Best Lenses, Trying to pick TWO.

Alpha_Omega · Mar 17, 2008

OK,

So I am an amateur photographer, VERY AMATEUR, lol.

Anyway I have just bought a new 40D.... I am looking to purchase two lenses. I allot of Glamor and close up modeling pictures.

I am wondering what everybody would buy if they were in my shoes. I take allot of advise and would love everybody to pitch in.

Thank you.

evo5gsr · Mar 18, 2008

Couldn't you just have made a single topic for all your questions?

Anyway, get the 50mm f/1.4.

Alpha_Omega · Mar 18, 2008

I guess I could have, kinda new to all this forum stuff... I'm sorry.

nathan

usayit · Mar 18, 2008

50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8

chinpokojed · Mar 18, 2008

While the 50 f.14 is an incredibly sharp lens I think the OP would be better served with either the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8, plus the 50 f1.8.

While the 50 f1.4 is an incredible lens it's 3 times the price of the f1.8. For an admitted total amateur I don't think it's really worth it when, for the difference, he can get another lens.

Big Mike · Mar 18, 2008

Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS

usayit · Mar 18, 2008

Wow mike... Going for the gold! hehehe lol. No doubt good lenses at a premium.

If I were in "their" shoes, I would still go with the 50mm f/1.4 even if it were the extra cost. Why? Because the extra aperture blades will make for a more pleasing smooth bokeh which seems to make it way into many "glamour" or portrait shots. Don't get me wrong, the 50 f/1.8 is a wonderful lens for the buck and I recommend it all the time.

I also believe that someone who is looking to do portrait and glamour shots will be best served by a couple of excellent primes rather than 1 good prime and 1 good zoom.

PS.. don't forget about lighting... just as important for portrait/glamour shots.

EOS_JD · Mar 18, 2008

Many portrait shooters use 70-200 f2.8L when shooting glamour.

With a good lighting solution, it's rare that you will be using apertures larger than even f4.

I like Mike's suggestions

solrac8126 · Mar 18, 2008

usayit said:
Wow mike... Going for the gold! hehehe lol. No doubt good lenses at a premium.

hehehe

well at least the 70-200 2.8 i will recommend as well, it's "THE LENS"
you can get the 17-40 4.0 wich is cheap but has like a lot of barrel distortion wich will be less noticeable in the 40d (i use a 5d) the point is you get a nice IQ for the price very nice IQ and a hood.
The 17-55mm 2.8 i've heard it;s great, the thing is the price...
As usayit said , you need some lights, so you can think on maybe 1 or 2 flashes.

Big Mike · Mar 18, 2008

The OP didn't give us much...and no budget...just 'Best lenses'. So that's what I gave. :er:

31M0 · Mar 18, 2008

Big Mike said:
The OP didn't give us much...and no budget...just 'Best lenses'. So that's what I gave. :er:

Haha, true.
*sighs*
Wish I had a reason to get those.. In fact, I wish I could afford them, as well as have a reason to get them..

Alpha_Omega · Mar 18, 2008

OK, I like the two canon lenses that BIG MIKE suggested.... And he is right, I did not specify any cost parameters.. with that said, I really want good lenses and am now wondering if there is a better way to get what I want without spending 2 grand on two lenses. What does everybody think of Sigma or Tamron.... what two would everybody say of of a generic lens company ?

Thanks

Big Mike · Mar 18, 2008

The Sigma 18-50mm F.8 or the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 are both decent alternatives to the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS. And they are about half the price. (I've got the Tamron)

As an alternative to the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS...there are a few.
Canon 70-200 F2.8 L (non-IS)
Canon 70-200 F4 L IS
Canon 70-200 F4 L (non-IS)
Sigma 70-200 F2.8

You don't necessarily need that range for 'Glamor and close up modeling'.
You might consider a prime (non zoom) lens.
50mm F1.4 (or 50mm F1.4)
85mm F1.8 (good deal of a lens)
100mm
135mm

usayit · Mar 18, 2008

Very true... no budget specified.. I've never had anyone with an unlimited budget actually admit they are an amateur.. so I made an assumption.

If no budget limitations... no one should feel "limited" by stretching it to three lens kit:

Canon 16-35 f2.8L
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Canon 70-200 f2.8L

Ok I'm joking..

Seriously... you could also get the Canon 28-135 IS and save the rest fro some lighting (at least reflectors).

usayit · Mar 18, 2008

Alpha_Omega said:
What does everybody think of Sigma or Tamron.... what two would everybody say of of a generic lens company ?

I like Sigma's offerings and many people have reported good experiences. Thats just a general response... every company, including Canon, has good and bad examples of lenses in their lineup. So you'll have to start talking specific lenses in order to get more detailed. I've seen professionals who shoot exclusively Canon with Sigma BUT its difficult to tell if that is a function of their choice or via sponsorship from Sigma photo.

Personally... I still rather have a good set of primes even if it means also packing a less then stellar walk around lens. For years, I shot with 24L, 50, 85, and 135L. I was happy. The 100mm Macro is also another well known lens that doubles as a portrait lens. As pointed by Mike, the 70-200 f4L is a wonderful zoom for far less than the bigger cousin.

Just don't forget lighting.