pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Lens recommendations for a new Canon user  (Read 7744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michealo

« on: October 14, 2008, 11:05 »
0
I am jumping ship from Nikon (D200) to Canon (5d Mk 11)

What lenses would you recommend?

First purchases would be

1 for studio / portraits
2 a zoom in the 70/80 to 200/300




« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2008, 11:13 »
0
Well, for that camera, I'd advise the 24-105 f4 L for studio, the 70-200 IS L (4 or 2.8 ) for the other range.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 11:32 by Opla »

AstburyD

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 11:20 »
0
If budget permits go for L series lenses, these have the higher quality professional glass and can be spotted by a red ring around the front of the lens. IS denotes Image Stabilisation, this typically works well and you get the option to turn it on or off. The 24-105 is a nice lens, I use one a lot but it does give a few problems, notably chromatic aberration, unless you want the flexibility of that range you can do better for portraits.

For example you could take a look at:
  • 85mm L f1.2 prime
  • 70-200 L f2.8 IS zoom

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_85mm_f12L_II_USM/index.asp
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_USM/index.asp

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2008, 11:36 »
0
if you have the $$ I would get a 70-200 2.8 IS.  It is my favorite lens and the one I probably used the most in Malta.  Mostly for close ups though,... portraits and the like.

24-70 2.8 is also a nice lens for everything... works as a portrait lens at the 70mm end or landscape at the 28 end, so pretty versatile if you only are going to buy one lens.

85 1.8 if you want a nice portrait lens.

50 1.8 if you want a cheap fun lens.

« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2008, 12:16 »
0
I agree with leaf if money isn't an issue go for L lensles. 24-70 f2.8 plus 70-200 f2.8 would cover pretty much everything.
I was thinking about getting the 24-70 as well but I ended up with 17-40 f4('cos it is cheaper and wider than 24 70   and 70-200 f4 IS( 'cos it is lighter than the f2.8 IS )  I am happy with both I also have the nifty fifty great value for the money.

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 12:52 »
0
Although many people love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, the f/4.0 IS is actually rated to be a better lens by many people.  On top of that, it is a lot more affordable and weighs substantially less.

Here are reviews of both lenses:

f/4.0:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review

f/2.8:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/199-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-is-test-report--review

If you look at the second page of each report, you will find that the f/4.0 lens outperforms the f/2.8 lens.  The f/4.0 lens has less vignetting, less chromatic aberration, and higher resolution compared to the f/2.8.

Also, the f/4.0 lens has a more advanced IS system.  The f/4.0 lens contains a 3rd generation IS system, where the f/2.8 lens has a 2nd IS generation system.  That is why the f/4.0 lens claims a 4-f/stop IS system, whereas the f/2.8 lens claims a 3-f/stop IS system.

I would recommend going with the f/4.0.

Save the additional money for another lens or body.

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2008, 13:26 »
0
if you have the $$ I would get a 70-200 2.8 IS.  It is my favorite lens and the one I probably used the most in Malta.  Mostly for close ups though,... portraits and the like.

24-70 2.8 is also a nice lens for everything... works as a portrait lens at the 70mm end or landscape at the 28 end, so pretty versatile if you only are going to buy one lens.

85 1.8 if you want a nice portrait lens.

50 1.8 if you want a cheap fun lens.

Leaf said all you need to know!  ;)

I am new canon user and 24-70 2.8 is something, and very very sharp lens for a zoom lenses.

I will add 15mm fish eye for fun!

And I will not recommend 17-40mm lens. It is not a good lens. Soft, CA, ...

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2008, 13:33 »
0
Maybe it sounds weird but I recommend only primes for shooting stock. Zoom lenses are good walk around lenses for a 21 mpx camera a but the truth is that zooms doesn't really draw a 21mpx image at borders, especially at the extreme borders. Reducing the image size (from 21mpx) helps.

I recommend 2 lines of lenses, depending on your budget:

Expensive: 50mm f1.2L 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2.0L; depending on the subjects wide and tele ranges may be needed: 180mm f3.5 macro, 35mm f1.4L, 24mm f1.4L

Payable: 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2,8 macro, 85mm f1.8; extend the range with premium zooms: 16-36 f2,8 or 17-40 f4L (at wide angle the f2.8 counts when light is low, the bokeh is busy anyway), 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 IS, or non-IS, depending on the budget, there are 4 variations.

Virtually 90% of the stock photos can be made with a wide zoom, eg. 24-70, 50 and 100mm lenses.

Note that the above suggestions are considered to use with full frame camera.

Edit:
I pre-ordered an 5d mkII with 24-105 IS to shoot video, but I plan using this camera with 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8, 17-40 f4L, 24-70f2,8L and a 70-200, I will see which one. Also I plan to buy a 180mm f3.5 macro, 85mm f1.8 and some toys like Sigma 8mm fisheye, Sigma 50mm macro.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 13:37 by icefront »

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2008, 13:39 »
0
If budget permits go for L series lenses, these have the higher quality professional glass and can be spotted by a red ring around the front of the lens. IS denotes Image Stabilisation, this typically works well and you get the option to turn it on or off. The 24-105 is a nice lens, I use one a lot but it does give a few problems, notably chromatic aberration, unless you want the flexibility of that range you can do better for portraits.

For example you could take a look at:
  • 85mm L f1.2 prime
  • 70-200 L f2.8 IS zoom

newbielink:http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_85mm_f12L_II_USM/index.asp [nonactive]
newbielink:http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_USM/index.asp [nonactive]


The 85 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8IS if you need the zoom and have the money. Both excellent lenses. the 70-200 4.0 IS might be delievering a bit better quality, but between both the quality is not that much a difference and you still have the nicer bokeh on the 2.8.

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2008, 14:21 »
0
And I will not recommend 17-40mm lens. It is not a good lens. Soft, CA, ...

I disagree with the statement here as I have been using the lens with full satisfaction.I don't know if you have first hand experience with the lens but even if you did it must be the copy you use The lens I own is very sharp and produces beautiful colours as for CA yes you are right to some extend but such wide angle lenses tend to have CA on the wide end ,which is pretty normal and nothing too bad about it. as for comparing the two ( 24-70 --and 17-40) they both have pros and cons if I could afford I would also get the 24-70 as well, as sometimes I need to go further than 40mm  then  have to change the lens in such situations.
to sum up:it all depends on your needs I would say both lenses are excellent .

« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 14:24 by stokfoto »

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2008, 14:53 »
0
50mm f1.8 for about $100 (great fun lens)
24-105mm f4 L IS as your stable lens.

(How much did you get for the D200?)

michealo

« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2008, 15:12 »
0
Thanks everyone for the input. I haven't sold the D200 yet - will wait till after my Antarctica trip.

« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2008, 15:19 »
0
Are you really going over to Canon? I thought about it  too, because the 5dII seems like a really nice camera. But I have allready a couple of good Nikkor lenses, so I decided to wait for Nikon to come with a good fullframe with some more mp's. But I'm becoming a little bit impatient.

« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2008, 16:10 »
0
And I will not recommend 17-40mm lens. It is not a good lens. Soft, CA, ...

I disagree with the statement here as I have been using the lens with full satisfaction.I don't know if you have first hand experience with the lens but even if you did it must be the copy you use The lens I own is very sharp and produces beautiful colours as for CA yes you are right to some extend but such wide angle lenses tend to have CA on the wide end ,which is pretty normal and nothing too bad about it. as for comparing the two ( 24-70 --and 17-40) they both have pros and cons if I could afford I would also get the 24-70 as well, as sometimes I need to go further than 40mm  then  have to change the lens in such situations.
to sum up:it all depends on your needs I would say both lenses are excellent .


Well, stokfoto, you are probably right. I coming from Olympus E3, 11-22mm and 7-14mm so I am used to them. I will try this lens for upcoming days more and I hope I will be happy at the end. If not, I read reviews that 16-35mm is even better lens but I didn't try it yet and it is not a cheap lens also.

« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2008, 07:54 »
0
Djaburin: beware! Only lens able to competete with ZD 7-14/4 is Nikkor 12-24 but ONLY on D3! With not so clear results which one is better. The ZD 11-22 is also stunning quality. Also both Zuikos are much better built quality than any Canon or Nikon lenses. I would suggest 16-35/2,8 which is both pretty heavy and pricy.

For the first, I would probably go for studio portraits 85/something depending on budget and tele any of 70-200 line depending on budget again.

« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2008, 14:00 »
0
I'd love to get me some Zeiss.  Anything 50 and below and I would be grabbing Zeiss if I wasn't sharing equipment with my father - who demands to have autofocus from the lens. 

However, why not get a 500mm?  I love mine and its great for portraits across the street

Seriously though, the 100mm f/2.8 is so sharp and its my second favourite lens behind the 500, and its probably got a good amount of space on a full frame compared to a crop factor.  Its also one fo the best quality per dollar lenses out there.


« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2008, 05:35 »
0
Just saw the Canon 70-200 F4 USM L (WITHOUT IS) on sale from the review in phonezone (linked above) I see that it doesn't have water/dust protection either, is it worth considering or fairly pointless without IS??

« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2008, 07:05 »
0
for both purposes a 70-200 F4 will do very fine.  no need to buy the IS version imho.

If you want portraits with blur 135 f1.8 is very good, 85 1.8 is good and cheaper and the poor mans solution is the 50 f1.8

But a single 70-200 F4 will bring you a long way

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1861 Views
Last post September 25, 2006, 09:14
by fintastique
5 Replies
2772 Views
Last post October 15, 2012, 14:51
by velocicarpo
0 Replies
1678 Views
Last post December 15, 2012, 11:28
by sbonk
4 Replies
2669 Views
Last post April 24, 2014, 21:34
by Goofy
15 Replies
3360 Views
Last post May 24, 2015, 18:16
by hatman12

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements