UWA or 200mm

I mainly shoot portraits of my daughter. As a hobbyist, which would I use more. An ultra wide angle lens/fisheye lens or Canon EF 200mm 2.8 II. I know what UWA looks like on close up portraits, but this would be used more as environmental portraits.

brian4646 wrote in post #17895501
I mainly shoot portraits of my daughter. As a hobbyist, which would I use more. An ultra wide angle lens/fisheye lens or Canon EF 200mm 2.8 II. I know what UWA looks like on close up portraits, but this would be used more as environmental portraits.

From looking at your equipment list, unless you really want a new lens, I would just stay with what you have. I don't see how a UWA or 200 would benefit you. Save your cash a continue using what you have.

Heya,

So you already have 35mm and 135mm covered. Are you just trying to get something different?

Sure, an ultrawide will definitely give you the most "different" look, especially up close with distortion. If used for environmental, it will not be much different than your 35 if you include a lot of environmental context.

A 200mm F2.8 vs 135 F2, will look very similar. The 135 will blur ever so slightly more. So all you're gaining really is a bit more depth of field wide open and more working distance required with the 200 F2.8.

So for what you're doing, the ultrawide offers the biggest change to what you have if you use it at close distance. If you use it at far distance, it will not do anything different than your 35 can, just with you at a different distance.

So really, you already have everything covered. Sounds like you just have G.A.S.

Very best,

It must be GAS.

At 200mm, all it really means is that you'll be a little farther from your subject than your 135. The images will be very similar in look. Have you had trouble with reach?

Also, know that the minimum focus distance is 3 feet for the 135 and 5 feet for the 200. That might make a difference in whether or not you get your shot, especially if your daughter is young and actively running back and forth.

I personally think that if you want something new and fresh, get an UWA.

As mentioned previously, as a hobbyist, with your current rig you're set. Having said that, shooting portraits with fisheye or other UWA lenses can be a lot of fun. How much use you get out of it will depend on whether or not the novelty wears off.

Sorry, but there should be no reason why being a "hobbyist" should affect whether or not he is "set with his current rig."

Nathan wrote in post #17895737
Sorry, but there should be no reason why being a "hobbyist" should affect whether or not he is "set with his current rig."

So sassy. Why not? I just meant the OP has a terrific set of lenses for portraits already. I didn't say, stop, don't do a thing, don't move forward, don't advance your experiences and skills. In fact, I offered my opinion that he might enjoy an UWA more than the 200mm.

I know you then offered an opinion in addition to the comment. Just didn't see any relevancy in starting the way you did. Combined with eddieb's response, it just seems odd to me that the implication is there... As if "hobbyists" didn't need to look at other lenses outside the 35-135 range - which so happens to be basic kit lens for crop cameras.

Nathan wrote in post #17895770
Just didn't see any relevancy in starting the way you did. Combined with eddieb's response, it just seems odd to me that the implication is there... As if "hobbyists" didn't need to look at other lenses outside the 35-135 range.

I understand, but the OP made it relevant, not me.

brian4646 wrote in post #17895501
I mainly shoot portraits of my daughter. As a hobbyist, which would I use more.

I said "hobbyist" because I wanted everyone to know that I do not make a living doing photography. This is for personal fun. So which is more fun for portraits, UWA or 200mm 2.8

Parsing language, but he didn't ask "as a hobbyist, am I all set with my current lenses?" He asked about two specific focal ranges outside of what he already owns. He asked about A and C, but you told him as a hobbyist he should be happy with B. Then you added A might be more fun for him, with an implication that because he's a hobbyist the value of A might just be a novelty.

This wasn't supposed to turn into an argument. My apologies.

It's GAS a requirement to join this forum?

Nathan wrote in post #17895770
I know you then offered an opinion in addition to the comment. Just didn't see any relevancy in starting the way you did. Combined with eddieb's response, it just seems odd to me that the implication is there... As if "hobbyists" didn't need to look at other lenses outside the 35-135 range - which so happens to be basic kit lens for crop cameras.

Never meant to imply that he shouldn't purchase other lenses, if he wanted to. For me, and only for me, a class or two in portrait photography could possibly be very beneficial. Again, I would find it beneficial to spend the money to spend the money gaining more knowledge in that particular specialty of photography now, and maybe, spend on lenses later.

brian4646 wrote in post #17895786
It's GAS a requirement to join this forum?

I don't believe so but spending a lot of time in the Camera and Lens sub forums certainly helps exacerbate any inklings towards GAS that you might have.

Given the kit in your signature I think something like the 16-35/4IS would make the biggest difference for you if it's just for portraits. It may also open up some street/architectural type shooting for you.

If however you are possibly eventually going to be wanting to shoot her at events (e.g. sports/equestrian/thea​tre/gymnastics/dancing​) a 200 will help a bit more than your 135. A lens longer than 200m will likely be even better but then you rapidly get into big dollars if you chase f/2.8 or similar