# Recommend me a lens that's better/more useful than a 50mm lens



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 16, 2012)

I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers ).

But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html

I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.


----------



## peederj (Mar 16, 2012)

Get the Samyang (Rokinon etc) 35mm for wide and 85mm for tele for half your budget, as good sharpness and light gathering, and double the versatility.

For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 16, 2012)

peederj said:


> For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.



Cheap filters are magical - they can turn an amazing lens into a pretty good one.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 16, 2012)

I would go for a fast lens.

I like to get close and personal so I use the 70-200f/2.8 If that is too much the perhaps the 85 f/1.8 

For a wider angle maybe a 28 f/1.8


----------



## Flake (Mar 16, 2012)

Yet another question which assumes the people answering it have second sight! For the purposes of guessing should we assume you are a Canon 1DX user or that you own an 1100D or maybe a D30 perhaps a 5D MkI? There are many many cameras now, not all of them new, and by with holding the body you own makes the question impossible to answer accurately!

Assuming you have a crop camera (although you might not have) 50mm is 80mm (fov) so if you want 50mm you will need a 35mm. For portrait consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Of course the other information you haven't told us is the lenses which you currently have so it's nothing more than a guessing game.

I take it you aren't considering photography as a career? Music photography is a sure fire way to poverty as every single student in the world seems hell bent on producing images for free and then giving them away for nothing! Fine is it's for fun and a hobby, but for professional use they really aren't suitable for a portfolio unless they're really stunning.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 16, 2012)

What camera and lenses do you already have? What do you want to shoot / like shooting most, if you were to cross out concerts?


----------



## alipaulphotography (Mar 16, 2012)

The beauty of a 50mm lens is precisely in its simplicity.

The focal length on full frame is roughly what the eye can see, which is perfect for documentary/street photography or simply telling stories and capturing memories of how you saw things with your eyes.

Sometimes I wish I had a little button on my head I could push and take a photo of what I see through my eyes - (Dynamic range is certainly better!) But until then - a 50mm on a full frame/35mm film body will have to do.

They are cheap, can shoot in low light, just the right focal length for getting wonderful shallow depth of field and bokeh without being telephoto.

Wider than 50mm (24/35mm) - you'll be sacrificing that shallow depth of field, but obviously you can fit more into a scene. I use the 35mm a lot at weddings as it allows me to get close and tell stories better by capturing more people in each photo. But if I had to use one lens - it would be a 50.


----------



## solarpos (Mar 16, 2012)

Are you FF or 1.6? If you are shooting crop then the 50 is not a 'normal lens and is better suited for such things as indoor sports or head and shoulders portraits. In that case I suggest a 35 FL lens. If you are shooting with a FF body then I guess you just figured out that the 50mm FL isn't your bag. That's a good thing, knowing what works and doesn't work.


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 16, 2012)

You should slap your professor....

The 1.4 is a workhorse... for the money it is probably the best lens you can get for a Canon, esp if you are only going to have 1 or 2 lenses. It is simple, versatile, and optically pretty damn good.

It might not be 'fun' or 'sexy', but it gets the job done, which if your goal is taking pictures is exactly what you want, especially if you are just learning. Get good with that one first then start playing with more interesting (but less flexible) lenses.

That being said, I would also recommend this one if you are looking for a good general purpose lens usable across a wide range of subjects:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=oh_o04_s00_i00_details

Good lens, nice range, low cost.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 16, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> You should slap your professor....



I don't agree. The 50 is very useful and versatile but a wider lens like the 35L on a FF add more drama. Since I bought the 35 my 50 gets very little use. The 50 is more flattering but for portraits you probably want to go a little longer than that. If all you've got is one lens, sure I'd probably go for the 50, but if you have two, then a 35 (or 24-70) and an 85 / 100 / 135 / 70-200 are nicer to have, at least for the way I work.


----------



## AJ (Mar 16, 2012)

> one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens?



Who cares what someone says what some people think? What matters is what you think.

Focal length is very personal. Don't let other people decide focal length for you. Pick it yourself.

I suggest going to a gig with a zoom lens. Crank up the iso and start shooting. Don't worry about a bit of noise or some blur. Afterwards, have a look at the exifs of the photos that you like, to see focal length. Buy a prime accordingly.


----------



## D_Rochat (Mar 16, 2012)

peederj said:


> For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.



I'm not the first to say it in this thread, but he couldn't be more wrong. The cheap ones are going to take away from your image quality. If you're going to spend the money on a good lens, get a Hoya or B&W.


----------



## ksuweh (Mar 16, 2012)

If you are going to be right up front next to the stage a lot of artists like to show off & get right there in your face. That is why I prefer a wide angle lens for those events. 

I assume that you have a 1.6x crop body. If that is the case a Canon EF-S 10-22 would be a good option, a Tokina 11-16 is a great option & a Canon EF-S 17-55 would be another good option.

Two pieces of advise:

1. Buy the best glass that you can. The lenses are the investment & no matter how good of a camera you have, if you use a crap lens you WILL get crap photos.

2. This one ties into the last comment......buy good filters! A crappy filter isn't any better than a crappy lens.

For filters I suggest B+W Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) UV filters. They are well worth the investment!


----------



## David KM (Mar 16, 2012)

unkbob said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.
> ...



Awesome !!!! So true, but if he's using a cheapy filter on a Rokinon then it may be an upgrade. I use a thin smear of vaseline to protect all my lenses, slightly better than a cheap filter ;o)

35L would be my vote for this thread.


----------



## peederj (Mar 16, 2012)

I had a feeling that would be controversial around here. Like saying coat hangers are just as good for speaker cables as $2000 oxygen-free cables in an audiophile forum. Lots of peacocks in photography, and lots of sunk costs.

Anyway for a film student on a budget the $10 Chinese UV protector models (e.g. Zeikos, Opteka, Maximal Power, etc.) are every bit as good as B&W and Tiffen. Hoya years ago _was_ the cheapie filter, but people realized that they were just as good as the fancy German ones (not to mention they make much of the glass for the rest of the industry anyway) and now they aren't so cheap. Of course some filters (of any price) may be damaged or just poorly done...and yes I've sent some of those back.

I have a huge variety of filters of various price ranges, all the way up to 4x4 Schneiders etc. And the rare moments I have a flare problem or something with a filter, I look down expecting to find it's a cheapie but there is my fancy B&W with all its multicoatings. When one has a problem with a filter, don't blame the filter, just unscrew it.

Anyway if you'd like me to set up a double-blind test of lens filters using the 35L or 135L or whatever lens you feel is worthy of trophy status, I'll be happy to do so, but we're going to be betting something that's gonna hurt or it's not worth the time. 8)


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, since I've never found a 50mm useful for anything... Not wide enough for most indoor, landscape or architectural shots, and not telephoto enough for anything else (assuming a FF sensor). The last time I used a 50mm was when it came with my Canon T70, I couldn't find any subject that lens was suited for, ended up trading up to a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, still my favorite lens of all time, wish Canon would make a similarly fast L lens with that range, variable f/ stop would be fine, but a fixed f/2.8 would be nicer.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 16, 2012)

So you're looking to get pit access - go for it but expect to hear no more than yes. Depending on what body you have now, you may be better suited to a body upgrade and a light lens, rather than spending a lot on the lens. Better performance at 6400ISO and higher will be critical. You may want to wait for the new 24 or 28mm 2.8IS - since you're shooting hand held - both for the IS and that the DoF of F2.8 will be much better since you would be that close.

But all that said, the 50/1.4 is by far the widest lens & brightest at the cheapest price you'll ever get. There's lots of them, and getting a used one is a great first step for any photographer. If you can't get into the pit, you can still shoot from the other side, and having the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 will both work out great.

I can only think that someone would part with the 50/1.4 when/if they go for the 50/1.2


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 17, 2012)

_I realise I have accidentally posted this in the wrong section of the forum. Hoping the mod/admin will see this and kindly move it to the right section._

This is my gear (so far): 7d, kit lens (18-200mm) and my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II



Flake said:


> Yet another question which assumes the people answering it have second sight! For the purposes of guessing should we assume you are a Canon 1DX user or that you own an 1100D or maybe a D30 perhaps a 5D MkI? There are many many cameras now, not all of them new, and by with holding the body you own makes the question impossible to answer accurately!
> 
> Assuming you have a crop camera (although you might not have) 50mm is 80mm (fov) so if you want 50mm you will need a 35mm. For portrait consider the 85mm f/1.8.
> 
> ...


I thought it was a straight forward question, I didn't realise people would be asking me about my gear. Currently I've got a crop body and will upgrade in the future to FF (I was going to save up and get the 5dmkiii but probably not, too expensive and I don't actually need it right now). I've only got 2 lenses - my kit lens (18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS) and my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II.

Lol, don't forget the copyright! It seems quite stupid ridiculous to me that the photogs wanting to be a music/concert would pay a few hundred dollars to be able to take photos and most likely give up the copyright(?) as well. I haven't been to a concert and asked to take photos there in the pit but it seems to me that's what I would most likely do - beg, beg and BEG the tour organisers to let me takes photos there in the pit for my folio, pay an extra $30 at least or something to get a piece of cardboard saying 'media pass' (or whatever) and sign a contract or the like giving away the copyright and voiding the chance to put the photos in my folio. Which I think it is a little more (a lot more..?) easier to do music/concert photography if I were living in the US or UK just coz there's a lot more concerts AND a lot more outdoor concerts with tons of bands playing all on the same day. Here it's the band playing in an arena where the roof is closed and lots of artificial light (Im not very good with staged lighting, especially since at concerts there's a lot of different light types and they use colour gels a lots and bursts of light, etc. I would probably fail in getting my exposure right lol, I dunno I havent tried it yet).



Tijn said:


> What camera and lenses do you already have? What do you want to shoot / like shooting most, if you were to cross out concerts?


Well I want to work in the film industry as a stills photographer, but obviously that's a very long road and quite difficult to break in to. I also shoot sports at a major event (no press pass) and dabble in a bit of everything - landscape/cityscape, portraits, street, etc. 



Neeneko said:


> You should slap your professor....
> 
> The 1.4 is a workhorse... for the money it is probably the best lens you can get for a Canon, esp if you are only going to have 1 or 2 lenses. It is simple, versatile, and optically pretty damn good.
> 
> ...


Lol my professor doesn't own a 50mm lens and he's been shooting for 20+ years, he thinks they're boring and "why wopuld you want to shoot something that everyone else can see! It's pointless" (his words, not mine regarding the 50 focal length is equivalent to the human eye). Prior to his words I had never heard someone talk bad about the 50mm lens/focal length. Which, admittedly, is making have second doubts about purchasing the 50mm lens from canon (I was thinking of getting the sigma).



alipaulphotography said:


> The beauty of a 50mm lens is precisely in its simplicity.
> 
> The focal length on full frame is roughly what the eye can see, which is perfect for documentary/street photography or simply telling stories and capturing memories of how you saw things with your eyes.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input. I think I might do a few weddings in the futuree just coz it pays well and is a challenge to shoot. Very stressful and definitely a shoot you don't want to stuff up. I'm also considering a wide angle zoom like the 17-40L but am not sure.



ksuweh said:


> If you are going to be right up front next to the stage a lot of artists like to show off & get right there in your face. That is why I prefer a wide angle lens for those events.
> 
> I assume that you have a 1.6x crop body. If that is the case a Canon EF-S 10-22 would be a good option, a Tokina 11-16 is a great option & a Canon EF-S 17-55 would be another good option.
> 
> ...


Yeah I will try to get in front of the stage coz that's where it all happens - and i love those shots from the pro music/concert photogs where they're like in the (almost) face of the singer. That's what I want and aspire to try and achieve.

Thanks for the lens suggestions, I will do some research on them. But I am trying to stay away from the EF-S lenses since I want to buy FF lenses so I can use them in the future. And am trying not to get bitten by the L lens bug or the 'collector of lenses' bug in general - a fellow student (older man from overseas with money to burn) in my class has 22 lenses.



Halfrack said:


> So you're looking to get pit access - go for it but expect to hear no more than yes. Depending on what body you have now, you may be better suited to a body upgrade and a light lens, rather than spending a lot on the lens. Better performance at 6400ISO and higher will be critical. You may want to wait for the new 24 or 28mm 2.8IS - since you're shooting hand held - both for the IS and that the DoF of F2.8 will be much better since you would be that close.
> 
> But all that said, the 50/1.4 is by far the widest lens & brightest at the cheapest price you'll ever get. There's lots of them, and getting a used one is a great first step for any photographer. If you can't get into the pit, you can still shoot from the other side, and having the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 will both work out great.
> 
> I can only think that someone would part with the 50/1.4 when/if they go for the 50/1.2


I kinda leaning towards the zoom lenses since that's all I've got and i like the vewrsatitly.


I was considering buying the 50mm from B&H or amazon since it's a bit more than $200 cheaper there than my country. But of course there's the inflated shipping fees (I bought $120 worth of gear from B&H and the shipping was an extra $125+.) I've found a site selling the 50mm for $356 + $6 insurance delievery + free freight. Not so bad IMO http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=62


----------



## dunkers (Mar 17, 2012)

Since youre using a 7D, the 17-55 f/2.8 would probably be a good fit unless you plan on switching to full frame in the near future. 

The 17-55 is L quality, minus the red ring/weather sealing. It has the versatility of a zoom. It covers wide angle and the 50mm range. Youre sacrificing f stops, but you get a versatile zoom range.


----------



## D_Rochat (Mar 17, 2012)

dunkers said:


> Since youre using a 7D, the 17-55 f/2.8 would probably be a good fit unless you plan on switching to full frame in the near future.
> 
> The 17-55 is L quality, minus the red ring/weather sealing. It has the versatility of a zoom. It covers wide angle and the 50mm range. Youre sacrificing f stops, but you get a versatile zoom range.



Agreed. Sell that 18-200 and put the money towards a 17-55 2.8 or a 24-70 ver I if you plan on going to full frame in the near future. Providing that your 18-200 is still in good shape, you should be able to recover most of the cost to fund a replacement.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 17, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers ).
> 
> But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html
> 
> I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.



sigma 85mm f1.4 is awesome i got it for $999 here in oz they go for around $900 on ebay
then you got change of $500 so i think the 50 f1.4 is around $350 $400 so get one anyway
those 2 lenses and the 16-35 f2.8 and i'm all set


----------



## Viggo (Mar 17, 2012)

24 and 28mm equiv is extremely versatile. I have the 24 L II and the Zeiss 28mm and use them both for all sorts of pictures, great tools.


----------



## tt (Mar 17, 2012)

Yogurt the lens for the focal length and background co
Pressing you want, right?
A 50mm can make a great lens for Photojournalists - it can be the 1.4 or the 1.2 and not too noticeable. 

Subject to camera distance and how you want to frame the subject both make a difference no?
If you're far away and want a tight crop, that's need a telephoto. 
Of you're close and personal and want wider angle 
24,35,50 or that range would better suit.
Once you know the zoom range or prime focal length you're golden - its just saving and buying and using time!

Every lens is subjective - what you want to do with it ultimately decides if a given lens is suitable for you


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 18, 2012)

Are they several specific lenses which are mainly used for music/concert photography? Anyone know? E.g. 35mm, 50mm, etc.

Here are the lenses I am considering;
* 24mm IS L (when it's released)
* 28mm IS L (when it's released)
* 35mm f/2 or f/1.4L
* 24-70mm mki or mkII (I prefer internal zoom but will have to see what the price tag will be, plus it's on my equipment list for uni)
* 16-35mm 2.8L
* 50mm 1.4 (have been wishing a mkII comes out but it'll prob never happen)
* 17-40mm f/4 (I like the focal range but wish it was faster, at least a 2.8 instead of f/4)
* 17-55mm 2.8 IS (however i am trying to avoid buying another ef-s lens/es since I will be upgraded to FF in future. Not if I upgrade to FF, Just a matter of when and when I have enough money)


----------



## Harley (Mar 18, 2012)

Since you're using a 7D, I would recommend looking for a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and get the EdMika FL 55mm brass adapter. Search this forum for EdMika and you'll see photos and comments from people using it. Also here's a link to one thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1758.msg73641.html#msg73641
Also, if you look at the ribbon at the top of the CR home page you'll see and article called "FD & FL Lenses on your EF Body." This is the whole story about Ed Mika.


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2012)

Harley said:


> Since you're using a 7D, I would recommend looking for a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and get the EdMika FL 55mm brass adapter.



Yes that would be an inexpensive solution, and deliver great quality for a lot of subjects. For concerts/stage work there really is no substitute for reliable speedy AF. I shoot stage with two bodies...1D4 with 70-200 f/2.8IIis and a second body with either 24 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.4 depending on how close to the action I can get. But on a countback, I'd say over 90% of the shots are from the 1D4 70-200 f/2.8.

Your 7D should be great for stage work...speedy AF and perfectly acceptable results with 1600 iso. If the budget is there, consider the 70-200 f/2.8. It will quickly become indispensable glass for you.

Paul Wright


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 18, 2012)

^ I've already got a 70-200 lens. Right Im just looking at primes - L or non-L - and at wide/sandard zooms. I've also been looking at some sigma lenses, like http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-2-8-Aperture-Nikon/dp/B003A6NU3U 



Harley said:


> Since you're using a 7D, I would recommend looking for a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and get the EdMika FL 55mm brass adapter. Search this forum for EdMika and you'll see photos and comments from people using it. Also here's a link to one thread:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1758.msg73641.html#msg73641
> Also, if you look at the ribbon at the top of the CR home page you'll see and article called "FD & FL Lenses on your EF Body." This is the whole story about Ed Mika.


Thanks for the suggestion, I will have to do some research on that particular lens. First time I've heard of it. Can I only get the lens and adapter from ebay? I dont use ebay coz of some dodgy 'sellers'.


----------



## koolman (Mar 18, 2012)

Scott:

I understand you are using a crop 7d - and want a low light solution for stage photography and portraits.

The 17-55 zoom should do this well. You could also get away withe 35 f/2 or 35L 1.4

The 501.4 you are looking at is somewhat narrow on a crop, and your FOV will not cover the stage.

Its great however as a portrait prime.


----------



## Harley (Mar 18, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Thanks for the suggestion, I will have to do some research on that particular lens. First time I've heard of it. Can I only get the lens and adapter from ebay? I dont use ebay coz of some dodgy 'sellers'.


Yes, as scrappydog indicated, Ed Mika is the only source for this adapter (which has no glass optics -- it's purely an engineered brass replacement for the FL 55mm's breach lock mount). He is currently only selling on eBay. Ed is an excellent seller and will do everything to make sure you get your adapter in a timely manner and provide all the support you'll ever need in getting it installed and functioning. It's really quite fast and easy to adapt the lens and it is entirely reversible if you want to take the lens back to its original condition. 

Other adapters for old Canon glass usually involve optics which effectively slow the lens down. Some adapters require you to permanently alter the lens making it thereafter unusable as originally intended. All of Ed's adapters are non-permanent and non-altering, involve no optics, and have microchips providing autofocus confirmation and EXIF data back to the camera body.

I'm a big fan and now have several old lenses with Ed's converters. The FL 55mm was my first. Having a lens that can shoot at f/1.2 is a huge advantage -- it's letting in about 50% more light than f/1.4 and about six times more light than f/2.8 so you can do available light interiors and night shots. Plus at that wide an aperture you can get super-shallow depth of field. It's an 88mm equivalent on a crop body like the 7D so it's a great portrait lens, too. 

It's an awful lot of bang for not a lot of bucks. And it's just a fun and versatile lens.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Mar 18, 2012)

or just rent a big lens with 400+mm focal length when you need one. 
far cheaper than buying.


----------



## RobPan (Mar 18, 2012)

Before I went digital, I had two F-1 cameras, and the lens I most often used was a FD100 mm f 2.8. I think I used it in about 60 pct of my pictures. 100mm is ideal for portraits, and is also fine in the theatre (I had Ektachrome pushed to 800 ISO which went well). 
You will also be able to take some outstanding landscapes and snapshots with it. In other words, a fine all-purpose lens. In my opinion it will give you much more pleasing results than wide-angles.
If you wish you may supplement it with a 28 mm or something similar. But you may well find yourself using the 100mm much more often.
Today, Canon has a EF100 mm lens at F2.0 for around US$506. You will probably be able to use it indoors without flash (much to be preferred!) as today's cameras will allow you to shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO (or even at 25600 ISO if you are the happy owner of an EOS 5D mkIII). The rather shallow depth of field is ideal for portraits.

Kind regards,

Rob.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 19, 2012)

RobPan said:


> Before I went digital, I had two F-1 cameras, and the lens I most often used was a FD100 mm f 2.8. I think I used it in about 60 pct of my pictures. 100mm is ideal for portraits, and is also fine in the theatre (I had Ektachrome pushed to 800 ISO which went well).
> You will also be able to take some outstanding landscapes and snapshots with it. In other words, a fine all-purpose lens. In my opinion it will give you much more pleasing results than wide-angles.
> If you wish you may supplement it with a 28 mm or something similar. But you may well find yourself using the 100mm much more often.
> Today, Canon has a EF100 mm lens at F2.0 for around US$506. You will probably be able to use it indoors without flash (much to be preferred!) as today's cameras will allow you to shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO (or even at 25600 ISO if you are the happy owner of an EOS 5D mkIII). The rather shallow depth of field is ideal for portraits.
> ...


You cant readily get those FL and FD lenses from like amazon or B&H? Only on ebay? 
Thanks for suggesting the 100mm f/2. It's affordable and it's EF not EF-S, which is good. And it's fast. However isnt 100mm on a crop too long for in-your-face music/concert photography? But I like it.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 19, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Thanks for suggesting the 100mm f/2. It's affordable and it's EF not EF-S, which is good. And it's fast. However isnt 100mm on a crop too long for in-your-face music/concert photography? But I like it.



On a crop an 85 f/1.8 is about as long as you want - this is the equivalent of the 135 which we used with film. the 85 f/1.8 is a top lens at a budget price with fast AF


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> On a crop an 85 f/1.8 is about as long as you want - this is the equivalent of the 135 which we used with film. the 85 f/1.8 is a top lens at a budget price with fast AF


The 85mm lens (L or non-L) is on mhy wishlist. I've heard it's like the perfect portrait lens, after the 135mmL of course


----------



## nikkito (Mar 19, 2012)

I also find 50mm lenses boring. I prefer shooting and playing with a 16-35mm. I just love wide angle


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 20, 2012)

nikkito said:


> I also find 50mm lenses boring. I prefer shooting and playing with a 16-35mm. I just love wide angle


Im considering the 16-35mm lens but the price is high.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 20, 2012)

There is always a fisheye


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 20, 2012)

If you don't want to spend the cash for a 50mm f1.4, I'd say pick up a 50mm f1.8. A fantastic little lens for the price.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 20, 2012)

I love the amazing 135mm F 2.0. When I travel , I find it great for street photography as it gives portrait quality images yet allows me plenty of distance. It is tack sharp, fast and has a beautiful bokeh. It is the one lens I wish I had bought much sooner.


----------



## JR (Mar 20, 2012)

Scott, in your price range definitively you should consider 135L as an alternate lens if that focal lenght suits you. In terms of more versatile, I actually prefer 85mm on a full frame. While the 1.2L may be out of your current budget, the non=L version is also very good and would make for a good alternative. For your 1500$ you could get both the 50 and 85...


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 20, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers ).
> 
> But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html
> 
> I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.



what about a 24-70 I? or indeed the 17-40 as zoom, if you want to stay on WA
as primes, I would say that the least boring, would be the ef 1002.8 usm macro, and either the canon 15mm or a rokinon\samyang\bower 14mm
bonus: you don't need a CPL in neither one - just two good clear uv for protection
ps: my 50mm 1.8 has a reverse ring attached - always

now for your specific needs - I think the 35mm 1.4L would be a good choice, but not for portraits - you can add the 50 f1.8 for that and remain in budget.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> There is always a fisheye


That's a nice pic, what fisheye lens did you use? I want the 8-15mm fisheye even though i dont need it at all lol. it looks cool and it's nice to get a different perspective on life from a distorted angle.



NWPhil said:


> what about a 24-70 I? or indeed the 17-40 as zoom, if you want to stay on WA
> as primes, I would say that the least boring, would be the ef 1002.8 usm macro, and either the canon 15mm or a rokinon\samyang\bower 14mm
> bonus: you don't need a CPL in neither one - just two good clear uv for protection
> ps: my 50mm 1.8 has a reverse ring attached - always
> ...


Yeah I prefer to stay wide angle coz i really, really want to be right in front of the band to get those awesome shots those pro music photographers do. And I think a zoom would be way too close unless i was like 10metres away from the stage or something.

However I kind of am leaning a bit towards the 35mm (I would like the L but the non-L seems ok and it's a lot cheaper) over the 50mm lens. 35mm on a crop body is 56mm on FF. That's alright for me


----------



## peederj (Mar 21, 2012)

One thing to be quite concerned over is; at 35mm on crop much less full-frame, you risk making the "talent" look old, fat and haggard (as they often are). At 50mm, boring though it may be, their features are more or less true-to-life.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

AJ said:


> > one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Id have to agree with this statement. I recently wondered if i could shoot weddings with just prime lenses. I checked the 177,000 images of weddings only and 15mm/24mm/ 50mm/ 70mm/135mm/ and 200 were used way more than any other focal length from 15mm-200mm. If you used a 24-70 and a 70-200 and did what he suggests, look at the focal lengths you most used and liked the look and decide. If i had to decide a lens to buy for concerts, if i had to pick a prime lens it would be an 85 1.8. If it was a zoom the 70-200.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> If you don't want to spend the cash for a 50mm f1.4, I'd say pick up a 50mm f1.8. A fantastic little lens for the price.


Id def buy the 1.8 over the 1.4, a lot cheaper. I sold my 1.4 because i thought it was kinda crappy so i got hte 50 1.2 but if i was to do it without going hog wild i'd do the 1.8. I hear the 1.8 is sick sharp!


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 22, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I would consider a 135 F2.0L, which gives you a great distance lens so you don't have to be in their face when shooting, or like someone mentioned an 85mm. This depends on the camera you are shooting with. I don't recall if you mentioned that, but if you are shooting on a crop and not a FF camera, the 135 might be too long. I think the probably best option you have is the 24-70 F2.8L or version two of the same lens. I know you said, max 2.0 in aperture, but this lens gives you a lot of versatility and is often used for this specific purpose. If you were shooting below stage, I would opt for a 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM on a FF body. 50mm would limit me, but if on a crop body, it is a great focal lenght.


i would like to own that lens just to do portraits and stuff but i think for my purposes (concert photography in front of the stage) it'd be way too long especially on a 7d. i want the 24-70 2.8 mkII (im detered from the mki coz of the push-pull design. and coz the mkii is much better) but i cant justify the price especially even more so since it doesnt have IS, way too expensive. maybe if it was under $1800 (it wont fall in price under $2000 til at least 2014 IMO *sigh*). i've already got the 70-200 2.8 IS II but its on a crop body since i mainly bought it for sports photography



peederj said:


> One thing to be quite concerned over is; at 35mm on crop much less full-frame, you risk making the "talent" look old, fat and haggard (as they often are). At 50mm, boring though it may be, their features are more or less true-to-life.


what do you mean you think the 35mm lens makes the talent look old, fat and haggard? I dont know what "talent" you're thinking of/referring to but the band im going to see(when the tour my country) are young, 22-28yrs old. do you think the 35mm is catered more towards landscape photography (which i know it is) and will make the band look flat/fat/boring/old, etc?? Can you please elaborate. I've heard good and bad things with canon's 50mm's and with sigma's so im still trying to decide which is best if i do buy a nifty-fifty. 



Bosman said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > > one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens?
> ...


i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.

_has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?_


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 22, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.
> 
> _has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?_



Uh. Since when has the 24-70 been a push pull?


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 22, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.
> ...


the front bit (element? i dunno i havent really paid much attention to that lens coz of the mixed reviews) extends. whatever you wanbna call it, its not internal, its external


----------



## kdsand (Mar 22, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > I would consider a 135 F2.0L, which gives you a great distance lens so you don't have to be in their face when shooting, or like someone mentioned an 85mm. This depends on the camera you are shooting with. I don't recall if you mentioned that, but if you are shooting on a crop and not a FF camera, the 135 might be too long. I think the probably best option you have is the 24-70 F2.8L or version two of the same lens. I know you said, max 2.0 in aperture, but this lens gives you a lot of versatility and is often used for this specific purpose. If you were shooting below stage, I would opt for a 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM on a FF body. 50mm would limit me, but if on a crop body, it is a great focal lenght.
> ...



I got the sigma 17 - 50 about a week ago. My other lenses are canon so I was a bit nervous. There seems to have Quality control issues in the past as in the first year or so that these came out. Many seemed to have dead on accurate auto focus yet others seemed to be slightly off needing calibration. 
As far as I can tell the chances of receiving a good copy has improved overtime, at least it looks like that from the reviews that I've been reading.

My copy seems to have accurate auto focus, very nice build quality, quiet focusing mechanism and very good optic quality. I have actually used both lenses side by side. The Canon and the sigma versions have similar handeling. 
In my opinion the sigma feels slightly more durable higher quality overall in your hands.
Canon has the nice full time manuel/autofocus though. Haven't decided for sure but I think canons image stablization is just a little better then the sigmas.

Canon provides optical in camera correction with many of OEM lenses including the 17-50, though the sigmas optics as far as I can tell are quite good. Thus far j pegs straight from the camera are very good not requiring any particularly crucial post processing.

Well that's my experience so far.

Oh right I'm using a 60D body.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 22, 2012)

kdsand said:


> I got the sigma 17 - 50 about a week ago. My other lenses are canon so I was a bit nervous. There seems to have Quality control issues in the past as in the first year or so that these came out. Many seemed to have dead on accurate auto focus yet others seemed to be slightly off needing calibration.
> As far as I can tell the chances of receiving a good copy has improved overtime, at least it looks like that from the reviews that I've been reading.
> 
> My copy seems to have accurate auto focus, very nice build quality, quiet focusing mechanism and very good optic quality. I have actually used both lenses side by side. The Canon and the sigma versions have similar handeling.
> ...


Thanks for your input on the sigma lens. How's your hood, is it loose? When attached to the lens, can you move/spin it? I know canon lens hoods fit the lens and dont move til you remove it. Ive read that sigma has issues with their lens hoods spinning(?) [not being 'locked' in place.

Do you use a UV filter for your lens? And what about the edge sharpness? I heard and have seen images where the sharpness falls out, this lens has no sharp edges, the center looks pretty sharp just the edge sharpness goes really soft. Do you miss not having a full time manual override? I saw this http://youtu.be/F14IXyqs8jw and it looks a little slow..? Maybe you can confirm/deny it for me.

Do you have any photos you can post or link me to a site where you've posted some pics? Appreciate your opinion. If you don't mind me asking, how much did you buy this lens for?


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 22, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > scottsdaleriots said:
> ...



There is a BIG difference between a Push/Pull lens and a lens that extends internally/externally...

Also, the 24-70 II does the same, so if you're not going to be considering one lens for that fact, you might as well skip considering the mkii as well


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 22, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS


Appreciate your suugestion. But yeah I do need a fast lens, max of 2.8. But Im thinking 1.4 would be ideal but i would settle for 2.8 if it meet my needs. I have a 7d, kit lens (18-200) and my 70-200 2.8 IS II. I wouldnt mind a prime since they're usually sharper, faster and a bit more contrasty than a zoom.



D.Sim said:


> There is a BIG difference between a Push/Pull lens and a lens that extends internally/externally...
> 
> Also, the 24-70 II does the same, so if you're not going to be considering one lens for that fact, you might as well skip considering the mkii as well


Just coz i make a mistake with the design of a lens you say i shouldnt buy that lens or any other similart lenses? You're helpful


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

In that case (need speed) + your mentioned budget a 50 f/1.4 (never a bad idea) but becomes an 80mm prime on a 7D, so probably not exactly what your photography teachers meant when they were talking about 50mm lenses (which on a full frame give or take represent the perspective / FOV of the human eye (again give or take, it's debatable) ).

To get closer to what your teacher was talking about you'll need either the 28mm (44.8 ) or 35mm (56) on a crop body. For speed in a zoom and considering your budget, your options are the better EF-S lenses, 24-70 L, an older, discontinued (like the 28-70 L?, if you can find used in good shape for cheap), possibly 16-35 Mark I - used, or an off-brand lens or just stick with primes.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.




Jettatore said:


> In that case (need speed) + your mentioned budget a 50 f/1.4 (never a bad idea) but becomes an 80mm prime on a 7D, so probably not exactly what your photography teachers meant when they were talking about 50mm lenses (which on a full frame give or take represent the perspective / FOV of the human eye (again give or take, it's debatable) ).
> 
> To get closer to what your teacher was talking about you'll need either the 28mm (44.8 ) or 35mm (56) on a crop body. For speed in a zoom and considering your budget, your options are the better EF-S lenses, 24-70 L, an older, discontinued (like the 28-70 L?, if you can find used in good shape for cheap), possibly 16-35 Mark I - used, or an off-brand lens or just stick with primes.


----------



## solarpos (Mar 23, 2012)

Once again, 35 f/2


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 23, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS
> ...


No, you say you don't even want to consider the 24-70 because it extends, and with that logic you can just go straight to considering primes, as the 24-70 II and even the 24-105 all extend, even across to the third party lenses.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 25, 2012)

As others have mentioned, a 50mm on FF is roughly what your eye will see.

An old photographer I respect told me recently, that in his opinion, this is the last thing you want.
You want to change it up from default, so he recommended 35 or 85 or both, but not 50.

Your choice....

ET


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.


yeah I do prefer that focal length over the 16-35 but I don't think it (17-40) is fast enough. I forgot to mention no flash allowed (at concerts) but that's pretty universal...isn't it?



solarpos said:


> Once again, 35 f/2


that's what I'm thinking but someone here in a different thread said it makes the "'talent' look old, fat and haggard", when I asked them to elaborate they never replied. I was thinking of getting a fast WA prime then a standard but fast zoom with my budget (give or take + extra for b+w filter) of $1500. And I can't decide which prime to get.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.
> ...



If you take a portrait with a wide angle lens you will find the nose appears bigger than it is. In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

If you take a full length image of someone from low level the same perspective issue will apply in that the stomach will appear disproportional large.

In the Oscars the photographers were taking pictures of the stars from above (I assume because the photographer was taller than the stars. In one classic picture Demi More - who is petit anyway - was taken in this way and it looked as if she had a large head, short legs and tiny feet - she doesn't, she is normally proportioned.

In the days of film portrait photographers used 135mm lens which shortened the nose, which was/is considered more flattering.

I didn't post the original post you are referring to - and this was my interpretaion of the meaning of the comments you mention.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.



keeps growing! damn i am *******... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 25, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap filters are magical - they can turn an amazing lens into a pretty good one.
> ...



Being honest, UV lenses don't really protect the lens from very much it's a lovely add on for the salesman. They can actually cause more damage if the filter breaks and the shards go up against the element. Here's a video showing how resilient Canon lenses can be (the 50 1.8II no less). Look away if you fear cruelness to lenses 

http://youtu.be/vzOLbMPe0u8


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 25, 2012)

^ really? That's the first time I've heard of that. Don't use filters coz it will/might shatter the front element? I've only heard that you shouldn't use filters coz it effects IQ. I've got a Hoya filter on my 70-200mm, I didn't want dust on it or it got scratched or something horrible to happen to it.



briansquibb said:


> If you take a portrait with a wide angle lens you will find the nose appears bigger than it is. In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.
> 
> If you take a full length image of someone from low level the same perspective issue will apply in that the stomach will appear disproportional large.
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Hm, that's a bit of a pickle for me. _How noise-y would my photos turn out if I bought the 17-40L and cranked the ISO right up (maybe even to 6400..?) on my 7d?_ I would love to own the 24-70mm 2.8 mkII but I can't justify the price and there are too many mixed reviews/opinions about the mki that deters me from getting it. I was thinking of the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 since its apparently sharper than the canon 18-55mm and/17-55mm 2.8 IS (I forget which one, but it's one of those).


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 25, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> ^ really? That's the first time I've heard of that. Don't use filters coz it will/might shatter the front element? I've only heard that you shouldn't use filters coz it effects IQ. I've got a Hoya filter on my 70-200mm, I didn't want dust on it or it got scratched or something horrible to happen to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IQ is the other issue, but I know people who have dropped the lens and the only damage to the lens was from the shattered UV filter, nice scratch across the element.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Hm, that's a bit of a pickle for me. _How noise-y would my photos turn out if I bought the 17-40L and cranked the ISO right up (maybe even to 6400..?) on my 7d?_ I would love to own the 24-70mm 2.8 mkII but I can't justify the price and there are too many mixed reviews/opinions about the mki that deters me from getting it. I was thinking of the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 since its apparently sharper than the canon 18-55mm and/17-55mm 2.8 IS (I forget which one, but it's one of those).
[/quote]

Visible noise on the 5D starts at about iso 1600. By iso 6400 it is beginning to get _*very*_ noticable

I am sure we will get a response shortly that with pp and techniques (as yet undisclosed) iso 6400 can be made clean. I consider iso 3200 the limit on the 7D.

The 85 1.8 might be a good alternative for you - cheap, fast and sharp


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 25, 2012)

Ive never really used anything higher than about 800 maybe even 1600 ISO when shooting at night without much light. I wish there was weather sealing on the 85mm 1.8. I've read that it can be difficult to use MF with that lens? Slow AF, not as fast as some other primes, or something like that..? I can't remember.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Ive never really used anything higher than about 800 maybe even 1600 ISO when shooting at night without much light. I wish there was weather sealing on the 85mm 1.8. I've read that it can be difficult to use MF with that lens? Slow AF, not as fast as some other primes, or something like that..? I can't remember.



85 f/1.2 is the slow one

Although I dont shoot in low light mine is fast to focus. If the light is so low that MF is needed then there wont be a picture for you


----------



## agierke (Mar 25, 2012)

+2 for that video...LOL i love it! very amusing to wake up to on a sunday morning.

i feel compelled to dispel any negative reviews of the 24-70mm F2.8L v1....

its a fantastic lens. period. every pro i know has one and it is just about as essential as the 70-200mm F2.8L. i have seen some out there complain that they got bad copies of it and this does happen...but it can happen with any lens across the focal range. is v2 better? i'm sure it is, but it is downright silly to dismiss v1 as a student because v2 is "better" but claim you cant afford v2 atm while your gear list consists of the 7D, 18-200mm, and the 70-200mm.

as far as your original question...

i would have to agree with those that are suggesting a 35mm. since you are on a crop factor body anything longer than a 35mm and you are not in the realm of wide angle anymore. plus the 35mm will still retain a great deal of usefulness once you go to FF. i would suggest the F2.0 rather than the F1.4L simply for economic reasons. which brings me to my next point....

if you are currently a student you should not be holding back on acquiring lenses simply because you want the "best". forget L primes right now....buy the mid grade primes (they are still fantastic) save a pile of cash that you can put towards a full frame, and then invest in the top of the line lenses when YOU START GETTING PAID.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 85 f/1.2 is the slow one
> 
> Although I dont shoot in low light mine is fast to focus. If the light is so low that MF is needed then there wont be a picture for you


the 85L is slower than the non-L? why is that? That's interesting.



I was thinking of the 35mm 1.4L. It's fast and seems to have good colour rendition and is pretty sharp. But it's quite dear and i dont actually have a need for it since i dont shoot landscapes (sometimes i shoot cityscape but i use my kit lens for that).


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 27, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> the 85L is slower than the non-L? why is that? That's interesting.



There is a LOT of glass to move in the 85L... and glass is not light


----------



## rpt (Mar 27, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.
> ...



Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 27, 2012)

rpt said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



turning your dSLR into an overpriced and glorified point and shoot


----------



## unkbob (Mar 27, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I was thinking of the 35mm 1.4L. It's fast and seems to have good colour rendition and is pretty sharp. But it's quite dear and i dont actually have a need for it since i dont shoot landscapes (sometimes i shoot cityscape but i use my kit lens for that).



Since when was the 35L best for landscapes? It's biggest weakness is CA, most obvious when used outside, and it's biggest strength is its sharpness wide open. It's one of the best lenses for up close reportage photography.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 27, 2012)

i assume WA lenses are meant for landscapes, well generally. never heard using a WA lens is better for close portraits rather than shooting lanscapes. i just realised that canon have discontinued making the 35L.



D.Sim said:


> There is a LOT of glass to move in the 85L... and glass is not light


ah ok. but its obviously better than its non-L counterpart in everything right? besides weight, speed and price of course.


----------



## mihazero (Mar 27, 2012)

If you want perfect portrait lens get EF 200 2.8 L II lens. If you own (and i saw that you do) 70-200 2.8 IS II then you already have most amazing concert and portrait lens. 

I personaly dont like wide lenses so i wont recommend those. Just matter of personal preference.


----------



## rpt (Mar 27, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I get your drift. But, (and it is a BIG but) {notice that that word ended with a single 't' and not two...} if a vital part of your anatomy interfered with the ability to shoot with an SLR in the way you would prefer to, would you not want to shoot at all? I would, even if I had to point...

Now that was all banter... However, my eyes are not as good as they used to be. So a larger screen and reading glasses help me. An angled LED screen helps frame a picture when there is a wall of photographers in front of me having "Press" passes. I don't have any such privileges. So the flip-out screen helps. Now if I were 8 foot something I probably would not care; but I am not, so that is where my preference comes from.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 27, 2012)

rpt said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


Now I could have sworn Canon did have some sort of extension. I think it may have also magnified the image a tad. I'll have try & remember where I saw it. I think it was OEM and an on their website.....


----------



## BL (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd prefer a 40mm f/2 pancake lens to a 50. Just a bit wider than a standard lens, with a much smaller form factor.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

kdsand said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > D.Sim said:
> ...


Really while I was joking i would totally buy that for my 5Dmk2, 1D bodys have it further out by default so they are more comfortable


----------



## dougfrommar (Mar 28, 2012)

I own the Canon 50mmf1.2L, Canon 70-200f2.8L IS II and Canon 24-105L IS lenses..... each one has it's own advantages and depends on the type of shot you are trying to get at that time. For family/wedding/portrait or trying to get great depth of field I love the 50f1.2. For wildlife, hiking or wanting a tac sharp photo the 70-200 is my favourite. It probably has the best IS of any lens. 
However for a great USEFUL zoom range as a walkabout lens - the 24-105 probably is the best. Mainly because it gives quite a wide angle right up to a decent telephoto for most needs. It also has IS and for me has been a very consistant lens - always giving sharp results. 
So my recommendation would be the 24-105L IS lens as a "more useful" lens for you.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 28, 2012)

mihazero said:


> If you want perfect portrait lens get EF 200 2.8 L II lens. If you own (and i saw that you do) 70-200 2.8 IS II then you already have most amazing concert and portrait lens.
> 
> I personaly dont like wide lenses so i wont recommend those. Just matter of personal preference.


the 70-200 is way too long. i want to be right up the front. if i was on the sides and safe (from getting bumped against so i dont drop my camera) that'd be ok i suppose. But i want to try and get to the front of the stage and im thinking the a prime is probably my best option


----------



## rpt (Mar 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



I was looking for them too at one time when I wanted to use my FD lenses with my 300D.
Here are some links...
http://www.amazon.com/Seagull-Magnification-Viewfinder-Minolta-Olympus/dp/B0028ZST1C
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1227397
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_itemId=230351055745&_nkw=TENPA%201%2036x%20eyecup%20eyepiece%20magnifier%20Nikon%20Canon%20More

Is that what you were looking for?


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

cool thanks did you actually get it and use it any feedback on how it works? might be really handy for using my FD600


----------



## rpt (Mar 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> cool thanks did you actually get it and use it any feedback on how it works? might be really handy for using my FD600



No I did not. I had given my 80-200 FD for repair and was told that it had a bad case of fungus and so it was not usable. My 28-80 Soligor (also FD mount) shot yellow pictures  and that left me with my 50mm 1.8 FD so I did not bother.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

bummer, I was lucky to snag a mint condition 600 f4.5 FD off ebay for $1400, such a nice lens and the glass is crystal clear and not a spec of paint missing from it might grab one of those to try out on the 5D2 thanks again


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 28, 2012)

Im sorta ruling out the 35mm (L, im undecided on the non-L) and the 50's (canon and sigma) since I cant decide which brand is better.

which one out of 85L and 135L on a 7d? So 136mm v.s 216mm. Too tight? I think so.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

on a 7D for what you want get the sigma 30mm f1.4 (this is a crop only lens) gives close to the 50mm on FF and the sigma 85mm f1.4 (the 85 will be about 120mm on ff) great for tighter shots
you can sort out focus issues with AFMA

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sigma-30mm-30-F1-4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Canon-7D-60D-0198-/300581191160?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item45fc08fdf8


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Im sorta ruling out the 35mm (L, im undecided on the non-L) and the 50's (canon and sigma) since I cant decide which brand is better.
> 
> which one out of 85L and 135L on a 7d? So 136mm v.s 216mm. Too tight? I think so.



The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo


----------



## drjlo (Mar 28, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Im sorta ruling out the 35mm (L, im undecided on the non-L) and the 50's (canon and sigma) since I cant decide which brand is better.
> 
> which one out of 85L and 135L on a 7d? So 136mm v.s 216mm. Too tight? I think so.



I have 35L, 85L, and 135L. 135L, as great as it is, for crop body, it is too tight for most things especially indoors; however, you go outside and shoot a portrait against a nice far background, and it's magic. 85mm can be made to sort of work, but you would have to stand back quite a bit if you want whole body shots or group photos. This is why 35L gets the most use on my cropped body, and it's beautiful, but it is no 85L when it comes to f/1.2 bokeh. 

Still, picking up a clean 35L on the used market is a fantastic idea.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

another great choice might be the 30mm f1.4 siggy for your 7d
and snag a 5D classic as a second body and the 135 f2
that would be a sweet little paring for what you want

all of that would be cheaper than the 85mm f1.2L on its own


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo


ive already got my sports photography covered with my 70-200 and i guess with my 18-200 kit. i am detered from buying sigma lenses coz of the infamous quality control issues and coz many (equivalent) canon lens are that much better..? especially with saturation, CA, sharpness, distortion, etc. again my lens knowledge is limited


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo
> ...



I do agree with what you say - I used to use the 135 f/2 a lot, but since I got the 70-200 f/2.8 II it has not had much use because the IQ is not that much better (I now only really use it for street photos - it is MUCH lighter though)


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 28, 2012)

i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just _stares_ at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just _stares_ at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!



For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just _stares_ at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!
> ...



lol says the guy that actually uses a 400 f2.8!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > scottsdaleriots said:
> ...



Recently I used the 600 f/4 - that was truly wickid


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away


My main desire for a prime is to take concert photos. With street photography Im not in a dire need of a lens ATM since Ive just been using my kit lens and sometimes my 70-200.

But i would love to have the 35, 50, 85 and 135 lenses in my bag


----------



## Bosman (Apr 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


First time i've seen this "70-200 f/2.8 II not that much better". Sure the old one was already very good but the resolution sharpness and flare control are quite a step up in my book. It's one reason i dont need the 85 or need the 135, not because of the range but because it is flat out stellar. But it is big to lug so i only use it when i need it at weddings, with sports i almost always use it unless i am working the finish line.


----------



## kdsand (Apr 5, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo
> ...



If your budget is tight sigma lenses are quite good - certain models. The optics are right up there with Canon. I believe the key to buying sigma or being pleased with sigma is you have to go into it knowing that you may need to send it in for adjustment or actually just plan on sending it in when you get it.
It seems the vast majority of people are quite happy once they have had the focus adjusted. 

Another benefit for Sigma is the colors & saturation are quite different ( in a good way ) from Canon optics - nice having variation.

Overall I still stick with Canon but with the prices skyrocketing the scales can begin to tip. If you are budgeting for one lens the price is not as big of a deal. When you're trying to budget to build up a whole kit the premium prices of 5, 6 or even 7 lenses begins to add up and compromises have to be made at times.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 5, 2012)

50mm's render the world with no expansion or compression like wider or longer lenses do. They see things how they are and some will see that as boring. While the 50mm to me was the only lens I grew up on, (Minolta Maxxium AF and a 50 1.8 ) so It grew on me for good time.

After a while, It changed the way I composed things because there was no perspective tricks. I composed according to balance, shadows, rhythm, negative space, color and the other more important things in a photo. Thats what the 50mm does, it shows you how you compose your images based on these more important things.

As for lenses, Any of canons offerings are good but the 1.2L is the best.


----------

