New Lens or work with what I've got?

[reneethomas]

Right now I have a 28-135 IS that to me seems like an excellent copy. Here are some recent shots from a shoot Sunday http://www.flickr.com/photos/8506937@N05/

I am trying to decide if I just keep using what I've got until I get better or if it is time to upgrade now. Sometimes that is a fine line. While I want new toys my gut tells me I should stick with this lens for a bit longer.

The other problem I am having is deciding which would be the right lens for me. I do know that the 70-200mm non IS was too long and I had too much shake. However I did not encounter a lot of this problem with the 100mm macro (I have MS so sometimes shakes happen).

I was thinking about 24-105L IS but have been hearing mixed reviews in the glamour area on this lens. I had some primes on my wish list like 50 1.4 and 135L but neither have IS but at those lengths I am not sure it will make that huge of a difference unless I am having some bad neuro problems and shouldn't be taxing myself that day anyways.

I have a bad run of getting the wrong lens only to turn around to sell it for the lens I should have gotten in the first place. I don't want to make that mistake again. Still kicking myself in the behind for selling my 100mm macro! Maybe that is the next lens I should by and try it for glamour?

[AxxisPhoto]

That lens is pefect for glamour, fashion, etc. You will be using 28 to about 85-90mm most of the time. Learn how to shoot and compose with that lens, and I'm sure you will be happy with the results.

BTW, the Tammy in my sig is my main glamour lens.

[reneethomas]

That lens is pefect for glamour, fashion, etc. You will be using 28 to about 85-90mm most of the time. Learn how to shoot and compose with that lens, and I'm sure you will be happy with the results.

BTW, the Tammy in my sig is my main glamour lens.

Thanks for the input. I have heard great things about that Tammy. I am still not sure how important the IS is to me at shorter lengths. I think what I should do is focus on lighting and maybe props and such then work on lenses later.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Urban Sexy 3 workshop I posted in the MM vent thread?

[hawk911]

it may not be the easiest, but a tripod might help you Renee. Also, I use either a 50mm f1.4 or the sigma 24-70 for a lot of work. I have that same 28-135 lens on my wife's camera and used it for a while when my siggy was in for repairs. I have a pretty big shooting space, but a tall model doing a full body shot makes the 70-200 unusable. I've climbed all over lawnmowers, etc to get that extra reach with the wrong lens.

I think the 28-135 is fine for you, especially with the IS AND ESPECIALLY if if you have a sharp copy.

[AxxisPhoto]

Thanks for the input. I have heard great things about that Tammy. I am still not sure how important the IS is to me at shorter lengths. I think what I should do is focus on lighting and maybe props and such then work on lenses later.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Urban Sexy 3 workshop I posted in the MM vent thread?

I just checked out your MM. You've got some nice shots there. Composition is good, but your WB looks off from shot to shot. Invest $30 and get a WhiBal card, it's the best way to have consistent WB. :D

[Kagemaru]

For my fashion and beauty work, I've found myself gravitating back to my 70-200 because of the range and compression and the fantastic IQ.

24-105 is crap.

[reneethomas]

I just checked out your MM. You've got some nice shots there. Composition is good, but your WB looks off from shot to shot. Invest $30 and get a WhiBal card, it's the best way to have consistent WB. :D

I think what you might be seeing is the different processing. I think you are referring to Anna going from pale to more tan? She was very very fair skinned (from the Ukraine) and in some of the shots I wanted to give her more color so I used Kelsey Smith Actions in LR then made personal adjustments in CS2. In others I wanted to capitalize on her fair skin and used an action that complemented it (to my eye anyway..lol). If you are talking about something different please let me know. I will admit WB is the one thing I let my camera control on a regular basis. Maybe it is time to change that regardless. ;)

it may not be the easiest, but a tripod might help you Renee. Also, I use either a 50mm f1.4 or the sigma 24-70 for a lot of work. I have that same 28-135 lens on my wife's camera and used it for a while when my siggy was in for repairs. I have a pretty big shooting space, but a tall model doing a full body shot makes the 70-200 unusable. I've climbed all over lawnmowers, etc to get that extra reach with the wrong lens.

I think the 28-135 is fine for you, especially with the IS AND ESPECIALLY if if you have a sharp copy.

But then I could not get into all those funky positions that are hell for me to get up from anymore. I really really hate the tripod and only use it when I have to.

For my fashion and beauty work, I've found myself gravitating back to my 70-200 because of the range and compression and the fantastic IQ.

24-105 is crap.

I can see where the 70-200 would be a good glamour lens. I have heard the same about the 100-400.

Thanks so much for all the feedback.

[AxxisPhoto]

For my fashion and beauty work, I've found myself gravitating back to my 70-200 because of the range and compression and the fantastic IQ.

24-105 is crap.


But you need a good amount of space to use that lens! I usually find myself shooting models in small areas where that lens would be to long of reach.

[Mark_Cohran]

I've used the 24-105 for event photography, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice for glamour. I also like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for glamour. As Dave noted, the compression and the IQ work well for beauty and glamour. I'd have to say, though, my most used lens for glamour is the 135 f/2L. Could you live with a prime?

[reneethomas]

I've used the 24-105 for event photography, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice for glamour. I also like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for glamour. As Dave noted, the compression and the IQ work well for beauty and glamour. I'd have to say, though, my most used lens for glamour is the 135 f/2L. Could you live with a prime?

My biggest regrets are getting rid of my 2 primes. One was the 85mm F1.8 and 100mm f2.8. So yes I can live with a prime but would prefer to have IS if possible which seems to only be offered in the zooms (right?). I got rid of the 85mm to buy the 70-200 F4 non-IS and was kicking myself from the beginning. That was a sweet lens!

[draconis]

I also have a 24-135 (it was bundled with my 40D at purchase) but it is not very sharp. Since I often use a manual flash set up for glamour & nude (à la Strobist!) the aperture varies with the zoom throwing fine setups off. So I recommand a 50mm 1,4 (terrific lens with nice bokey) or a fixed aperture zoom (I have a 24-70 f2,8 Tamron).

[charlesu]

The 100 macro is very sharp. Watch out for that. The 70-200 is a good staple but I also use my 85 1.2. And, despite the criticisms I used the 24-105 at times. At f11 it is pretty solid and the 85-100 range is perfect for glamour.