I haven
Printable View
I haven
What will you be shooting?
the 28 1.8 isnt that bad, less than 500 bucks, might be the focal length you want that is faster than 2.8, i myself have not use other glass besides canon not for sure about sigma or tamron.
I will be shooting mostly kids, family and school events.
I use 35mm1.4 on my 7D for indoor shots, I like it very much, but to be honest, F 1.4 is not fast enough in some lighting like candle light and can
When you were using the 17-50 do you know what focal length you shot the most? That will help you choose between 35, 24, etc..
Mark
When a 40D was my only camera I really enjoyed shooting with a 24 1.4. You could probably find a used one for somewhere around $800 (maybe less).
Most of my 17-50 shots were at 24mm or above. I
I haven't used a lens in that focal range that's faster than f/2.8, but I agree that f/2.8 is often not adequate indoors for stopping movement (even with posed subjects, at least 1/30 s is usually needed, 1/60 s is better). On my 7D at f/2.8, that requires ISO 3200; for static subjects (i.e. not people), the IS on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows shake-free images at reasonable ISO settings, at the cost of a slow shutter (e.g. 1/10 s or less).
With my EF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II, an aperture of f/1.4 with the indoor lighting in my house at night is sufficient for 1/60 s shutter speed with around ISO 800. But, keep in mind the trade-off in terms of depth of field. For example, if you shoot at 35mm and f/1.4 on a 7D with a subject distance of 8 feet (reasonable for that focal length indoors), your DoF will be around 10" - enough to get a face in focus, but likely too thin for a group shot. So, flash is often needed anyway! Do you have an external Speedlite (430EX II, 580EX II, etc.)? If you are relying on your pop-up flash, I can certainly understand your reluctance to use it. But, a shoe-mounted flash bounced off the ceiling (or located off-camera, diffused with a softbox, and triggered wirelessly from your 7D!) provides much better and more flattering light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
That would be the one, or its sister lens the 24L f1.4.
Or just decide you will use a flash and go a diffrent route and save some $
The problem with buying an L lens, IMO, is that you're paying a big premium for an image circle that you're not fully utilizing. So, unless you plan on upgrading to a 5D-series or 1D-series body at some point in the next few years, you're spending money on glass that would probably be better spent on that body upgrade.
Yes, many L lenses are very sharp compared to their non-L counterparts, and that's a legitimate reason for buying them regardless of what you're putting behind it. And if you buy a cheaper, non-L EF lens, you're still paying for that bigger image circle. But the L glass is most often distinguished from the non-L lenses not by how well they perform in the center, but how they do in the periphery--precisely the area that an APS-C sensor doesn't see.
So why not buy EF-S? Because there are virtually no options for fast aperture EF-S lenses. To date, Canon does not make an EF-S lens faster than f/2.8.
As a result, I think you have essentially three choices:
- Third-party crop lenses (e.g., Sigma 30/1.4)
- Canon EF non-L lenses (e.g., EF 28/1.8)
- Canon L primes (e.g., EF 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L)
Of the three above, I'd say the 28/1.8 has the worst image quality--and it is also obviously the slowest. The Sigma won't work on a full-frame body; and the L glass will make you poor but happy.
Actually, there is one more choice: The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. It's around 2 stops slower, but you get IS as partial compensation. For still or slow-moving subjects, it would work just as well as having an f/1.4 lens, but it will not be adequate for moderate action in low light. But its distinct advantage is that it gives you an ideal focal length range at an aperture that is still relatively fast. You can't get 17mm @ f/2.8 otherwise, without spending a LOT more money.
Recently, Sigma came out with a 17-50 2.8 HSM OS, which looks really competitively on tests and costs 75% of the equivalent Canon. I think it is worth looking into.
Hi King,
Welcome back!
I
Lots of great advice already. Nikon has had a crop-only 35mm f/1.8 for $200 for a while now with good image qualtiy. Hopefully Canon will release an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 to match it someday, I think it would pretty well for you. In the mean time, I think the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great choice; Autofocus Micro-Adjust will help if you get one that
Some nature photographers has reported that the IS of their long lenses are not very reliable, I seems feel the same way on my 300mm 2.8IS, sometimes it works very well sometimes it doesn
If you don
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
How about a used 5DI for $1000 with a 50/1.4
Rich
I actually have a speedlite 430ex II, which I use occasionally. But stopping motion at f2.8 and the speedlite often requires me to set the high speed sync to 1/250, which in turn tends to light up the foreground just fine but makes the background dark. I wonder what it would be like at f2 or f1.8. I guess i could try it on my 85 f1.8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
You did ask for the best bang for the buck, since that one would be $0 it would be the best bang for the buck.
On the opposite end (best lens if $ were not an issue) imo would be the 35mm F1.4L at $1370.00.
I am not sure about all the non canon brand lens everyone was recomending, but if I had lost the lens I was using (17-50mm) in that range, I would be looking for the best IQ from a lens in that class, with speedas asecondaryconsideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
Hi JJ....I think IS on my EFS 15-85 works great andlikely "all the time."I'd say my "keeper rate" starts to decline around 1/10s for hand held shots, whichis about right for4 stop IS and approximately85 mm on a 7D. While definitely not as good (2 stop IS),the IS on my100-400Lseems to consistently workas well.
[EDIT]...just looked at some photos and I also have hand held pictures taken at 1/2 s at 15 mm, which again, is about right for 4 stop IS on a 7D with a EFS 15-85.
thanks Kayaker72 for your input.
You can definitely add a stop or two over f/2.8 with a faster lens, but depth of field problems crop up as well. I have a 35mm f/1.4 which is very sharp even at F:/1.4. Many wide aperture lenses need to be stopped down to be sharp, and then you lose the extra light.
Beyond that, adding some additional lighting is most cost effective.
Here is a photo shot in dim light at our local small town county fair just after I bought the lens this summer. The hall was dimly lighted, so I used f/1.4 to see how well it would do. It came out suprisingly sharp in the center, but the shallow depth of field does take a toll.
[View:http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Photography/Canon-35mm-14-L/IMG0486/1076271323_GAdBy-XL.jpg]