Photograph and Camera talk
-
Mankarat, no problem at all. For a prime lens then I would just recommend getting a cheap one. And yes I mean Mark III, not II. But I know what you mean I mean if you just got a DSLR wait about a year before thinking of upgrading your body, I am planning on upgrading my body probably next summer. For an all purpose L lens I believe the 24-70 2.8L (same one crisone has), is a very good lens. Image quality is fantastic.
I actually think I will be purchasing a 35 1.4L lens instead of the 24-70 2.8L, I don't mind prime lenses at all. IF you are in fact brand new to cameras, take your time before you buy a new lens learn the kit lens (unless you don't have one, then buy 1 lens), use it to its full potential. Play around with the settings (iso, aperture, shutter speed), know how to take better pictures make them darker or lighter in broad daylight etc.. etc… it is better to know your camera and understand how it works first before you get anything else because once you get the next thing you will know how to use it perfectly.
also look into the 35mm 2.0 lens, trust me if you want good portrait lenses get good portrait lenses. Otherwise when you are using them at their widest aperture quality will not be what you would think it could be and you will need to stop it down to probably ~2.0.
-
I think it's a good thing to shoot a 35mm or 50mm (both 35mm film/full frame equivalent) for some time, beginner or not, you might realize it is all you need and that you don't actually need zoom capabilities. "Zooming with your feet" can be a very rewarding experience. Just like using an old manual focus lens like jacoavlu recommended. Especially the EOS mount allows for a lot of old lenses to be mounted and I'd encourage anybody to try that out.
-
I actually find manually focusing my lens much more to my liking than having it autofocus. Not only that but it is quicker for me personally.
And if anyone owns the 35 1.4L does anyone have an opinion on it?
-
Yeah, well I do change my mind, but for the better. I am trying to find what lens I would like the best because I will be using it for quite a while haha. I am sure I would be fine with the 24-70 though, just was looking and maybe thinking about the 35 as I didn't even consider it before and its aperture is great for low light.
I wasn't dead set on the zoom L though, just had a strong feeling that it was it I have been looking for a lens for the past couple of days and was thinking the 24-70 was it but now I see the 35 1.4L! I am reading reviews and trying to compare both, looking at pictures from both, etc…
-
the L lenses are overkill for most of us
if you can afford it, great
but it's largely unnecessarygood photos are more about the scene, the light, the composition and framing, timing, being there and being ready
most of us are better to get a decent but cheaper lens
and just shoot the hell out of it
save money for prints -
Its true, I did save up for an L lens though so I will be buying either the 35 or the 24-70. From what I have read though it is better to buy the zoom lens than the prime as I am sure I can find the same lens with smaller tweaks to it (smaller aperture), but the only thing is the quality. I am probably going to go for the 24-70 though, just keeping my horizons open.
I can always get the cheaper prime lenses later on.
-
I think it is going to be the 24-70, I'm just trying to keep my horizons open for when I do buy it I wont end up regretting it (although i thunk that will be hard with such nice lenses).
-
Finn
good choicelax - if you're thinking of the 35, do this:
get out your zoom, set that shit at 35mm
and tape across the zoom ring so you can't turn it
force yourself to shoot at that length for a week or two
see how you like it… can you live without the flexibility?
plus you may prefer another length. 28? 50?
there's quality lenses at any length.it depends how you shoot typically
28 is great for street, scenes, groups of people, intimate, city wides, requires composition and getting in close. Google Garry Winogrand he always shot 28
35 is classic, versatile, the length looks natural to many.
50 is not quite wide, not quite tele. Can do some portrait, some scenes. But for some it's too in between (and a 35 on a crop camera is gonna be near 50) google Henri Cartier Bresson, he always shot 50and on and on...
-
whoopie, pics.
nice jaco.
that dog has pleading eyes holla & the way the focus is on his head is pretty cool.
cris nice shot of an item i would not appreciate unless in a photo.
-
lax - if you're thinking of the 35, do this:
get out your zoom, set that shit at 35mm
and tape across the zoom ring so you can't turn it
force yourself to shoot at that length for a week or two
see how you like it… can you live without the flexibility?
plus you may prefer another length. 28? 50?
there's quality lenses at any length.Hmm… yeah I think I like a zoom more so now. Well put btw. My ideal would be @ 24. I am going with a zoom lens for now though, I think if I wind up getting a FF body then I will get prime lenses (maybe even before), but I will just get the non L ones since I know the difference b/w L and non-L isn't that much.
it depends how you shoot typically
28 is great for street, scenes, groups of people, intimate, city wides, requires composition and getting in close. Google Garry Winogrand he always shot 28
35 is classic, versatile, the length looks natural to many.
50 is not quite wide, not quite tele. Can do some portrait, some scenes. But for some it's too in between (and a 35 on a crop camera is gonna be near 50) google Henri Cartier Bresson, he always shot 50and on and on…
Yeah, as you have convinced me now that I think the 24-70 is the way to go, I guess that is going to be the way I go. Doubt I will change my mind anymore, but if I do I will just look back here and re-convince myself that the 24-70 is the way to go. I am hopefully going to order it ASAP as I don't feel like waiting anymore. And so I don't bore anyone… PICTURE TIME!
