what holy trinity lens

Im getting the 400D and adding the 50mm f/1.8 to it instead of the kit lense. I know that alot of people recommend the f/1.4 but i really cant see that much of a difference and the 1.8 is just sooo cheap that I will defineately get it. And since i went with a cheaper body its given me alot of leeway to pick up another lense. So i figured why not save all the hassle up upgrading and just buy a L lense. So the question for me is which one. I am currently looking at the 35L, 85L, or the 135L. I will shot mostly people along witha few sport shots, such as Bodybuilding and also scenery (mountains and stuff). I would think that the 50mm could cover the people and mountains pretty good (along with being a good temporary substitute for the 35 and 85) and the 135L would be a good addition for those somewhat out of reach shots.

But here is where I am really confused. It sems to me by looking at the pictures in the archive that any lense can really take a picture of just about anything. So i could easily use a 35L to take a picture of a mountain range as I could using a 135L. Im using these two because of the extremes in size. i would just have to stand father back two get the same amount of mountain range in in the picture using the 135, or I would get a closer up picture if i was to stay in the same place. Am I totally off and completely missing something or am I at least partially right?

Dont you just love noobs! Just think of it like helping the eldery or the poor, its for a good cause.

Shoot with the 50 for a while & you will figure out whether you want to go wider or longer on your next lens.

10-22 lanscape ultrawide. 24-70 brick perfect for walkround and for low light capabilities, 70-200 2.8 IS sports,animals, portrait. total $3400-$3600 pretty much cover your type of shooting. 50 1.8 vs 1.4? not even close 50 1.4 hands down

As a competetive bodybuilder, i would go for a fast zoom lens and also where would you be in the audience?

24-70? 17-55 2.8 ?

Ian

Im in a small rural city in China. They just recently started to have BB shows and Ive thought about entering more than once. But its very easy for me to move around so that isnt a problem. thats mainly why I am leaning towards primes. Because in every situation that I can imagine I am able to get up and move. im basing this off of what I would have wanted to shoot over these last few years and in all my recollections never was walking a problem.

If you are just starting out, do not spend the money required to get one of the trinity primes right away. Yes, they are truly exceptional lenses, but at this point, you really don't have any idea how you shoot, and what your needs are. I was 4 years into photography and decided I wanted the 135L, so I sprung for it. It's a wonderful lens, but I was just swayed by the 'wow, it's the 135L' rather than "do I need f/2 at 135mm." The real thing is, no, I didn't. It was too long for my primary purpose for it, which was portraiture, so I sold it and got the 100 f/2 instead, which is just right (and darn close to the 135L optically).

Pick up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and experiment...you'll get wide angle to short telephoto, the f/2.8 is versatile, and you'll find out how you shoot...then add lenses as YOUR needs dictate. Don't buy a lens because someone else thinks it's perfect, buy a lens because YOU need its capabilities. All in all, it's the photographer who makes the image, and if a lens is wonderful optically it doesn't make a darn bit of difference if it doesn't fit your shooting style.

If you are thinking you want to do primes, think about getting a 28 f/1.8 or Sigma 30 f/1.4...the normal focal range is great as a general purpose, and will also let you know how you want to go for future lenses.

When I bought my XTi, I was planning to buy the nifty fifty
as my first lens, but I changed my mind at the last minute
and got the Tamron 17-50.

I'm glad I got the zoom instead of the 50mm. It's so much
easier to frame my shots with the zoom. Some of my shots
would have been more frustrating and harder to get with
the 50mm.

I guess I prefer zooming with my wrist instead of my feet.

elitejp wrote in post #5194242
Im getting the 400D and adding the 50mm f/1.8 to it instead of the kit lense. I know that alot of people recommend the f/1.4 but i really cant see that much of a difference and the 1.8 is just sooo cheap that I will defineately get it. And since i went with a cheaper body its given me alot of leeway to pick up another lense. So i figured why not save all the hassle up upgrading and just buy a L lense. So the question for me is which one. I am currently looking at the 35L, 85L, or the 135L. I will shot mostly people along witha few sport shots, such as Bodybuilding and also scenery (mountains and stuff). I would think that the 50mm could cover the people and mountains pretty good (along with being a good temporary substitute for the 35 and 85) and the 135L would be a good addition for those somewhat out of reach shots.

But here is where I am really confused. It sems to me by looking at the pictures in the archive that any lense can really take a picture of just about anything. So i could easily use a 35L to take a picture of a mountain range as I could using a 135L. Im using these two because of the extremes in size. i would just have to stand father back two get the same amount of mountain range in in the picture using the 135, or I would get a closer up picture if i was to stay in the same place. Am I totally off and completely missing something or am I at least partially right?

Dont you just love noobs! Just think of it like helping the eldery or the poor, its for a good cause.

Start with this link:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=414088
When you are done with that one move on to this link:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=86975
I think you'll find all (or most) of what you need.

I went the zoom route myself. I coudln't imagine having all those primes and constantly switching (not to mention it would be impossible to get many of the shots switching lenses in such sort succession). I can go from 85 to 135 to 200 instantly with wonderfully quality, f/2.8 stabilized...and thats just one lens! That gives me from home plate to the outfield in the many softball games I shoot. Just walking around town with a camera zooming is very handy as well. Hopefully a 10-22 will find its home here very soon. Then a 100-400..or a 500.

thrash_273 wrote in post #5194293
10-22 lanscape ultrawide. 24-70 brick perfect for walkround and for low light capabilities, 70-200 2.8 IS sports,animals, portrait. total $3400-$3600 pretty much cover your type of shooting. 50 1.8 vs 1.4? not even close 50 1.4 hands down

Since you were willing to pay so as much for the 85L
I would go for the
70-200 f/4 L IS USM $1,060
and the
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $690
=
$1750, right around the same price as the 85L

Great landscape, then a nice portrait then a great portrait/zoom.

Best of luck!

I am surprised nobody has answered your question on the differences of lens focal lengths, when you can sneaker zoom in and out. Yes you can use 135mm to capture the same "framing" of the subject using a 35mm lens, however the difference is the "compression" you get with the longer lens.

In other words, think of in terms of a "angles" (seen from top), using a long-cone (telephoto) or a short-cone (wide) to cover your subject. In the latter case, even though your subject fills the same amount in the frame, you will capture more background, and vice versa.

I think 85mm (on a full-frame) length is considered more-or-less an ideal focal length for portraits (upper bust). It will make the noise more slender, and it will capture just enough background behind the subject.

So think of how you want your photos to look, and use the appropriately wide/narrow lenses.

I only have primes now but that was after having the two kit lenses to work out what I shoot. I found in about 6 months I used the 18-55 about twice. Ive now come back to wider angles but the first good telephoto I used was the only lense to touch my camera for a long time. I would advise trying to pick up the kit lenses second hand and then finding out what you like. If you picked them up second hand chances are you can get rid of them for the same price. I would also consider not getting the IS ones as you will find out what focal lengths are difficult wihtout IS so you can make a more educated decision later on. I wouldnt want to get used to IS and then find out how big a difference it made when I bought a new lens.

Adam

Adam

elitejp wrote in post #5194242
Im getting the 400D and adding the 50mm f/1.8 to it instead of the kit lense. I know that alot of people recommend the f/1.4 but i really cant see that much of a difference and the 1.8 is just sooo cheap that I will defineately get it. And since i went with a cheaper body its given me alot of leeway to pick up another lense. So i figured why not save all the hassle up upgrading and just buy a L lense. So the question for me is which one. I am currently looking at the 35L, 85L, or the 135L. I will shot mostly people along witha few sport shots, such as Bodybuilding and also scenery (mountains and stuff). I would think that the 50mm could cover the people and mountains pretty good (along with being a good temporary substitute for the 35 and 85) and the 135L would be a good addition for those somewhat out of reach shots.

But here is where I am really confused. It sems to me by looking at the pictures in the archive that any lense can really take a picture of just about anything. So i could easily use a 35L to take a picture of a mountain range as I could using a 135L. Im using these two because of the extremes in size. i would just have to stand father back two get the same amount of mountain range in in the picture using the 135, or I would get a closer up picture if i was to stay in the same place. Am I totally off and completely missing something or am I at least partially right?

Dont you just love noobs! Just think of it like helping the eldery or the poor, its for a good cause.

Go for the 1.8 ... you simply can't go wrong for the price. Tapeman's got it right - shoot with the 50 for a while and decide later - HOWEVER, keep in mind that the 50mm is really 80mm in 35mm terms (50 x 1.6 = 80).

The lens will not win any cudos on build quality but so what. I come from a medium format film world and relatively new to digital. I find the 1.8 lens IQ amazing at its price point.

And I know that I'm repeating myself for those who have read a few other threads on the 1.8 ... yup, two shots of my grandson (grandads understand) with the XTi (400D) and the 1.8: one with flash bounced off the ceiling and one by natural light.

For the price, it simply doesn't get any better ... IMHO.

Ray

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks for the replys. Especially for explaining the focal lengths (through links and other).
Ya I am defineately going to get the 50mm 1.8. Ive read alot of people recommend starting of with a prime because it teaches you how to be more creative in your picture taking.
And i did rule out the 85L because I could get two really good lenses instead the 85L for that price...it really is very expensive.
Im however surprised so many people recommended zooms. Theres pros and cons to eithor way one decides, so i really dont see this as I would regret buying primes or vise versa. Honestly, Im pretty certain that i would be happy with anything thats put on the camera, but you might as well go with quality if the oportunity presents itself.
I guess its back to the picture archives and forums to look at what these different lenses can do.

valoisr: thanks for the pics.