame some times (thank goodness there's no film involved).
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||||||||
