Some advice needed

J

jtrain75

Member
Hello TMIPers!
I was looking for some advice. I was thinking of upgrading either my camera body or a new lens. I'm currently shooting with a Canon XS, 18-55IS, 55-250IS and a 50mm 1.8 standard lens. I shoot landscapes and portraits for clients. I was once told that the lens makes a difference and you should always spend more on the lens than the body. What is a good camera lens to get the most out of what I'm shooting? What I have now is good, but I'm always looking for the next step forward.
 
Okay, you actually have a decent lens for portraits, as you're getting around 80mm at 1.8.

For landscapes you'll probably want something wider, like the Canon EF-S 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24/4 or 11-16/2.8. ; With those 3 however, if you ever plan on upgrading to full frame, they won't work (the EF-S lens will actually damage your camera!). ; The problem is that the full frame equivalents from Canon start at 16 or 17mm, which wouldn't be anymore wide than what you currently have.

Do you use your 50 for portraits? ; If so, are you happy with it?
 
Hi Roger,
; ; yes I plan on upgrading to a full frame, possibly a 50D. But as I think about it, my camera is producing sufficient results for what I'm shooting, so I'm thinking about investing in a lens. Of course with the possibility of upgrading in the future, the ability to use the lens on both the XS and the 50D is a must.
; ; Yes I use the 50mm for portraits as long as I have enough room to move around. If you go on my website, in my children's gallery most of the shots were taken with the 50mm. Best $100 I've ever spent! ;
; ; Is the 10-22mm a good lens for portaits as well?
; ;
 
"jtrain75" said:
Hi Roger,
; ; yes I plan on upgrading to a full frame, possibly a 50D.
Click to expand...
50D is actually still a crop camera.

The only two full frames in Canon's line are the 1DsMkIII and the 5DMkII.

But as I think about it, my camera is producing sufficient results for what I'm shooting, so I'm thinking about investing in a lens. Of course with the possibility of upgrading in the future, the ability to use the lens on both the XS and the 50D is a must.
; ; Yes I use the 50mm for portraits as long as I have enough room to move around. If you go on my website, in my children's gallery most of the shots were taken with the 50mm. Best $100 I've ever spent! ;
; ; Is the 10-22mm a good lens for portaits as well? ;
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if an extreme wide angle lens would be good for portraiture, but in some specific shots I guess it could work.

Canon's cream of the crop for portraiture would be the 85/1.2L, which would be 136mm! on a crop camera. ; On Full frame, 85mm is considered the portrait standard, and 100/105mm is pushing the end of the envelope. ; Then again, "rules" are sometimes meant to be broken.
 
then scratch that, I'll be sticking with crop cameras. I guess I'll have to take my time and shop around to see what exactly I want. This is what happens when I get money in my pocket that I need to burn! Thanks for your help Roger!
 
Ultra-wides are a ton of fun - they actually could be interesting for portraiture every once in a while, but not as a dedicated portrait lens. ; The distortion effects can be used to very interesting effect in a portrait, but you have to get uncomfortably close to your subject, and be very careful with angles and tilt, or you could get some strange funhouse mirror looks. ; Still, I'd recommend an ultra-wide as a lens to add to your arsenal...I got one a month or so ago, and absolutely cannot wait for more opportunities to play with it, because it's loads of fun and a whole new style of shooting. ; There are plenty to choose, with Canon's own 10-22 as mentioned, Tokina's 12-24, Sigma's 10-20, and Tamron's 10-24.
 
To me, it looks like the only thing you are missing is an ultra-wide.
The tokina 11-16 2.8 is a great lens that I now really really like!
the f2.8 makes it a great nightime lens!
 
thank you for everyone's feedback! After a lot of research I decided to purchase the Sigma 10-22mm from B&H. It should be here Wednesday and I'll post up some photos once I get a chance to use it. I hope I made the right decision and I hope I don't get a 'soft' copy. ;
 
congratulations! that should be a super fun lens!

Roger's right, and thats the good thing about dealing with a company like B&H, a bad copy will be very easy to return.
 
I think I got a soft copy. I took some photos and the images are just not crisp. I'm going to take a few more over the weekend just to make sure. Although they're two different lenses, if I take my 10-20 and my 18-55 and set them both at 20 with all the same settings, should I get the same picture? If so that'll be a good test to see if I truly have a soft copy. I'll post some pics this weekend if I get a chance.
 
In theory, yes, you should. ; However, I've heard that between brands, the exact "mm" of the lens can vary. ; Example: ; Many people feel that the Bigma really doesn't go out to 500mm. ; More like 470.

I would use a focus testing sample - you can see if perhaps rather than being soft, it's that the AF isn't matched up right.[nb]BTDT[/nb]

Because of looser quality control guidelines, the best explanation is this:

Your body came from the factory + or - 5 AF "points" from true center, which you probably couldn't notice. ; Your kit lens - same way. ; So long as they are not in the same direction, you probably won't notice. ; But if the Sigma is +5, and your body is +5, you will notice that a part of your image is sharp and in focus, but not where your AF point was.
 
Interesting point Roger. Your wealth of knowledge is priceless! Thanks for the pointers, I'll see what I come up with this weekend.
 
A few other things to consider:

First, most UWAs respond nicely to being stopped down a bit - wide open they can be a little soft. ; Have you tried the same shot at F4, 8, and 12 for example, to see what effect it has on sharpness?

Second, consider the actual use you plan with the UWA. ; When I was shopping for one, I was looking at a Sony 11-18, a Sigma 10-20, and a Tamron 10-24. ; Overall it seemed the Sigma had better reviews maybe 75% of the time, and the Tamron maybe 25% of the time. ; Most of the criticism on the Sigma dealt with softness on center at full wide, and odd distortion on the horizontal plane. ; Most of the criticism of the Tamron dealt with corner softness wide open, and overall softness over 15mm. ; The choice for me became clear after testing them - the Tamron...because I very much intended to use this lens for the 10-14mm range, and could care less about anything beyond that mark. ; It had good on-center sharpness even wide open and good distortion and flare control. ; Any of those lenses have their strong suits, and all have some compromise areas. ; Just worry about the typical focal range and aperture you are most likely to be using the lens with most of the time, and if it does well at those settings, you're golden.

Third, don't forget how sensitive a UWA can be to recomposition after autofocusing. ; Because of the extreme curvature and ability to shoot objects in frame over such a wide focal plane, if you turn slightly to one side to focus on a near object, then recompose the shot with the object off center, the actual focal distance is adjusted due to the angle of approach, and can be off by a few feet. ; If you're shooting wide open, that could be enough to cause slight OOF blur. ; To test the lens, make sure you're shooting a subject straight on, and not recomposing. ; And consider either manually focusing or using the adjustable focus points when you want to take a shot with an off-center subject.

Just a few of the things I've been learning as I adjust to UWA shooting! ; It's a bunch of fun learning though.
 
"zackiedawg" said:
Hey...I was pre-Law...I know about CYA words like 'most', 'usually', 'often', and 'some'.
Click to expand...

For some reason I thought you were pre-med? ; ; 8)
 
"zackiedawg" said:
First, most UWAs respond nicely to being stopped down a bit - wide open they can be a little soft. ; Have you tried the same shot at F4, 8, and 12 for example, to see what effect it has on sharpness?
Click to expand...

Yes that is one thought that I had this weekend. Another thing I'm going to do is throw it on my tripod. All the ones that I took were hand held. Couple that with the ND filter I had on it (slower shutter speed, lower f/stop, higher ISO & more noise) could very well be why I'm not getting the crisp photos I thought I would. I'm going to give it a shot at different f stops with my u/v filter and tripod.
 
"Roger" said:
For some reason I thought you were pre-med? ; ; 8)
Click to expand...

Nah...pre-law for me. ; Even took the LSATs and applied to law schools...got into one of my top choices and was all ready to go...before I decided I really hated lawyers and didn't want to be one!

I had double-majored in business and history, so I just went the business route. ; I wouldn't mind someday falling back on the history, maybe teaching in retirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top