Author Topic: Doubts about my starting Lens (Read 6030 times)

Bonato · « **on:** February 18, 2008, 22:08 »

Hello friends of microstock.
I definitely want enter in the world of microstock. I'm really impressed with this business. Thankfully I found this great forum.

My doubt is, I will buy a Canon Xti, and I have no idea which lens buy. I'm planning to take these style of pictures (in my homemade studio):

- Food (simple compositions)
- Simple people scenes ( example: handshaking, business person holding a contract)
- Objects (sharp objects with white background) <- This is the manly proposal/goal.

I was looking for Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Digital SLR ($352.00). But today I had another idea, instead buy Xti with lens kit ($ 599.95) + 60mm ($352.00) [=951,95] wouldn't be better buy Xti (body only - $ 519.95) and spend more money in a better lens? I was thinking (for my "picture proposal") in Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($459.88) [total = 979,83]

What do you think? What is the best deal?
Or I'm wrong and you have an another lens suggestion for that kind of pictures?

Well, I'm feeling a little lost, so thanks for you attention.

-Bonato.

stock_fan · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2008, 22:16 »

you have some good ideas. i would not go with the kit lens. better get the 50mm 1.8 for about 100$. also I do not like EF-S lenses. If you succeed you might want to upgrade to a full-frame camera later on. EF-S does not work on full-frame.

100mm macro sounds good. you can also check out the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and sigma 105mm macro lenses. afaik they all get good reviews.

vphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 22:42 »

I would get Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and Cannon 50mm f 1.4 lens. Or just with one of these two. One good lens is enough to get started.

Bonato · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2008, 07:27 »

@stock_fan: why dont you like EF-S lenses?
@stock_fan: The "Tamron 90mm 2.8 " is the same price of the Canon 100mm. What´s the difference between them?

@vphoto: which one would fit better for my needs? You suggested Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, I did a quick research and this one cost $309.95. In the end, which one will best cover my needs?
@vphoto: I didnt understand the difference between them

(one is macro and the other dont?)

Thanks for all attention.

Danicek · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:21 »

I bought Tamron AF SP 17-50 mm F2,8 with XTI. I can only recommend this lens (yet, you have to take into account that I'm a beginner).

I think Stock_fan talks about the fact that EF-S lenses (BTW, my Tamron as well) are specifically designed to suit the smaller sensors of some DSLRs (such as XTI/400D).

In general, lenses should be considered longer term investments than the body. In future you may decide to buy full frame DSLR for its advantages. This may come even though you will now tell everyone that it will never happen. Once you do so, you may use all your existing lenses as long as they are compatible with the lens mount of your new DSLR (if you stick with one branch you are usually guaranteed this). However if you bought lenses specifically for the smaller format and you migrated to full frame, you cannot use them.

Waldo4 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:03 »

Even though I have a crop body now, and probably will for a few more years (next one will be the step up crop a la 40d), I look at lenses two ways. Some ranges and types are better off going for the gold and getting a FF lens than others. In the end you may need a new lens or two when converting, but it shouldn't be a big deal. For long lengths, 50mm+, I think that a FF lens is the way to go. These lenses don't get used as much and IQ is king when talking long lenses, might as well get a good one. Macro lenses would fall in this category as well, the 100mm is a very highly regarded lens, both on a crop and FF body. All primes should be FF, I don't know if they make any non-macro EF-S primes anyway.

But normal, and especially WA, I'd compromise and get a EF-s, especially for a WA, as all the superwides, the 10mm minimums, are made for crop sensors, and are needed to get the kind of wide range that is possible on a FF sensor. With a normal lens, IQ and usability would be the only determining factor for me, it is going to be the workhorse, better to get the best for you now and maybe have to switch in the future. For my eventual normal lens, I'm either going to get a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (the sharpest, most holdable zoom lens you can put on a crop body), or a EF 16-35 f/2.8 L. The FF lens lacks the IS, has less range, but is built better, and costs almost $400 more. IQ is equivalent between the two, possibly tipping toward the EF-S actually. I could save the $400 now, get a more usable lens, even though I'll eventually go FF, that lens will take 10's, possibly 100's, of thousands of pictures before I ever get a FF camera, and probably play a big role in paying for the new camera and L lens (which would replace both the WA and the normal).

In that sense, for all specialty lenses (macro, prime, tele, fisheye), get ones that will last in any format, unless it only is applicable to one format (the superwides), for the workhorse though, get the best that you can, for your application, irregardless of future applicability. Just my humble opinion.

DanP68 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:54 »

I can vouch for the quality of the Canon 50mm 1.8. You can grab this online for about $79 on sale. Really sharp, it will do anything you need it to do. Yes it is built in flimsy plastic, and I am certain it will not stand up to abuse. But as long as you are careful with your equipment this should never be an issue.

The 100mm Macro is a beautiful lens. I find it to be more sharp than the 50mm, though not everyone agrees. No IS on this lens, so you will obviously be using a tripod.

That covers you for the vast majority of closeup work, and the 50mm will function as good "street zoom" and portrait lens. The 1.6x crop factor has to be considered, so you may want to add a wider angle for walk around use. I use the 24mm with my 30D body and love the quality and color. Great build too.

helix7 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:20 »

The kit lens is crap. Definitely skip it and buy just the body, then buy other lenses elsewhere.

Bonato · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:37 »

Well, one thing maybe I forgot to say "directly". I plan later buy a more versatile lens, but for now, I "need" a lens that covers my microstock objetives. Let me find some examples, I guess this way would be easier.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2266764
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/3617037_blender.php?id=3617037
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/5106408_grilled_salmon_meal.php?id=5106408
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/religion_and_beliefs/religions/christianity/2143877_cherishing_faith.php?id=2143877
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4801707_portrait_of_a_senior_executive.php?id=4801707

Thanks!!

vphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:42 »

Quote from: Bonato on February 19, 2008, 07:27

@stock_fan: why dont you like EF-S lenses?
@stock_fan: The "Tamron 90mm 2.8 " is the same price of the Canon 100mm. What´s the difference between them?

@vphoto: which one would fit better for my needs? You suggested Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, I did a quick research and this one cost $309.95. In the end, which one will best cover my needs?
@vphoto: I didnt understand the difference between them (one is macro and the other dont?)

Thanks for all attention.

if you want to shoot closeups, food, portrait then Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. if food, street, portraits then 50mm f 1.4

Waldo4 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2008, 14:13 »

I second that 50mm f/1.4. Could be that my f/1.8 copy is crap, but my 70-300mm definitely takes sharper pictures, quite noticeably better. The f/1.8 is cheap, very cheap. Every thing it does the f/1.4 does better. It is built better, it is faster, has better bokeh, and naturally it is a quarter to half a stop bright (making it even faster, usably), it focuses better and quieter, it is more flare resistant (the flare looks better too), and is every bit as sharp, if not moreso (I would expect QC to be better as well). I plan on replacing my cheepie with the better model in not too long. $300 is still pretty cheap for a good versatile lens, a little more of a dent than the $80 for the cheepie, but 5 years from now that f/1.4 will still have a prominent place in the bag unless good IQ sub f/2.0 zooms are on the horizon (doubt it).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Doubts about my starting Lens (Read 6030 times)

Bonato

stock_fan

vphoto

Bonato

Danicek

Waldo4

DanP68

helix7

Bonato

vphoto

Waldo4

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors