lens advice beginner...

P

PaulWR

Messages
9
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Hoping there are some friendly people about who could give some honest advice please.

Using a Canon 750D with a Tamron 18-270 lens. Recently bought a con 50mm 1.8 for portrait bits. Would it be worth investing in a wide angle lens too? In particular I’m looking at shooting at charity events, usually in darkish conditions and usually groups of people. Like the canon for close up single/double portraits and the Tamron seems great for zooming in. Also got a quick lite with a few diffuser which I hope will help in dark environment.

Thanks in advance

PWR
 
Generally wide angle lenses aren't great for people photography due to the distortion they create. That being said, most standard zooms start at 24mm full frame equivalent field of view and your Tamron starts at 28.8mm equivalent - that extra angle of view does make a difference.

Whether it's worth buying a lens to cover the "missing" range is down to how often you find the 18mm on the Tamron to be not wide enough.
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply....isn’t a 28.8mm wider than a standard 24mm then? I’m assuming to lower the number the wider angle in this case?

What lens would you recommend for wedding/event style photography in addition to my two I already have? Thanks
 
Yes, 24 is wider than 28 but these are "full frame" numbers. Your 18mm lens is equivalent to 28.8mm so to go wider you're looking at something like a 10-20mm APS-C lens.

The wide angle "distortion" isn't lens distortion as such as some wide angle lenses are very well corrected, it's actually perspective distortion and you'll see it when tilting the lens or getting too close to the subject.

If there are any good camera gear shops near you maybe you could trot along and try a wide angle, something like a 10-20mm... or something like that. Wide angle lenses can IMO be some of the most demanding to use well but if you persevere they can IMO give you striking results.
 
Yes apologies it gets a bit confusing talking about crop vs full frame focal lengths. Most of the time when people refer to focal lengths they are talking about the "field of view" which you get on a full frame camera.

So whereas your 50mm prime on a full frame would be in the "normal" range, the field of view it gives you on your crop camera is equivalent to an 80mm lens on a full frame, which is approaching telephoto. This makes it great for portraits but not so much general photos. Make sense?

As for what I'd recommend, I don't shoot weddings but I would approach it similarly to how I'd approach documentary/Street photography.

So that would be either or both a 24mm or 35mm prime (38mm/56mm equivalent on full frame) for general 'walkabout' photos, then your 50mm for portraits. Having primes gives you the 1.8 max aperture which can achieve a professional looking shallow depth of field, and works in low light.

If I was going to only add one of those it would be the 24mm, because you can always step forward to get closer to your subject but you can't always step back for a wider angle if the 35mm is too tight.
 
Last edited:
The wider angle the lens, the less more distortion you will see, and can often give unflattering results for portraits.

If you are shooting in low light conditions, a lens with a faster aperture (eg your F/1.8 lens) is usually preferred and to use a higher ISO if wanting to keep with natural light.

The Tamron 18-270 is a good travel lens where one lens is preferred and is going to be used in daylight. It is going to struggle in the environment you are proposing to use it in.

Wedding photographers, who regularly encounter group shots in poorly lit conditions, generually use either a mix of fast prime (non-zoom) lenses - or fast zoom lenses such as a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 and maybe a 16-35 f/2.8.
 
Wow thanks guys for all the advice. I think I’m getting there!

Could someone explain the full frame and cropped camera thing, I’m assuming the canon 750D is cropped?

From reading all the comments, it’s appears my 50mm should be good for portraits, the Tamron is better for travel zoomed pictures? And I could do with one in between ?

Thanks again all....
 
Andy Into The Wild said:
Yes apologies it gets a bit confusing talking about crop vs full frame focal lengths. Most of the time when people refer to focal lengths they are talking about the "field of view" which you get on a full frame camera.

So whereas your 50mm prime on a full frame would be in the "normal" range, the field of view it gives you on your crop camera is equivalent to an 80mm lens on a full frame, which is approaching telephoto. This makes it great for portraits but not so much general photos. Make sense?

As for what I'd recommend, I don't shoot weddings but I would approach it similarly to how I'd approach documentary/Street photography.

So that would be either or both a 24mm or 35mm prime (38mm/56mm equivalent on full frame) for general 'walkabout' photos, then your 50mm for portraits. Having primes gives you the 1.8 max aperture which can achieve a professional looking shallow depth of field, and works in low light.

If I was going to only add one of those it would be the 24mm, because you can always step forward to get closer to your subject but you can't always step back for a wider angle if the 35mm is too tight.
Click to expand...



Hi, just been researching your recommendations, what will the 24mm do that the 50mm won’t? Get a wider shot I’m assuming? Is that right? Is quite a quick lens isn’t it? Canon do one for under £100 is that right?
 
Click on this to expand it, but here is the clearest visual explanation of what the same focal length on a crop vs full frame camera means.
18mm-Ful-lCrop-Comparison.jpg
(from this article: https://improvephotography.com/8411/field-of-view-full-frame-crop-sensor-dslr/)

The 50mm on your camera is approaching a telephoto, whereas the 24mm is relatively wide. This can mean a few things:
- you will get more compression of foreground/background in your pictures with the 50mm
- you will be able to achieve a shallower depth of field with the 50mm (assuming the same max aperture on both)
- if you want to include people's surroundings with the 50mm, you will need to back up a lot in comparison to the 24mm
- candid pictures with the 24mm will likely feel more intimate due to you needing to be closer to the action

Visually, telephoto vs wide angle pictures have a different feel, so I would strongly suggest getting into a camera shop and trying them out to see what you like, and see the differences for yourself (y)
 
Canon do the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens which is fairly fast. Not as fast as your 50mm one, but its £ 144 from Wex.

Other fast wide primes are £ 400 - £ 1000+

I think you will find a 24-70 f/2.8 more versatile than a prime at this stage of your photographic career and you may find a Sigma or older Canon L for about £ 400
 
Phil V said:
You don't really need to understand the crop factor - you just need to know what lenses do what on your camera.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I'm not too sure that a 24mm should be high on my list as the OP already has 18mm available all be it at a smaller aperture at 24mm. In the OP's place I'd be weighing up the cost of the 24mm f2.8 against a decent 17/18-50mm f2.8. When I had Canon APS-C cameras I had a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which was a bargain considering how good (IMO) it was. There's also a similar Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and of course the much more expensive and bigger Canon 17-55mm f2.8.

I also had an APS-C Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I thought was a very good lens but not particularly wide. I think the one I had was discontinued but I think there's a more modern one on sale these days.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, had a test outing today. The 50mmwas great indoors for portraits but wasn’t wide enough for some shots. Once the Tamron went on I had to seriously crank the ISO up to get anywhere near enough light. The Tamron I think only goes to f3.5 aperture which wasn’t letting enough light in.

Think I’m going to go for either a 24mm f1.8 or a 18-50mm f2.8. Is a lens with 2.8 a lot better in darker setting than my Tamron at f3.5 is? Thanks again
 
You can use this calculator to figure out the settings required to match exposure: https://www.scantips.com/lights/exposurecalc.html

Here are some examples to illustrate hypothetical exposure values:
- using 1/100 shutter speed, f1.8 and ISO 320, to match the exposure at f2.8 you'd need ISO 800. At f3.5 you'd need ISO 1250
- at 1/400 shutter speed, f1.8 and 1600 ISO, to match exposure at f2.8 you'd need 4000 ISO. At f3.5 you'd need ISO 6400

(These figures are purely for illustration, there will always be slight differences between lenses anyway).

So you can see there is a generally a big difference with the f1.8 lens vs f3.5, less so with an f2.8, but you gain a lot of flexibility having the zoom. Swings and roundabouts :)
 
Last edited:
f3.5 to F2.8 is 2/3rds of a stop. Ask yourself, have you ever taken a photo at 1/100 that would've looked better had it been at 1/160? Similarly, ask yourself if you have ever taken photos at ISO 1600 that would've looked better at ISO 1000?

Also check out if the F3.5 lens varies across the zoom range.... This can be quite annoying in low light scenarios. OEMs don't crow about 'constant aperture' zooms for no reason. An F2.8 is likely to be a constant aperture, whereas an F3.5 may be F4 or F4.5 at full zoom.

NB - my D7100 (crop) is right near the edge of its acceptable (to me) noise at ISO 1000. The FF camera I use barely shows noise until over ISO 3200. As you can see, F2.8 vs F3.5 is an issue for me with the D7100 fully open. Newer crop cameras may handle noise better than the D7100.

And please don't think I am dissing crop cameras - they can be preferable to FFsometimes.
 
Last edited:
WD40 said:
f3.5 to F2.8 is 2/3rds of a stop.
Click to expand...
Whilst that’s true...
WD40 said:
whereas an F3.5 may be F4 or F4.5 at full zoom.
Click to expand...
The OP’s superzoom is f/6.3 at the long end, that’s a whole other ballgame to 2/3 stop.
Older telephoto 2.8 primes are relatively cheap. Optically massively superior and 2 and 2/3 of a stop faster (ISO 400 to ISO 2500 ish)

I don’t know Nikon we’ll but for Canon a 135 or 200mm 2.8 can be had for a couple of hundred quid.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst that’s true...

The OP’s superzoom is f/6.3 at the long end, that’s a whole other ballgame to 2/3 stop.
Older telephoto 2.8 primes are relatively cheap. Optically massively superior and 2 and 2/3 of a stop faster (ISO 400 to ISO 2500 ish)

I don’t know Nikon we’ll but for Canon a 135 or 200mm 2.8 can be had for a couple of hundred quid.
Click to expand...


Hi, thats right my aperture drops out significantly at full zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top