Would like a new lens - which one should I get?

C

campergirl

Messages
82
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
After some advice:

I am keen to get a new lens & could spend up to around £600 ish

What should I get? I have a Canon 1000D and currently have the standard 18-55 Canon IS and also the nifty fifty.

My photos are mainly of my very active 16month old son. I find the nifty fifty hard to get good shots from unless my son is still - which doesnt happen very often! Also though I am going to a few wedding this yr & would like to take my camera along, so there would be some people/group shots potentially too.

The 18-55 is OK but sometimes abit dark without the flash.

i'd be interested to hear peoples comments.

I love the pics on this thread taken with sigma 1.4 85mm: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...d.php?t=283597
but dont know if another fixed length lens is the right way to go?

Thanks in advance for any replies.
 
What about something like the sigma 28-70 F2.8 or a second hand 70-200 F2.8

Would give you plenty of light in the lens (F2.8) and of course that lovely shallow depth of field. I find my F2.8 lenses much easier to use than my nifty fifty
 
If you find it hard getting shots of your son cos he won't keep still, the 85mm 1.4 probably won't help that much. I'm currently looking at a good all rounder and tamron 17-50mm 2.8 looks pretty good and good reviews
 
halshaater said:
If you find it hard getting shots of your son cos he won't keep still, the 85mm 1.4 probably won't help that much. I'm currently looking at a good all rounder and tamron 17-50mm 2.8 looks pretty good and good reviews
Click to expand...

f1.4 is a lot faster than f2.8... but of course there's less DoF.
 
It might be the camera body's autofocus that is causing you the speed problems, rather than the lenses.
 
I would be looking at these lens:

Canon 17-55 F2.8 or tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc

If you want a bit more range the canon 70-200 lens are hard to beat.
 
The OP says she finds it difficult to get good shots of her son with the Nifty Fifty which is f1.8 and is not renowned for its AF speed.Her camera if I am correct shares the same sensor as the 40D which will go to ISO 1600 and cleans up fairly well.
So I wonder if the main problem is the AF tracking.
I would get the focus on the * button and set it to Cfn4-2 so it sets the exposure when the shot is taken, set the camera to AI servo and High speed burst,ISO 1600 or sufficient to give a fairly high shutter speed,1/200 sec
That should go some way to help if its an AF problem and should also stop motion.
It would also be worth looking at an external flash as has been mentioned or a faster AF lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the Canon 28mm f1.8
 
Hi all thanks very much for the replies so far.

I have got some nice shots with both the nifty fifty & the kit lens (18-55 IS), but, I find the 18-55 is sometimes too dark and the 1.8 seems to be very unforgiving unless baby is mega still.

For example, this afternoon we took him to the park, the 1.8 was just really hard to get looking right due to slight blur, (which actually seemed to happen even when he was still & I had focused so dont know what was happening there).

At the park the 18-55 was fine but obviously couldnt get much bokeh going on - thats the effect that I really like.

So, if it makes it easier, what lens would people recommend for taking out & about, e.g. park, local country side etc, to get shots of a mobile toddler, being able to create bokeh in background.

Answers much appreciated:)
 
Canon 70-200 f4 IS second hand. You need the IS, long focal length, and the bokeh is fantastic.

Have the camera on TV mode 1/200 or faster (you need this to freeze their motion), AI servo, max usable iso on your 1000d. Use auto focus point and continuous shot.

My daughter isn't old enough to walk yet, but I have nieces and nephews that I take to the park regularly, and that's the formula.
 
Last edited:
kennysarmy said:
Just because it is f1.8 does nt mean you have to shoot at f1.8
I suggest you google hyper focal distance and read up on how thin the depth of field might be for differing settings.....
Have a read and get back to us.....
Click to expand...

Hmm. Much as I hate to revisit this subject and from the op's posts I don't know if DoF is the issue...

For APS-C and 50mm, if the subjet is a reasonable distance from the camera DoF shold be adequate. At 6 feet DoF will be a few inches and could pose a problem but by 20 feet DoF is about 3 feet or more and getting rapidly deeper.
 
tomqh said:
Canon 70-200 f4 IS second hand. You need the IS, long focal length, and the bokeh is fantastic.

Have the camera on TV mode 1/200 or faster (you need this to freeze their motion), AI servo, max usable iso on your 1000d. Use auto focus point and continuous shot.

My daughter isn't old enough to walk yet, but I have nieces and nephews that I take to the park regularly, and that's the formula.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply. I am a beginner (can you tell lol!), I thought that to get bokeh effect you needed low f number - is this not always true then?

If money was no object (which obviously it is, but pretend for a moment it isnt. which would you tell me to get? f2.8 or f4?
Sorry if I am being extremely & annoyingly dumb
:)
 
Last edited:
If you frame the shot the same the DoF will be the same if it's taken at 12 or 300mm. However, a high zoom lens will render out of focus areas in the background larger and thus make them more obvious creating the impression of less DoF.
 
campergirl said:
Thanks for the reply. I am a beginner (can you tell lol!), I thought that to get bokeh effect you needed low f number - is this not always true then?

If money was no object (which obviously it is, but pretend for a moment it isnt. which would you tell me to get? f2.8 or f4?
Sorry if I am being extremely & annoyingly dumb
:)
Click to expand...

Low f number is one factor. Other factors include longer focal length (gives an impression that background is more blurred), distance to the subject (closer subject and further background both increase blur).

Pictures speak best, so you can check my set of 70-200 f4 IS photos here http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomqh/sets/72157626251689786/


Spring Collection by TomQH, on Flickr


The 'other side' by TomQH, on Flickr

I have lots of shots of the kids, but don't tend to publish them publicly :)

f2.8 would give you a narrower depth of field than f4, but is huge / heavy in comparison to the f4.
 
Last edited:
tomqh said:
Low f number is one factor. Other factors include longer focal length (gives an impression that background is more blurred), distance to the subject (closer subject and further background both increase blur).


The 'other side' by TomQH, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Great example of how NOT to hold a camera and how NOT to use flash!

BLUR has got nothing to do with aperture or subject distance! The only thing that affects blur is shutter speed! Wide apertures produce shallow depth of field which is something different all together. What you're talking about is bokeh.

to the OP - save your money - you have the lenses you need - you need to spend time learning how to use them!
 
Last edited:
OP bare in mind that the photos you like with the Sigma 85 were taken on a 5DMk2, which is a different size sensor and so gives totally different images to what you'd get out of it on your 1000D.

AWP: What's wrong with holding the camera like that? If it works for her, why would it matter? The flash might not be being used and is it not possible it's just being used to fire other flashes?
 
The 50mm f1.8 isn't great at f1.8. but I gather most lenses aren't perfect fully open. Try it at f2.8 or even f4 or see where you are happy with Depth of Field and shutter speed.

If you were gonna spend £600 regardless and have use at a wedding including group shots, I would be inclined to get a Canon flashgun (first) and Tamron 17-50. The often recommended Canon 17-55 would take up all your budget and more.


Andy
 
Ksanti said:
AWP: What's wrong with holding the camera like that? If it works for her, why would it matter? The flash might not be being used and is it not possible it's just being used to fire other flashes?
Click to expand...

You really don't know? That is really bad technique. Left hand should be under the lens - elbows should be tucked in - and the centre of gravity should be under the camera - not 18 inches out as here - no chance of holding the camera steady and getting good results. It won't work for her - and she'll be on here in no time bleating about a poor lens or something. You'd better hope the flash wasn't on! All the gear - no idea - classic example.
 
AndyB1976 said:
TThe often recommended Canon 17-55 would take up all your budget and more.
Click to expand...

Because it's no doubt better than a whole barrow load of carp. Good class costs money for a very good reason.
 
awp said:
BLUR has got nothing to do with aperture or subject distance! The only thing that affects blur is shutter speed! Wide apertures produce shallow depth of field which is something different all together. What you're talking about is bokeh.
Click to expand...

Learn to read people's posts correctly. We were discussing BACKGROUND BLUR aka Bokeh.
 
tomqh said:
Learn to read people's posts correctly. We were discussing BACKGROUND BLUR aka Bokeh.
Click to expand...

Thats not what bokeh is
 
campergirl said:
After some advice:

I am keen to get a new lens & could spend up to around £600 ish

What should I get? I have a Canon 1000D and currently have the standard 18-55 Canon IS and also the nifty fifty.

My photos are mainly of my very active 16month old son. I find the nifty fifty hard to get good shots from unless my son is still - which doesnt happen very often! Also though I am going to a few wedding this yr & would like to take my camera along, so there would be some people/group shots potentially too.

?

Thanks in advance for any replies.
Click to expand...

i'd suggest you get something a bit longer like a 70-300 or 18-200, or 28-135 Is (any of those would easily fit inside your budget if you buy second hand)

cjheck out MPB - as per the link at the top of the page - they also have some good deals on used flash guns
 
Last edited:
The tamron 17-50 2.8 is a good lens for this range. You could also have a look at the 24-70 2.8 Sigma make. Another option (if you think you need a faster lens) is the SIgma 30mm 1.4.
They all retail 250-400 pounds so you will have some extra cash for a canon 55-250 or Tamron/Sigma 70-300 (The sigma APO is supposed to be good value for money)...
 
With £600 to spend you could get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the Canon 85mm f1.8 (second hand). Or if you can stretch to a bit more you might be able to get the Canon 17-55 f2.8 within your budget.

Other lenses to consider as above the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 (I think the 85mm is over your budget).

One thing I may have missed, is what are the issues you have at present? If you want that background blur then yes lower f numbers is what you need. Look at this http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.htmlto help give you an idea of what different f numbers compared to distance from subject will mean in terms of 'blur'.

I've just started shooting primarily my 4 month old with primes (Canon 50mm f1.8 and 85 f1.8), which works well for me, however he can't move much yet! I find this means I miss some shots but I'm happier with the shots I do get.

So if you need the versatility of the zoom that will still give you the background blur you want then it's the Tamron 17-50, the new Sigma 18-50 is just over budget new but seems to have great reviews, or the Canon 17-55 IS second hand.

Or buy some primes second hand like the Sigma's or Canon's (if you buy second hand and they don't work or you, you can normally sell again for little or no cost.)

Good luck!

Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top