Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?

« on: March 24, 2013, 04:10:00 PM »

Thanks for all the great advice everyone. I ended up going with what seems like the consensus opinion and ordering the 85mm 1.8.

2

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?

« on: February 24, 2013, 04:34:55 PM »

On a crop body, I'd buy a 50mm - which one would be decided by budget.  I'd buy the 50 f1.8 first,
with the logic that it is not called the "nifty fifty" for nothing - but it's also cheap enough that if I'm
unhappy with the focal length, I could sell it easily and not lose any (or much) money.

I had looked at the 50 1.8 when I bought my first lens, but decided on the 40 2.8 instead because of better IQ and especially bokeh. The 1.8 with only 5 aperture blades has some gnarly looking bokeh in my opinion.

At this point, a 50 is too similar a focal length to the lens I have to be considered for purchase. I'd consider renting the 50 1.2 L though.

If I go the purchasing route, I definitely like the suggestion of an 85mm 1.8 prime. I'm intrigued by the macro suggestions too - don't know much about them, but I'll read some reviews.

Lastly, I learned a *lot* watching that youtube tutorial shared on the previous page. Thanks for all the great advice everyone.

3

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?

« on: February 23, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »

I have a T4i (crop sensor) and the 40mm 2.8 currently. I agree that buying makes sense, but I'm so new to photography, experimenting with a couple different lenses might make sense too.

4

Lenses / Best lens for baby portraits?

« on: February 23, 2013, 01:30:32 PM »

We're expecting a baby soon, and I thought it would be fun to rent a nice lens to take some early portraits. I assume a fast prime L lens makes sense, but what focal length? Any specific lens rental companies to recommend? Thanks.

5

Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

« on: February 18, 2013, 07:13:52 AM »

The review asks why we would buy this over the faster 50 1.8. For me it was because I don't love the hexagonal bokeh balls on the 50. The 40 2.8 has more aperture blades, and better looking blur to my eyes. Price was close enough to be a non-factor in my decision.

6

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 16, 2013, 08:47:07 AM »

Keep in mind that any other non STM lens will be (very) loud while doing autofocus in video mode. This is if you are doing any video.

Good point, but I'm disappointed by the performance of the autofocus and don't think I'll use it much.

7

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 15, 2013, 06:41:11 AM »

If you replace the 18-135 with a 200, you may encounter a number of situation X's that are covered by neither the 40 nor the 200, as you will not have a wide angle at all.

I agree with you and I'm sure my lens collection will continue to grow over time. I do find that the 40 is too tight for some of the indoor shots I've wanted to take, so if I don't buy a wide angle this time around, it'll probably be next on my list.

8

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 01:19:20 PM »

Thanks for the reply neuroanatomist. The 70-200/4 is $710 at Amazon, so that would be well within my price range. I'll definitely keep that one in mind.

9

Lenses / I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 09:36:21 AM »

I'm brand new to DSLRs having recently bought the T4i. I currently have two lenses, the "shorty" 40mm 2.8 and the 18-135 IS STM kit lens.

I love shooting with the 40mm and have been using it almost exclusively. It focuses fast, I enjoy working with the shallow depth of field, and image quality looks great. I thought I'd want to keep the kit lens because of its versatility, but I'm not finding situations where the 135 focal length comes in handy. For instance, I've tried using it to shoot birds in the back yard, but I find that it just isn't long enough for that purpose. I know that portrait photographers use the 85-135 focal lengths, but this lens only opens up to 5.6 at that range. So far I've been getting better portraits with the 40.

What I'm looking for is a second lens to compliment the 40mm. Something well under $1,000 that is fun to shoot with, and that will serve a clear purpose where in situation X I'll definitely prefer my new lens to the 40mm prime. I think the answer probably involves a focal length that is further removed from 40mm (such as 200?).

Thanks in advance for any advice you can lend.