Home › Forums › Let’s Talk Photography › Lenses (I'm talking Canon but feel free to share)
- This topic has 44 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by ebi.
July 15, 2013 at 6:18 pm #11421
awe… neither of those were anywhere near an answer to what I asked…
I have zero experience with tilt-shift, so I have no idea what I would even do with a lens like the 24 TS-E. It might be cool to try out, but no sense in adding it to my bag at this juncture.July 15, 2013 at 8:21 pm #11426
I’m probably getting ready to dump a bunch of L lenses in favor of an 800 f/5.6
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L – potentially selling
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L – potentially selling.
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L
Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L – potentially selling.
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L
^ primes I currently own. (inc. but not listed is the 3.5 24mm)
I’m probably going to sell several of them.. If I do decide to sell them, I’ll surely keep you in the loop.July 15, 2013 at 10:11 pm #11430cameraclickerParticipant
I have the 24 mm f/1.4L. I don’t use a 35 mm prime, so not much to contribute about the f/2 lens.
Tilt-shift lenses offer benefits for some close-up and architectural work. I know of at least one landscape photographer that uses one. For me, it is on the list just before a fish eye lens, so we’ll see.July 16, 2013 at 4:36 am #11431nesgranParticipant
Not that I have much experience with canons great whites but I see many of the few people buying those lenses going for the 600/4 instead given how much a newer build it is.July 16, 2013 at 10:50 am #11432
nesgran–Yeah, I’m still a long ways off in regard to actually making a purchase.. I’m going to see about borrowing one from CPS or just renting before I make an absolute decision.July 17, 2013 at 2:07 pm #11434
Definitely keep me in the loop, I’ve got my eye on the 100mm for sure. I dream of the 85 and 50 but those are a little farther out of the budget currently (even used they sit close to 2k and I don’t make a whole lot after bills…).
What are your thoughts on the 24mm? I’ve seen it used by a wedding photog I admire, but I’m not sure how often I would use one that wide if I’m planning on the 35mm L.July 17, 2013 at 5:25 pm #11437
I own 2 24mm lenses, and not a 35mm.. That’s my opinion 😉July 18, 2013 at 11:31 am #11448
What’s the focus distance on the 24? When I rented the 35, I was pleasantly surprised! I haven’t read about the 24 in a few months and it kinda slipped my mind altogether.July 18, 2013 at 11:53 am #11452
eh? about ten inches to infinity.July 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm #11454
I want to say it was about 6 inches when I was using the 35, that’s what was so surprising. I was able to set my friend’s daughter at ease by letting her hold the camera and such, and showing her the images from when she stuck her face all close. That’s why it stuck out to me. I have seen some shots taken from a 24mm and they were great! The colors were so rich sooc!August 10, 2013 at 2:02 am #11817
I find all this lens talk so pedantic. IRL we usually don’t shoot with anything above a 120. For still life its typically a 120 Macro Hasselblad lens, maybe sometimes the 150 if we really want to compress the background but rarely. We typically stay away from zooms on medium format systems. It seems you all are DSLR shooters. I use the canon for DSLR. And my go to lens is a Leica 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M. I use to use the 100 macro lens but i cannot stand the falloff at f/8 or 5.6. So I tried out this leitz lens and I find it far better for a more natural fall off. When i’m moving around I’ll roll with 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, and 100 f2.8L macro. When I’m lazy i’ll use a zoom – usually a 24-70 L. The 135 is fine. I can’t stand the 70-200. It’s too big to carry around. Maybe if you are a wildlife photographer. I could care less about bokeh. It’s unimportant. I think some of these technical things can be a little distracting for photographers and take them away from the more important task of taking beautiful photographs. Coming up as an assistant, I’d often ask photographers what camera they liked using. My favorite answer was “Whatever my assistant hands me”.August 10, 2013 at 7:16 am #11824cameraclickerParticipant
70-200 is good for portraits and some sports. It is too short for most wildlife photos.August 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm #11830
if you compare the fixed focal length to the zoom at the same focal length, i think you’ll find that the quality of the fixed lens is always better. 80mm is a good portrait lens for a standard headshot with DSLR – the equivalent to a 100-110 on a medium format system. But I also like wider lenses sometimes too. A good example of this is the close up celebrity shots that Martin Schoeller does – he shoots medium format. http://www.vh-artists.com/index.html#/photographers/martin-schoeller/ The lenses for some of his wider distorted celebrity stuff is probably about a 35, which translates to about a 50 on a full frame DSLR.August 11, 2013 at 9:04 am #11858nesgranParticipant
if you compare the fixed focal length to the zoom at the same focal length, i think you’ll find that the quality of the fixed lens is always better.
The new canon zooms are only negligibly worse than the primes though. Obviously you lose at least two stops of aperture but if you are shooting at f8 they are about as good as you can get it on 135 format.August 11, 2013 at 2:29 pm #11860
yes but f/8 on a lens with a max aperture of f/4 is not as good as f/8 with a max aperture of f/2.8. If you have to go to f/11 to hit the optimal aperture of the lens, then you are probably going to less depth of field then you desire. A lens with an aperture of f/2.8 is more desirable if you are wanting to shoot between f/5.6-8 (2-3 stops below max aperture). It’s usually the sweet spot of the lens.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.