Shutterbugs - I need help picking out a lens or two

jive1 · #1 04-15-2008, 04:29 PM

I've been really getting into photgraphy, and I'm starting to see what kind of lenses that I would want/need. My main photography is product photography and still-lifes, but I would love to branch out and do more. I especially have fun with low-light stuff.

Right now I have a Canon XTi, and I have three lenses. I have a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5 that's the main multi-purpose lens. But, I have noticed it's limitations, especially for macro and low light stuff. I have a 50mm f/1.8 prime that I absolutely love, but many times I wish it had a wider angle. I also have the 18-50mm f/3.5 kit lens, but I'm not a big fan of it, although it has a pretty wide angle.

First, I need a macro lens. I was considering getting a 50mm f/2.8 macro to save some $$, but I thought it would be redundant with my 50mm f/1.8 prime. Is that true? If it is, the next thing I'm considering is a 100mm f2.8 macro. Probably the Canon EF, but I'm also considering the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm. Would lenses like these be good for stuff other than closeup?

Second, I'd like a wide angle lens. I'd love to get one with a f/1.8, so I can get one that can get similar effects to my 50mm prime. But, I'll be replacing the 18-55mm kit lens with it, so I wouldn't mind it having zoom capability. Between image quality and zoom, I'll take the image quality. I want to use this lens for landscapes, cityscapes, night photos, and indoor snapshots. I want a fast lens that won't break the bank. I don't want anything higher than f/2.8 and something in the 14mm-24mm range. Any recommendations?

Thanks in advance.

MakiSupaStar · #2 04-15-2008, 04:31 PM

Buy used. There are some good deals out there. That's all I have to offer.

Ben Lesser · #3 04-15-2008, 04:32 PM

I'm interested in this because I'm looking at buying some additional lenses in the near future as well, same camera. So I'll tune in to this.

Mark Latimour · #4 04-15-2008, 04:33 PM

You are going to be spending big bucks on getting macro and wide angle lenses down to F1.8. Besides Jive man, I thought you were Asian....shouldn't you be schooling us on cameras?

I agree with Maki about getting a second hand lens - you will save big bucks and might be able to get something down to F1.8 in the ranges you are looking at. My real photographer friends say to avoid Sigma and prefer Tamron, if that helps.

jive1 · #5 04-15-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

You are going to be spending big bucks on getting macro and wide angle lenses down to F1.8. Besides Jive man, I thought you were Asian....shouldn't you be schooling us on cameras?

I'm too busy running my dry cleaning (martinizing) business to get into photography until lately.

BurningSkies · #6 04-15-2008, 04:43 PM

I've been dying to justify this one as a macro/portrait lens.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...relist3350a-20

incognito89x · #7 04-15-2008, 04:45 PM

Yes, the 50mm Macro lens would be a bit redundant. The 100mm would be a good choice, as the Canon EF 100 is a great macro lens.

Yes you can use the macro lenses for shots other than close-ups. From what I've read, the 100mm EF makes a great portrait lens as well. Essentially any macro lens functions the same as any other lens of the same magnification, just the macro can focus at a much closer distance.

Can't comment as much on a wide angle lens as I do mostly telephoto stuff.

Mark Latimour · #8 04-15-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurningSkies

I've been dying to justify this one as a macro/portrait lens.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...relist3350a-20

If I have a choice I would avoid EFS lenses so you can use them if you upgrade to a more advanced canon body. That said my main lens is an EFS, but I will avoid them in future.

jive1 · #9 04-21-2008, 08:26 PM

DigMe · #10 04-21-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

I'm too busy running my dry cleaning (martinizing) business to get into photography until lately.

Hey, buddy. Pay attention - your bulgogi is burning. The customers are going to be furious.

bc

Marcury · #11 04-21-2008, 10:03 PM

You can't beat the Canon L series lenses in just about any focal length. They're hella expensive though so look for used ones.

artistanbul · #12 04-21-2008, 10:35 PM

hi jive. lots of things to cover.

first, I'd like to talk about wide angle, and about how wide you want it. if you want two times wider, that would mean a 24mm lens. If that's enough for you, sigma 24mm 1.8 is a fan-tas-tic lens. The only wider lens with 1.8 aperture is sigma 20mm 1.8. They're both full frame lenses (not specifically for aps-c) Though beware, the background blur you get with 24 1.8 won't be as smooth as 50mm @ 1.8 as you get wider, because of certain stuff that would be long and probably pointless to cover.

Though, for replacing your kit lens, and for general ease of use, I'd recommend tamron 17-50mm 2.8 A great lens at a great price.

For macro, it depends. A 50mm macro is still a good option. Like you've said, it's cheaper, and on top of that it's 50mm. It means a lot when you go deeper than 1:2 macro range, where a 100mm lens would be twice as prone to handshake. Though, you would want to use flash or tripod in that range anyway. I have a tamron 90mm, which I'm very fond of. Incredibly sharp, very responsive, great colors etc. The length is also nice. I use it mainly for portraits. 135mm (with 1.5 crop factor) is the second most used focal length in portraits anyway.

To sum up, I'll directly recommend a set:
17-50mm 2.8 tamron
90mm 2.8 tamron (Di version)
you may also want to throw in a ring flash if you want to go deep into macro stuff, or the 24 1.8, for wider low light.

Hope I've made enough input.

artistanbul · #13 04-21-2008, 10:36 PM

ooh, and no canon L lenses can be beat

both the 17-50 and 90 beat their canon L counterparts.
that's what I like about photography. easy to see the reality, easy to calculate the difference even if you're anal.

jive1 · #14 06-18-2008, 08:32 AM

Update:

Here's the lenses I wound up with. Based on price and performance, I went with Sigma lenses. Another factor that I took into consideration is that I have a APC-S sized sensor, so I have a crop factor of 1.6.

For the wide angle, I got a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8. It's a very nice lens, and I think this will be my main walk around lens. With the 1.6 multiplication on my camera, this comes out to a range of about 28-75, which is very useful for me. Nice for crowded rooms, and for most snapshots. AF could be faster, but I'm happy with the results so far. Works well in low light.

For the macro, I got a Sigma 70mm 2.8. I love this lens. Very sharp, very clear, with a nice bokeh at different apertures. I went with a 70mm because with the crop camera, it comes out to about 110mm which seems to be a good focal length for portraits. Only thing is that with the shorter focal length, you don't have as much working space for macro work. But, it works real well. AF is iffy in 1:1 macro, but I would go manual at that point anyway. Anyway, I love this lens.

Sold my Sigma 28-300mm, and got a 50-150mm 2.8 telephoto. Very nice lens, and I got a good deal on it used. It's very sharp, and pretty easy to work with for a telephoto. Works well in low light, and has a practical range of about 75-240mm. It's a little soft at the outer range of 150mm, but otherwise it's sharp through out. It's a little big though, and it won't do macro. I'm thinking about getting a teleconverter for this, but that can wait.

Now I'm wondering if it's worth it to keep my Canon 50mm 1.8 prime. I already have 2 lenses that will do 50mm, but they are not as fast as the 50mm prime I have and don't go as wide open as the 50. But, I could use the extra cash to cover the glass I just got. I dunno.

I'll try to post pics later, as I play around with the glass.

Marcury · #15 06-18-2008, 11:12 AM

I'd think about ditching the 50mm for a 35mm. It's always good to have a prime normal and at 1.6 your 50 is a really an 80 (portrait not normal). Canon makes a cheap 35 that's 2.0 so you don't lose a lot of light or a superb 1.4 (very expensive) which is my favorite walk around lens (although these days my 24-105 1.4 gets more travel time.

jive1 · #16 06-19-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcury

I'd think about ditching the 50mm for a 35mm. It's always good to have a prime normal and at 1.6 your 50 is a really an 80 (portrait not normal). Canon makes a cheap 35 that's 2.0 so you don't lose a lot of light or a superb 1.4 (very expensive) which is my favorite walk around lens (although these days my 24-105 1.4 gets more travel time.

I've been thinking about ditching it, but I don't think I'll replace it if I do. The camera bag already doesn't fit the 50mm.

tplyons · #17 06-19-2008, 04:27 PM

Is your 50mm f/1.8 the original metal mount or the mk. II version? I love 'em both and have the mk. II.

Keep in mind that the mk II is a cheapie and sells on the used market for about $50-60, IIRC, the original metal mount goes for a bit more.

casualmadness · #18 06-19-2008, 07:59 PM

I have a Nikon D60 and I'm scouting for a macro and a fish eye right now. I have a couple of really good zooms. I'm finding some really good stuff on ebay stores (stay away from the auctions) and craigslist. I haven't bought anything new lately but used is the way to go.

jive1 · #19 06-19-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casualmadness

I have a Nikon D60 and I'm scouting for a macro and a fish eye right now. I have a couple of really good zooms. I'm finding some really good stuff on ebay stores (stay away from the auctions) and craigslist. I haven't bought anything new lately but used is the way to go.

BTW, I really dig the Sigma 70mm macro. Let me know if you're gonna stop by the shop, and I'll let you check it out.