pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If you could only shoot micro with one lens, which would it be?  (Read 25645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2010, 20:45 »
0
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.


« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2010, 21:08 »
0
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

« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2010, 00:31 »
0
Quote
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.

« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2010, 01:45 »
0
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

« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2010, 04:29 »
0
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?

« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2010, 05:05 »
0
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!!!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 05:09 by borg »

« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2010, 05:27 »
0
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.

« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2010, 07:25 »
0
(I shoot only with primes)

I shoot propably around 80% of my microstock photos with Canon 100/2.8L Macro.

« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2010, 07:33 »
0
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).
 

« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2010, 08:15 »
0
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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 08:24 by cybernesco »

« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2010, 08:22 »
0
error

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2010, 10:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2010, 10:20 »
0

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.

« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2010, 10:30 »
0
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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 10:32 by sharply_done »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2010, 10:51 »
0
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?

« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2010, 11:04 »
0
I use mostly my Nikkor 50mm 1.4

CofkoCof

« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2010, 11:14 »
0
I also love my Canon 24-105. It stays on my camera most of the time.

« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2010, 12:45 »
0
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

Caz

« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2010, 14:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2010, 15:09 »
0
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


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.

« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2010, 15:47 »
0
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

is also good for lens reviews

« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2010, 16:35 »
0

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.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 16:38 by leaf »

« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2010, 16:47 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 17:01 by leaf »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2010, 17:38 »
0
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

is also good for lens reviews


Thanks Phil...that site gives reviews for all makes and models. very helpful

Xalanx

« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2010, 18:11 »
0
Before shopping, one might want to consider having a look at POTN lens samples archive.
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3859 Views
Last post November 27, 2008, 23:19
by crazychristina
0 Replies
1378 Views
Last post July 09, 2009, 09:13
by click_click
12 Replies
2629 Views
Last post March 02, 2010, 17:43
by a.k.a.-tom
4 Replies
2494 Views
Last post January 07, 2011, 22:45
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
3821 Views
Last post June 30, 2015, 05:22
by PZF

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results