peterm1
10th of August 2004 (Tue), 15:41
I have somewhat haphazardly collected different lenses according to what I thought I needed, and am wondering if I made the right choices. I shoot mainly with the 1DmkI and sometimes with the Digital Rebel.
I have certain lenses which are "keepers", namely the 24-70L 2.8 and 70-200L 2.8 IS. I can't imagine selling these since I get fantastic results and I love the convenience of the zoom for outdoor shooting.
The remainder of my line-up is as follows:
18-55mm kit lens for the Rebel (this is a good lens at F8 and I thought I would keep it since it is cheap).
17mm f/3.5 Tokina ATX-PRO (very well built and sharp)
24mm 2.8 (I bought this to have as a light, small, indoor wide lens)
50mm 1.8
100mm 2.8 macro lens
I am not a huge wide-angle shooter, and the 18-55mm is good for me for the Rebel (in good light at F8), and the 24-70L is pretty wide for me on the 1D. So I am thinking I might sell the 17mm and the 24mm, especially since neither of them is super fast. For scenic landscapes, I plan to shoot with my 24-70mm and stitch together high-resolution panoramics.
The 50mm 1.8 is nice, although the 1.4 would be nicer.
I wish the 100mm macro were a bit faster, but I would rather have the macro capability than the 100mm f/2 (which I used to have). However, I am not a huge macro shooter (I hate bugs and am not into flowers, although I like macros of unusual objects sometimes). I have extension tubes also which I can use with my 70-200L IS for macro shots (I also have a 1.4x extender for longer shots). I shot with the 100mm all weekend and found it a bit long for me (although the optics were outstanding).
What I take pictures of most often is my family, as well as some street photography, and some landscape (pics at www.peterm1.smugmug.com). I have also discovered that I prefer shooting zooms to primes, unless a prime provides serious benefits (like it is much faster and much smaller).
Anyway, the one area I may be missing out on is low-light shooting with fast primes. I don't have money to buy nice new lenses right now, but I could sell the 17mm, 24mm and/or 100mm if it made sense (although I think I would rather sell the 17mm and 24mm first).
So what I am thinking about is either the 35 f/2 (which I once owned), the 50mm 1.4, or the 85 1.8. I read a lot of raves about the 85 1.8, and it is a LOT lighter and somewhat faster than my 70-200L IS, and would make a great portrait lens. However, it is close in focal size to the 50mm and 100mm. Of course, the 35mm is close to the 50mm too. Sometimes I find the 50mm a bit too long for general shooting indoors though (on the Rebel).
So basically the 35mm may be best for low light and general shooting, and the 85mm for low light portrait shooting. I would think it would be better to get one of these lenses rather than upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4 (I used to have the 1.4 and I can't say it was dramatically better than my 1.8 optically speaking). So do I sell the 17mm for the 35 f/2 and the 24mm for the 85 1.8?
The fact that I am using both 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras complicates this further of course.
Anyway, you can probably tell I am confused by now, and if anyone has some input based on their experiences I would appreciate it! Is there anything else I am missing here? I can't afford any of the more exotic lenses like the 35 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.2.
Thanks!
Peter
I have certain lenses which are "keepers", namely the 24-70L 2.8 and 70-200L 2.8 IS. I can't imagine selling these since I get fantastic results and I love the convenience of the zoom for outdoor shooting.
The remainder of my line-up is as follows:
18-55mm kit lens for the Rebel (this is a good lens at F8 and I thought I would keep it since it is cheap).
17mm f/3.5 Tokina ATX-PRO (very well built and sharp)
24mm 2.8 (I bought this to have as a light, small, indoor wide lens)
50mm 1.8
100mm 2.8 macro lens
I am not a huge wide-angle shooter, and the 18-55mm is good for me for the Rebel (in good light at F8), and the 24-70L is pretty wide for me on the 1D. So I am thinking I might sell the 17mm and the 24mm, especially since neither of them is super fast. For scenic landscapes, I plan to shoot with my 24-70mm and stitch together high-resolution panoramics.
The 50mm 1.8 is nice, although the 1.4 would be nicer.
I wish the 100mm macro were a bit faster, but I would rather have the macro capability than the 100mm f/2 (which I used to have). However, I am not a huge macro shooter (I hate bugs and am not into flowers, although I like macros of unusual objects sometimes). I have extension tubes also which I can use with my 70-200L IS for macro shots (I also have a 1.4x extender for longer shots). I shot with the 100mm all weekend and found it a bit long for me (although the optics were outstanding).
What I take pictures of most often is my family, as well as some street photography, and some landscape (pics at www.peterm1.smugmug.com). I have also discovered that I prefer shooting zooms to primes, unless a prime provides serious benefits (like it is much faster and much smaller).
Anyway, the one area I may be missing out on is low-light shooting with fast primes. I don't have money to buy nice new lenses right now, but I could sell the 17mm, 24mm and/or 100mm if it made sense (although I think I would rather sell the 17mm and 24mm first).
So what I am thinking about is either the 35 f/2 (which I once owned), the 50mm 1.4, or the 85 1.8. I read a lot of raves about the 85 1.8, and it is a LOT lighter and somewhat faster than my 70-200L IS, and would make a great portrait lens. However, it is close in focal size to the 50mm and 100mm. Of course, the 35mm is close to the 50mm too. Sometimes I find the 50mm a bit too long for general shooting indoors though (on the Rebel).
So basically the 35mm may be best for low light and general shooting, and the 85mm for low light portrait shooting. I would think it would be better to get one of these lenses rather than upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4 (I used to have the 1.4 and I can't say it was dramatically better than my 1.8 optically speaking). So do I sell the 17mm for the 35 f/2 and the 24mm for the 85 1.8?
The fact that I am using both 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras complicates this further of course.
Anyway, you can probably tell I am confused by now, and if anyone has some input based on their experiences I would appreciate it! Is there anything else I am missing here? I can't afford any of the more exotic lenses like the 35 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.2.
Thanks!
Peter