- This topic is empty.
Looking for a new lens
-
Ok so I have a canon eos 20d and two lens for it one is a 18-55mm and the other is a 70-300m. The problem is having to switch lens when something is to far or to close. I am looking for a new lens which can do both.
Does any one have any adivce on what to go with.
Thanks :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :DUm, sorry if I seem to be having a little poke at your expense, but you’re not one of the regulars winding us up by any chance?!!
Sorry bout that but to answer your question seriously, if you are going to invest in a lens then I wouldn’t recommend a jack of all trades. Canon has a 28-300 lens I think which is big but I believe performs quite well. It sounds from your other posts that you want to get into portraits which means you are looking for two things in a lens, a medium telephoto focal length (you should be aiming from the 70mm to 150mm for your 20D) and a lens with a good, or at least non-disturbing background blur at wide apertures (technically referred to as ‘bokeh’). Bokeh is the most important characteristic of a portrait lens apart from it’s focal length, and it’s a rule of thumb that fixed (prime) lenses are generally better in this regard than a zoom and that super zooms (from fairly wide to fairly long) are pretty much the worst offenders.
From that I think you should consider a macro lens from a third party brand if a Canon is out of reach, I recently picked up an immaculate Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro for 400 euro which has nicer bokeh than either of my professional lenses (the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8) which between them costs many times that of the Tokina. It will also focus down to a couple of inches in front of the camera for amazingly detailed and sharp macro shots. Best of all worlds for a relatively small price.
I should also add that showing up with a consumer super-zoom such as an 18-200 or 18-300 to a paying job will not inspire confidence and this will directly affect how much people are willing to pay you as opposed to getting Uncle Bob with his Sony camera phone to get some pics. Unfortunately image and impressions count, like they say about rock stars, you have to be extremely rich to get cred for dressing like a homeless person. You’d have to have a legion of adoring fans copying your every mouse click to get away with a super zoom at a serious shoot, then they’ll assume your being ironic or, as they say in evolutionary theory, using costly advertising to demonstrate your superior fitness :)
Well for a general “carry-around” zoom, there are some available with the focal lengths Cian mentioned above which also come with problems. However you’d need to tell more about what you shoot regularly before we could advise you on a better lens choice. Cian’s made a great stab at your needs based on your other posts, but you share some more specifics with us here :)
Well I mainly shoot people, animals, landscapes and sports. I know its alot over all. But I am looking for a lens that would be best for people for things such as weddings, Portartis and the like. I hope this is what you are looking for to help me.
Thnaks for all your help.
:D :D :D :D :DAs I suggested in the PM, the 24-105 F4 from Canon might be one to consider for slightly wide to medium tele, a good few pros use it even though it’s not a stunner, a good workhorse for weddings though the F4 will hold you back in dark settings. Apart from that you would be looking at a serious outlay for the 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 as the usual candidates for wedding, social and portraits. The 24-70 might not be wide enough though on your 20D, the Tamron 17-50 might be a serious contender though to look after the wide to medium side and both Sigma and Tamron have 70-200 lenses which get the job done.
If you want to take this seriously then unfortunately it requires you to break up the wide to tele into two or three lenses at least to get pro results. For weddings, anything less that a F2.8 lens will frustrate you and the cameras autofocus.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
