 Debbie Crowe |
question about which lens I have the Canon XTI and also have the 75-300 zoom lens. I am thrilled with the zoom lens and the capabilities of this lens. However, I want to do even better portraits and wish to find a lens with the aperture around f1.8 or so. Can I still get a zoom lens for this? I did not want to have to get a 50mm lens that offers this aperture (for example) because I want the flexibility in how close I get to the subject. Any suggestions? Thanks, Deb
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
For practical reasons (relating to weight and cost), f/2.8 is the widest maximum aperture available in zoom lenses for DSLRs with APS-C and larger sensors. Only Olympus has an f/2 zoom for their DSLRs, and that is only possible because they use a much smaller sensor. Even so, their 35-100 f/2 is bigger, heavier, and costs twice as much as an EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM, and because of the shorter nominal focal length it doesn't give any shallower depth of field. Back to Canon, there are many choices in f/2.8 zooms, depending on the focal range wanted. If you want f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, then that is only possible with a prime lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
Thanks for such a great response. Very helpful - but may I ask you to clarify what is a prime lens and what is the difference? Thank you
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
And also, I had found this lens: Sigma 24-135 F2.8-4.5. Is Sigma a good lens for Canon? I have not yet found a comparable on in Canon - am I making a mistake not sticking with Canon lens? Will the F2.8 make a good difference in my portraits?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
A prime lens is one that has a single focal length, like EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Re: will f/2.8 make a good difference, yes. Compared to your 75-300 f/4-5.6, a 70-200 f/2.8 lens will give much shallower depth of field, setting your subject apart from the background. Plus zooms with constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 also tend to be very well corrected optically, so will tend to be sharper than the economy zoom. Sigma makes some very good f/2.8 zooms. But the 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 does not have constant f/2.8 maximum aperture. In the 75-135 range it is going to have the same f/4-4.5 maximum aperture as your 75-300 f/4-5.6.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
WOW, great information. I will have to look for a lens with these specifications. Wish me luck. thank you so much.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
Ok, me again - I keep looking and do not find any camera that actually says it has Constant Maximum Aperture. Should I be looking for this? I keep coming back to the same lens by Canon 70-200 MM f 2.8 and that is the closest I am coming. I have read about this lens and a few others on a few differnt sites and none make mention of this constant maximum aperture. Maybe this is one of those really high priced lens? :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Caruso |
Deb-- If I understand your last question, it's the lens that would have teh "constant maximum aperture" and not the camera. Some zoom lenses will have a different maximum aperture depending upon the specific focal lengths. In other words, the 75-300 f/4-5.6 you referenced in your original post will have a different maximum aperture depending upon whether you are at 75mm or 300mm. Some zooms (the 70-200 f/2.8 you mentioned, for example) will maintain that maximum aperture throughout the zoom range. As one would suspect, these constant maximum aperture lenses tend to be more expensive. As Jon succinctly pointed out, prime lenses are fixed focal length. Because of this, they can be engineered to have much wider apertures. Furthermore, primes tend to be much less expensive than zooms, so sometimes it's more affordable to pick up a few primes that meet your specific needs. For portraits there are some really great lenses out there. The 50 f/1.4 is a mighty fine lens (and with a better build quality than the still respectable 50 f/1.8). However, a 50mm might be a bit wide for general portraiture work. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is a very attractive choice for portraiture. I own it and have never regretted purchasing it. Not only can it get nice and wide open giving you that much desired shallow DOF, but I have found it to be a wonderfully sharp lens with rich color reproduction. If you are interested in zooms, consider not only the Canons, but also the more affordable brands such as Tamron, Sigma, and Tonika. I used to be a die-hard Canon lens guy. Then, when I did some research on a new purchase, I found a lot of good things being said about some Tamron lenses. I picked up the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 and have been VERY pleased with its performance. It's extremely sharp, nice and fast (f/2.8 constant), and has great color reproduction. The 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 is also a great lens I picked up from Tamron. Of course, like ANY brand--Canon, Tamron, or otherwise--lens quality will vary depending upon the model. Research the individual lenses to figure out what is the best fit for you. I hope that helps somewhat.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
John, thank you so much. Very informative answer. This definitely clarifies for me and gives me some nice options. I guess I had not considered the 50m for portraits because it was too close to be of much use on a regular basis but you are right, I could pick up a couple of those, particularly the 85M. The response on the zoom lens by Tamaron is very informative too - thanks again - off to check out these new options! deb
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
John, sorry to be a pain but is this what you are referring to? Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens This lens is a highly practical medium telephoto lens with superb delineation and portability. Images are sharp and clear at all apertures. Through computer simulations, the lens has been designed to give beautiful background blur. Since the front lens group does not rotate during focusing special filter effects are not affected.
ok between the two you mentioned, above plus the tamraon, both will be good investments plus take portraits and nice color?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Caruso |
That's the one. Generally, lenses that are a focal length up to about 35mm are considered wide angle. A 50mm lens is considered a "normal" lens because 50mm (on a film camera or a full-frame digital) is closest to the "focal length" of a human eye. From about 70mm and up lenses are then considered telephoto. And, yes, I believe you'll be just fine with any of these choices. One thing you may want to do is visit a camera shop with your camera and test out the lenses for yourself before you buy them. See which ones you like and which ones will suit your specific needs. Good luck and happy lens shopping!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Deb, the 50mm 1.4 is a GREAT lens and is only $300...the Canon 85mm is Insane...if I was a wedding photographer I'd buy this for sure. the 85 is also VERY expensive...I think I'd try to rent/demo it first....I can tell you that any photographer that is serious about portraits has owned the Canon 50mm 1.4. My 100mm 1.2 is great as well.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Crowe |
Thank you for your feedback as well. I print off all the info that I get on ths forum so that I have it with me. This is good to know. I guess my concern about the 50m is that you have to get so close to the subject - but then I guess if you want a true portrait, maybe the shoulders up, that is what you need? I was getting so much conflicting information - which is why I came here and started posting. You all seem to know exactly what you are talking about and have much experience to offer. So 50m vs 85m - what is the real difference in the pictures? I mean as far as what you are taking in the lense - head shots? Body shots? what is the difference in what you can do? and per the previous response, I do fully intend to try these out at the store but would like to have them narrowed down to just a few. I hope to buy one lens this month and one next month in time for some great holiday shots. thanks everyone so much - you all sure know your stuff!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||