MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: leaf on May 22, 2010, 04:35
-
If you were forced to do a microstock shoot with only one lens, which one would you pick?
I am starting to look at primes more recently and thinking they might be a good choice for shooting micro, but if I was forced to shoot with only one lens I think I would be tempted to go with a zoom. Perhaps the 24-70 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=24+70+2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&BI=1878&KW=&KBID=2528) That way I could get some nice wide angle shots as well as have a decent portrait lens and get good diffused backgrounds using f/2.8
That said I also really like the 70-200 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=70-200+2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&BI=1878&KW=&KBID=2528) but if I was only using one lens I think I would really want a wide angle.
How about you?
-
Same here __ Canon's 24-70 f2.8 is already my lens of choice for about 98% of my stock images. It's the ultimate utility lens as far as I'm concerned.
-
I love my Olympus 24-120 2.8. But I got tired of waiting for a better camera body (with a bigger chip) so I bought a Mark II with the 24-70 last month. I found the 24-70 to be soft in the corners on the wide. I took it to the Canon service center yesterday. Hopefully they can fix it.
-
Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks
-
I only use the Canon 24-105 f/4 L.
It covers almost everything i need to shoot... :D
Patrick H.
-
Most of my shots are with tamron 17-50 2.8 great lens :)
-
Tamron 28-75 2.8
I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.
-
That's a tough one. I'd say a Canon 24-105mm. Pretty versatile for landscapes to macro. I get better results out of my primes.
-
Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8. It's the lens I use most for people. I switch to the 17-55mm F/2.8 for landscape work, but could live with the 24-70 for that too if I had to.
-
Easy, 24-105L on FF for microstock. It has a lot of flaws but if I could only have one lens, this would be it.
-
Same here __ Canon's 24-70 f2.8 is already my lens of choice for about 98% of my stock images. It's the ultimate utility lens as far as I'm concerned.
+1 - but I miss the 100mm range for close portraits and macro/objects. I think I'll supplement it soon with a 100mm macro lens, non IS (to be used on tripod).
-
I'm using the 2.8/14-24 and 2.8/24-70 and other lenses, but my "standard-lens" is Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8G IF-ED VR. With this one, i'm shooting nearly 70% from all of my pics.
-
For me it used to be the 24-70 L. It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach. Now I am using the 24-105 more often. Still good image quality, but better range. And shooting with strobes the 4.0 max aperture is more than enough.
-
it would vary by what the 'shoot' is -- for closeup, study, obviously a low range lens works best, but for ourdoor, sports, work, the 70-200+ will be more useful [though counting that lens as ONE really begs the question]
and you can still get a wdie angle effect with that lens, by doing panoramas with the camera held vertically
that said, it's hard for me to choose anything other than the 20x i have on my sony hx1 -- wide angle to tight closeup, it's great for portraits andpeople shots in markets, etc, since you can stand off and shoot unobtrusively
(http://www.pix-now.com/Travel/India1/IndiaMarket/091111-233a/757704413_ruwhL-S.jpg) (http://www.pix-now.com/Food/Markets-around-the-world/11761423_PsBWa#757704413_ruwhL-A-LB)
s
-
For me it used to be the 24-70 L. It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach. Now I am using the 24-105 more often.
Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?
-
I sold my 24-70/2.8 after I bought the 24/105 f/4. I find the 24-105 more useful for my style of shooting. So that's my choice.
-
I mostly use the 24-70 and pick up the 70-200 when I need to get in tighter.
All this talk about the 24-105 has got me thinking about changing things up, though.
-
I mostly use the 24-70 and pick up the 70-200 when I need to get in tighter.
All this talk about the 24-105 has got me thinking about changing things up, though.
If I did more just plain old studio under strobe or low light but decent tripod or support I would have kept the 24-70 but I like going hand held, and my hands aren't so steady this days, so the IS on 24-105 makes it better for me. I end up with more keepers. Also the IS in planes, as you know, is much better than an extra stop on the lens.
I forgot to mention too that when I was doing people on white background, the 24-105 had less washout and better contrast than the 24-70 with the high amount of reflected light off the b/g.
-
For me it used to be the 24-70 L. It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach. Now I am using the 24-105 more often.
Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?
I get very sharp images with both lenses. No noticeable difference. Maybe the 24-70 is a bit more contrasty. The main difference is low light shooting, and depth of field, where obviously the f2.8 is better.
For my shoots the extra reach trumps the advantage of the wider aperture. Another advantage is the lighter weight of the 24-105. When shooting for 5-6 hours straight that makes a difference in my arm and shoulder.
-
Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.
-
just Canon shooters eheh Nikon guy here but never tried a Canon, I use a cheap Sigma 18-200 :P
-
just Canon shooters eheh Nikon guy here but never tried a Canon, I use a cheap Sigma 18-200 :P
I shoot Nikon too...have for many years, but I'm saving for a Canon T2i. I was thinking of getting it with the 18-55 kit lens. But, I got a kit lens (18-135) with my last Nikon and it really sucks. This is a very interesting thread. That 24-105 sound perfect. Wish it wasn't so expensive.
-
Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.
The 24-105 does have more pillow distortion so if your shooting architecture more it's not as nice plus more vignetting at wide and open but is very sharp.
-
I use mostly 16-85. Perfect range, but I wish somebody will do the same range but faster...
-
Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.
Unless you're a lens snob I don't think you'll be disappointed.
It's very sharp at center, and just a little softer at the edges. It's fairly contrasty. The stabilization works very well. Only downside is a little distortion and CA. Oh, and it's a bit heavy but hey, it's a solid lens.
-
sofar I love the 24-105mm nice combination with several extension tube for kind of macro and an 1,4 converter for more zoom range.
-
For aerial photos which is what most of my photos are-I use the old straght 50mm. For obliques and mapping to scale that the would require too high an altitude I sometime use a 35mm.
Smiling Jack
P.S.- my camera is a Pentax K10D
-
Most of my shots are with tamron 17-50 2.8 great lens
That's what Im using right now as my main lens (Minolta mount) . If I limited myself to one lens I'd either go back to my Sigma 17-70mm (a very versatile lens) or get the Zeiss 16-80mm.
-
my most used lens is the CZ24-70, my perfect lens would be a around 40 or 50-135 on fullframe (I know there is one for apsc) cover the people portrait range in one lens, wider and not as big or heavy as a 70-200
-
Hmmm.... I'm about to switch from Nikon to Canon and Tyler has been giving me some great advice and food for thought on lenses. What an awesome way to find out what everyone else things, and fast! Thanks for posting this thread Tyler.
Tyler has been trying to talk me out of starting with the 85mm 1.2L prime as my first Canon lens, and it wasn't difficult for him to convince me that this lens alone would be quite limiting. Both he and Andres cite the 70-200 2.8 as their favorite lens for shooting stock (that's right, right Tyler?) so I had added that to my mental shopping cart, but now Tyler is suggesting the 24-70 2.8 would provide more flexibility than not having anything under 70. I'd pretty much resolved to follow that advice, and now I get everyone speaking highly about the 24-105 4L. Decisions, decisions...
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
-
I love my Olympus 24-120 2.8. But I got tired of waiting for a better camera body (with a bigger chip) so I bought a Mark II with the 24-70 last month. I found the 24-70 to be soft in the corners on the wide. I took it to the Canon service center yesterday. Hopefully they can fix it.
Ha! Its very hard and expensive also, to replace Oly's superior optics!!!
But I think ,we can expect something excellent from Olympus...
They have DSLR quality on MICRO 4:3 sensor in PEN, so what will be with new normal sensor or... ?
So, this year we haven't anything new from Olympus, but 2011 can be excellent with new products...
Rumors circulating!!!
-
I love my Olympus 24-120 2.8. But I got tired of waiting for a better camera body (with a bigger chip) so I bought a Mark II with the 24-70 last month. I found the 24-70 to be soft in the corners on the wide. I took it to the Canon service center yesterday. Hopefully they can fix it.
I've been using the 12-60mm with my GF1 lately - not the most natural looking combination, but the GF1 with its almost non-existent AA filter shows how good this lens actually is. When they come up with a higher MP sensor, I'm sure this lens will comfortably cope with the challenge. Sharp across the range, and from wide open, almost no CA at any focal length.
I think however if I was shooting with a 5DII i'd be very tempted to shoot with mainly a 50mm 1.4.
-
(I shoot only with primes)
I shoot propably around 80% of my microstock photos with Canon 100/2.8L Macro.
-
Hmmm.... I'm about to switch from Nikon to Canon and Tyler has been giving me some great advice and food for thought on lenses. What an awesome way to find out what everyone else things, and fast! Thanks for posting this thread Tyler.
Tyler has been trying to talk me out of starting with the 85mm 1.2L prime as my first Canon lens, and it wasn't difficult for him to convince me that this lens alone would be quite limiting. Both he and Andres cite the 70-200 2.8 as their favorite lens for shooting stock (that's right, right Tyler?) so I had added that to my mental shopping cart, but now Tyler is suggesting the 24-70 2.8 would provide more flexibility than not having anything under 70. I'd pretty much resolved to follow that advice, and now I get everyone speaking highly about the 24-105 4L. Decisions, decisions...
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
I dont shoot canon so do know the lenses in question, but generally constant f2.8 zooms are the best quality and sharpest so cost more (but a friend changed his 70-200 f2.8 for the f4 version and says its lighter and sharper - again canon so I dont know). F2.8 is generally a bigger lens with more glass so also more expensive to make.
As well as the low light capacity and DOF it lets more light in for your autofocus system so focus is faster (how noticeable this is would depend on system, available light at time of shooting etc etc though).
-
I don't think that you will find one lens that is more versatile then the 24-105 4L. Of course the 85mm 1.2L and the 50 1.4 are sharper and excellent prime lenses but if you really want to carry only one lens with decent quality the 24-105 4L is it. Mixed with the 5d Mk II you have a top microstock camera as well as a top special event camera such as weddings, birthdays parties and so on. Of course for those event you'll need a 580 EX flash and know how to use it properly, because that lens is not the best in low light conditions. Denis
-
error
-
Thanks Leaf for posting this thread. It really helps for one to pinpoint what is the best all around lens to use as a your main lens. I am in the market for a new lens and it helps to get input from everyone.
-
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
The extra stop cosst a lot. Take for example the 70-200; the f/4 and f/2.8 vary widely in price. Have all the same features except aperture. I think the f/4 is slightly sharper. I used to have the f/2.8 in this series but sold it for a f/4. Again for me the extra stop wasn't as important as the smaller size and convenience. 2.8 is great in the studio but on the road it's a PITA.
-
There's a really great comparison between the Canon 24-70mm and 24-105mm on The Luminous Landscape. Anyone who can't decide which of these lenses to get will know what to do after reading this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml)
-
Which is better Tamron or Sigma? I know Nikon is best and the two lens I do have are Nikon, but the price for a Nikor lens 24-70 and the 70-200 are a big price tag, so which would be the better alternate?
-
I use mostly my Nikkor 50mm 1.4
-
I also love my Canon 24-105. It stays on my camera most of the time.
-
Which is better Tamron or Sigma? I know Nikon is best and the two lens I do have are Nikon, but the price for a Nikor lens 24-70 and the 70-200 are a big price tag, so which would be the better alternate?
I can't speak for the Tamron but I use the Sigma 24-70 2.8 on my Nikon D700 and really like the versatility of it.
I do mostly studio food and landscapes and the lens is a bit large and heavy but in my opinion its a great lens for the price ($569 USD for the Nikon Mount), 90% of my portfolio was shot with this lens.
I also used the same lens on my Pentax K10D prior to the Nikon.
I just got the Sigma 150mm F2.8 APO Macro DG ($729 USD) last month and this is another of Sigma's very good lenes.......Both of these lenses have outstanding quality for the price on both the build and output quality.
-Don
-
I've got a silly amount of lenses, and most of them stay in the lens drawer. I mostly use the Canon 100mm macro, it's great for food, portraits, products, everything. If, on a rare occasion I find that's not working the angles I need I use my Canon 24-70 (but I do hate the CA I get with that). I also have a Canon 90mm tilt shift that rarely sees the light of day, and a 15mm Sigma wide angle that's been out less than teenager with halitosis. I also had the Canon 70-200 for a while & then realised it wasn't much help for my kind of shooting & I sold it on Ebay. So, of all my lenses, the cheapest (100mm) is my most used by far.
-
There's a really great comparison between the Canon 24-70mm and 24-105mm on The Luminous Landscape. Anyone who can't decide which of these lenses to get will know what to do after reading this: [url]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml[/url])
That's excellent reading __ thanks for posting. The 24-105mm didn't exist when I bought my 24-70mm so it wasn't a decision I had to make. It is tempting to reach for the credit card now.
-
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview)
is also good for lens reviews
-
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
No, I don't believe Canon puts more quality into their f/2.8 lenses compared to their f/4 lenses. If it is an L lens, it's an L lens and they make it as good as they can. The bigger expense (and weight) comes from needing a physically larger lens to get in an extra stop of light. If you don't need that extra stop then don't spend the extra $$ for it. The cost of the extra glass is very noticeable in the very long lenses. The 400mm f/5.6 for example is $1269. Get the 400mm f/2.8 and you have to pay $7100. Both lenses are L series and top pro models, one just shoots a few stops darker. The 2.8 lens isn't physically made any better or to a higher quality than the f/5.6 lens, it just has more glass.
The f/5.6 weighs 2.8 lbs while the f/2.8 weighs 11.7 lbs :) For people who want a light lens more than an extra couple stops, the f/5.6 would be a better buy.
-
Both he and Andres cite the 70-200 2.8 as their favorite lens for shooting stock (that's right, right Tyler?)
Yeah, it is my favorite lens, but it wouldn't be my first lens to buy :) and I am tempted to try and replace it with a 135mm f/2 and more reading and thinking later.. maybe I am just happy with the 70-200. It is nice and versatile and the difference is probably pretty minimal at the 135mm range.... but the 135mm does look nice :)
Thanks for the link Sharply - yeah it seems like a tough choice between the 24-70 and 24-105. I'm not sure that link made my preference any easier to decide though. I really like having the option of shooting at 2.8 and think I lean towards the 24-70 still. Also, if you have the 70-200 the 70-105 range that the f/4 lens offers is just overlap.
-
[url]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview[/url] ([url]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview[/url])
is also good for lens reviews
Thanks Phil...that site gives reviews for all makes and models. very helpful
-
Before shopping, one might want to consider having a look at POTN lens samples archive. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107)
That forum is one of the best (if not the best) resources for Canon photogs.
Regarding the OP question - I'm mostly into primes. However, if I had to chose one PRIME - I'd probably have the 50mm f/1.2L, which I don't have right now but it's on the todo list for this year. 50mm f/1.4 is not worth it, you'd rather have the el cheapo f/1.8 which is very sharp and has almost the same unpleasant bokeh as the f/1.4. Or better still, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which I tested it several times and it has a beautiful creamy bokeh. But this Sigma is no L Klasse, trust me on that.
someone said above that "if you want razor thin DOF at f/2.8 for 24-70" - there is no such thing. Razor thin DOF you get with 85 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2, 200 f/2, etc.
I got myself the 200 f/2.8L and it's awesome for outdoor portraits and action shots, tack sharp wide open.
-
Sigma 17-70mm F2,4-4 macro starts at 2 cm
-
Been shooting everything with the Canon 50mm f/1.8, after doing tests comparing it to 18-55mm kit lens. I find it has good sharpness and minimal chromatic aberration, especially shooting in studio on bright white background. I've also been shooting outdoors with it and I didn't find the fixed focal length as limiting as you might think.
I would like a fixed focal lens with a bit more magnification however, as many shots would benefit from the flatter perspective. The 50mm is I think equivalent to about 85mm on my T2i. Something over 100mm effective FL would be useful, if its sharpness and CA are good.
-
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
The extra stop cosst a lot. Take for example the 70-200; the f/4 and f/2.8 vary widely in price. Have all the same features except aperture. I think the f/4 is slightly sharper. I used to have the f/2.8 in this series but sold it for a f/4. Again for me the extra stop wasn't as important as the smaller size and convenience. 2.8 is great in the studio but on the road it's a PITA.
+1
Funny thing I sold my 70-200 IS USM f/2.8 and bought a 70-200 F/4 (non-IS), with the extra money I got a 24-105 and some other things. Whether the tests say the f/4 is sharper or the same, I can't see any difference and that's good enough for me. I will also point out that I can shoot it hand held easier, all day long, and it fits into the bag better.
24-105 is my walk around lens, which fits with the general consensus of the thread.
Crop camera
Depending on what you shoot, and if it's a full frame or crop... I'd say either of these (or any of the 70-200 variations) are the best one.
-
I'd go with the 24-105 f/4 as well for my goto lens (on a crop body). I find with the extra few mm I don't pull out the 70-200mm as much, so this lens pretty much stays on my camera unless I'm doing something that requires a macro lens...
-
If you were forced to do a microstock shoot with only one lens, which one would you pick?
I am starting to look at primes more recently and thinking they might be a good choice for shooting micro, but if I was forced to shoot with only one lens I think I would be tempted to go with a zoom. Perhaps the 24-70 f/2.8 ([url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=24+70+2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&BI=1878&KW=&KBID=2528[/url]) That way I could get some nice wide angle shots as well as have a decent portrait lens and get good diffused backgrounds using f/2.8
That said I also really like the 70-200 f/2.8 ([url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=70-200+2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&BI=1878&KW=&KBID=2528[/url]) but if I was only using one lens I think I would really want a wide angle.
How about you?
well, to stick with lenses I have -
for practicality's sake:
Nikon 18-200 /3.5-5.6 DX (or)
Nikon 24-70 /2.8 ED
but my heart would miss:
Nikon 14-24 /2.8 ED
and I'd love to have (afford):
Nikon 70-200 /2.8 ED
-
Definitely Zuiko 12-60/2,8-3,5 - there is no other zoom with such versatile range and superb optics.
-
I use my Canon 24-70 (but I do hate the CA I get with that)
I'm glad you mention CA. I found it to be surprisingly high for a lens of that price, especially visible on black peaky hair on a blown out white background. I thought it would be much less. It's easily solved in the RAW DPP of Canon though. Apart from that, it's a very heavy lens.
-
Tamron 28-75 2.8
I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.
Here too. Best bang for the buck. I know a few wedding shooters who have multples of this lens because it easily fits in their budget..
-
Tamron 28-75 2.8
I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.
Here too. Best bang for the buck. I know a few wedding shooters who have multples of this lens because it easily fits in their budget..
after doing some extensive research on price and sharpness... i bought this lens for my canon and is extremely happy with it
-
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
If you need rapid auto focus having twice as much light reaching the AF sensors makes it work faster, so if you were shooting nature or wildlife you would want the wider lens (but probably a longer one, too). For portraits you may want shallow DoF.
I do most of my shooting with a standard length macro lens.
-
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
If you need rapid auto focus having twice as much light reaching the AF sensors makes it work faster, so if you were shooting nature or wildlife you would want the wider lens (but probably a longer one, too). For portraits you may want shallow DoF.
I do most of my shooting with a standard length macro lens.
I've found also that in general the faster lenses tend to give more consistent and accurate AF results as well as being faster.
-
for my nikon d700, i found the tamron 90mm 2.8 macro to be really versatile. it does macro, portraits, studio, tight landscapes. it's lightweight and fast. i also like the nikkor 50mm 1.8 (super fast), but obviously can't do macro as well.
however, i found the nikkor 200mm 2.8 vrII to be the best all around lens for when i'm outside, trying to sneak up on animals (or even people), events, sports, etc. the picture quality is truly wonderful. it's only drawback is its heaviness and inability to shoot closer than 3 ft.
-
About the Canon 24-105 F4L... I own the 24-70 but thought I'd prefer the weight and range of the 24-105. Did a two-week swap with a fellow photog to try it out. Found that the distortion (both close in and wide) was loads worse than what I was used to from the 24-70 (which only has some distortion zoomed out wide). Also, in the end I decided I preferred the wider aperture to the IS. So no final swap. Now I'm thinking I'll end up with the 17-40 F4L and the 100 F2.8 IS Macro. And possibly the 50mm F1.8II because it's dead cheap, light and nice to have indoors in poor light.
-
About the Canon 24-105 F4L... I own the 24-70 but thought I'd prefer the weight and range of the 24-105. Did a two-week swap with a fellow photog to try it out. Found that the distortion (both close in and wide) was loads worse than what I was used to from the 24-70 (which only has some distortion zoomed out wide). Also, in the end I decided I preferred the wider aperture to the IS. So no final swap. Now I'm thinking I'll end up with the 17-40 F4L and the 100 F2.8 IS Macro. And possibly the 50mm F1.8II because it's dead cheap, light and nice to have indoors in poor light.
if you like the 2.8 series lenses why don't you go for the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html?BI=1878&KW=&KBID=2528) instead
-
While I have a large collection of nice L glass I would most probably pick a Canon EF 50mm 1.4 if I must only shoot with one lens.
-
It really depends what and where you shoot.
If you shoot people in a studio, like me, I'd say the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM. :)
-
I would shoot with my 35 MM, f/2...it is by far my favourite lens
-
Most of my current work is with my Pentax 50mm macro on a 1.5 crop body. If I had to go with just one though it would probably be the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 LTD, which is slightly more versatile for most of the work I do (food photography).
However, I'm thinking of changing to MF with the Pentax 645D. If I do that I'll be using only the 55mm lens, which works out to be the equivalent of about 45mm on a 35mm FF camera, due to the sensor on the 645D being a crop sensor.
-
Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks
Actually a 2x crop factor would make it a 48-240mm. MY D90 and D300 have a crop factor of 1.5x so my 50mm comes out close to a 85mm.
Some of the Canons have a crop factor of 1.3 and 1.6 I believe so you would multiply by those factors to the lenses.
-
Great thread, I'm glad it's been revisited.
Of course like most I use several different lenses for different things but if I were forced to give up all but one for microstock I would have to keep the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L
My style of photography is reasonably "in your face" so I can get a nice portrait when up close and personal or a nice shot that shows the environment really well. It's a fast lens and super sharp.
That being said, if I didn't have my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS I would be very sad as I use it about as much as the 16-35.
I have been playing with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro lens more recently as well and I've been using it in place of the 70-200 sometimes as it is faster and sharper.
Have a good one!
Mat
-
yes it is a nice topic!.. I need to buy a new lens.. anyone have the 18-200 from nikon?? the latest version..?
-
Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks
Actually a 2x crop factor would make it a 48-240mm. MY D90 and D300 have a crop factor of 1.5x so my 50mm comes out close to a 85mm.
Some of the Canons have a crop factor of 1.3 and 1.6 I believe so you would multiply by those factors to the lenses.
Its actually a 12-60mm (24-105 equivalent), and regardless a very nice lens.
-
This one is completely out of left field.
Leica R 35 1.4. I had to file down the back metal of the lens so it fits the 5D II but together with the shortest extension tube from canon is my ultimate one lens solution for pictures and video. Out of focus softness is nothing like you have ever seen. Shoot wide open as you like. Being fixed to 1/30s exposure with video you can shoot at available darkness levels at base ISO. No funny colors around contrasty borders. LOVE IT.
-
For my Olympus, ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 is the one I use most of the time.
Except a prime for macros: ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro.
But I am thinking about adding a ZUIKO DIGITAL 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5, for wide angle architectural photography
-
I'm with Race. My favorite lens for shooting lifestyle.
-
For me it used to be the 24-70 L. It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach. Now I am using the 24-105 more often.
Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?
I get very sharp images with both lenses. No noticeable difference. Maybe the 24-70 is a bit more contrasty. The main difference is low light shooting, and depth of field, where obviously the f2.8 is better.
For my shoots the extra reach trumps the advantage of the wider aperture. Another advantage is the lighter weight of the 24-105. When shooting for 5-6 hours straight that makes a difference in my arm and shoulder.
Im surprised , i used 3 or 4 copies of both and every copy of 24-70 was way better in sharpens , and every copy of 24-105 had more or less little CA problems. I really don't know why but I still use 24-105 more often.
I have to say 70-200 eats them both , and its my absolute favorite lens , only not so usable for stock.
-
Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.8). I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.
I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.
-
24-105 L but sometime use longer.
-
I originally posted that my main lens was a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, but now I've moved to a Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 which I would say is an optically superior lens. The Zeiss gives me 24-120mm on my Sony A700 and makes it pretty versatile for outdoor photography. I used to be an Olympus fan and it would be interesting to see how the Zeiss compares to the Zuiko 12-60mm (both have effectively the same focal length).
-
Hi All,
Tough choice. It is either the 24-105 or the 70-200. Can't I choose both ;D
Best,
Jonathan
-
My beloved razor sharp Pentax DA 17-70 f4 SDM
-
The 24-105, gives a slight better bokeh, then the 24-70 and with less CA. However, dont forget the super-sharp Canon 100L 2.8. regarded as possibly the best Macro-lens available.
-
this is a hard question. I would have to say my 35mm f/2.8 prime is what I'd use all the time. I know it would be better to use a zoom, but I just love this lens too much to give it up if I could only have one.
ETA: hah, so I thought this thread was an oldie. sure enough I already answered last December. I said the same lens....still my fav
-
This one is completely out of left field.
Leica R 35 1.4. I had to file down the back metal of the lens so it fits the 5D II but together with the shortest extension tube from canon is my ultimate one lens solution for pictures and video. Out of focus softness is nothing like you have ever seen. Shoot wide open as you like. Being fixed to 1/30s exposure with video you can shoot at available darkness levels at base ISO. No funny colors around contrasty borders. LOVE IT.
That's a hell of a thing to do to a Summilux and I don't get why you'd need to file it if you are going to use it on a tube. Your maximum focus distance will also be severely constrained, the same as it would be with a Canon 35mm on a tube. Isn't the rear element the thing that protrudes furthest from the back in that design?
Not sure how you shoot video at 1/30s, either.
-
Well, very much depends what and where you shoot.
For studio and general purpose I prefer 50 mm - F/1.4.
No zoom lenses can compare with prime lenses in terms of quality and sharpness.Still using my old Minolta rokkor 50 mm - F/1.4. and new Canon EF 50 mm - F/1.4 both.
Quality? The same.
Using zoom lens only if I have to otherwise prime lenses are simply superb
-
Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.8). I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.
I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.
I used to have that Tamron lens back when I was first starting out and shooting with 20D's. It was a good lens for the money but my advice is to save the extra dough and get the Canon IS version. It's much better in my opinion and well worth the money. In theory if you are shooting with a 5D Mark II the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS should pay for itself in short time.
Mat
-
85mm 1.8 cheap, light and good
-
Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.8). I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.
I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.
I don't have the Tamron, but I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and absolutely love the IQ! I picked up a used copy for $600USD and couldn't be happier. The person that I bought it from upgraded to the Canon for the faster focus times, but for me, the Sigma is great!
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
-
Wow...an old thread came back to life!
For all around, either a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 depending on what you're doing.
For general model shoots, I've used my old school 50 f/1.8 (I have the old version with the metal mount) more than any other lens while shooting models. I'm sure you could do the same using a 85 f/1.8 or 100 macro.
-
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. It works as a 100mm prime as well as macro.
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
-
Nikkor 24-70.
-
"One lens" threads never make much sense. It depends on what you shoot, where you shoot, etc.
-
Does anyone have any experience with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a Canon 5DII? The thing I'm attracted to is the closer minimum focus distance compared to the Canon f4 or 2.8 (not to mention its half the price of the Canon 2.8). I'm looking to put together a kit that's as versatile as possible while keeping the total weight reasonable.
I'm looking more to be able to do closeup shots than macro really, so don't think I really need a macro lens, but getting closer than 1.2m might be handy.
I used to have that Tamron lens back when I was first starting out and shooting with 20D's. It was a good lens for the money but my advice is to save the extra dough and get the Canon IS version. It's much better in my opinion and well worth the money. In theory if you are shooting with a 5D Mark II the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS should pay for itself in short time.
Mat
Good advice, but unfortunately a little late!
I've had the Tamron for a while now - its really sharp and a great lens for the money, but the focus is just too slow, so its now on the upgrade list. The close focus distance is far less useful than I thought, because the whole lens is unwieldy at that range, and the slow focus makes it really difficult to get usable results. Now I'm still weighing up the Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs the 2.8 IS...
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
Unfortunately with optics, you do get what you pay for. I use the Nikon 80-200 as well, its good but nowhere near the Canons tele-zooms, the new 70-300 L. is actually known for its fine bokeh. Canon have always led the tele and tele-zoom race, Nikons speciallity is wideangles and wide-angle zooms plus normal zooms
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
Unfortunately with optics, you do get what you pay for. I use the Nikon 80-200 as well, its good but nowhere near the Canons tele-zooms, the new 70-300 L. is actually known for its fine bokeh. Canon have always led the tele and tele-zoom race, Nikons speciallity is wideangles and wide-angle zooms plus normal zooms
I can't say anything about the Canon 70-300L Christian. But I think you might be mistaken on the 80-200. it has nothing to do with getting what you pay for. the price in this case indicates the age of the lens versus newer technologies. it isn't like both lenses were released simultaneously at various price points. the 80-200 produces images that in my humble experience are far superior to what I got when I tested out the 70-200 fx series for Nikon with all their nano-coating bells and whistles. the 80-200 produces a far nicer bokeh in my opinion, at various apertures and it produces way less vignetting. the focal points are sharper too and its body is more substantial. yes, heavier, but with a large zoom, who cares. they're all heavy, I feel safer with it than I would with the newer, crappy thinner plastic 70-200 fx exterior.
-
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
Unfortunately with optics, you do get what you pay for. I use the Nikon 80-200 as well, its good but nowhere near the Canons tele-zooms, the new 70-300 L. is actually known for its fine bokeh. Canon have always led the tele and tele-zoom race, Nikons speciallity is wideangles and wide-angle zooms plus normal zooms
I can't say anything about the Canon 70-300L Christian. But I think you might be mistaken on the 80-200. it has nothing to do with getting what you pay for. the price in this case indicates the age of the lens versus newer technologies. it isn't like both lenses were released simultaneously at various price points. the 80-200 produces images that in my humble experience are far superior to what I got when I tested out the 70-200 fx series for Nikon with all their nano-coating bells and whistles. the 80-200 produces a far nicer bokeh in my opinion, at various apertures and it produces way less vignetting. the focal points are sharper too and its body is more substantial. yes, heavier, but with a large zoom, who cares. they're all heavy, I feel safer with it than I would with the newer, crappy thinner plastic 70-200 fx exterior.
Absoloutely!! I use the Nikon 80-200 myself and its far better then the 70-200. What Im saying is that the later Canon tele-zooms such as the 70-200L.IS. 2.8 and the new 70-300L, do have a slight edge. They do prioduce a slightly sharper and cleaner picture out of the camera, that is. :)
-
I hate my 24/70. The CA drives me nuts in post processing. Anyone wanna buy it.?? My 100 mm prime with IS is my getter done right lens. It just rocks for macro or portrait. That 24/105 sounds good. Hopefully the CA is not as bad. Would appreciate opinions. :)
-
Much of what you pay for these days has nothing to do with the optics. You are paying for AF motors and stabilisation technology on top of the glass. Nor is the age of an optical formula is necessarily an indication of its quality, particularly with prime lenses (there are some classics from the 60s and 70s that can still hold their own today's glass). Zooms are a slightly different story but I doubt if the best zoom from 10 years ago produces visibly inferior images to the best zoom today. You also get product variation within certain tolerances.
-
Much of what you pay for these days has nothing to do with the optics. You are paying for AF motors and stabilisation technology on top of the glass. Nor is the age of an optical formula is necessarily an indication of its quality, particularly with prime lenses (there are some classics from the 60s and 70s that can still hold their own today's glass). Zooms are a slightly different story but I doubt if the best zoom from 10 years ago produces visibly inferior images to the best zoom today. You also get product variation within certain tolerances.
I'm sure you are correct. I understand the wider availability and relatively cheap cost of zoom lens today is almost entirely down to advances in the manufacturing processes. It's not 'better glass' but, as you say, more or less the same glass with autofocus and stabilisation manufactured cheaply for today's mass-market.
-
I really can't decide between 18-70 kit lens and prime 50. although one o fmy best-sellers was shot with fisheye :-)
-
100 / 2.8 macro (canon). can't think of anything more bang / buck.