BrianMC Senior Member  358 posts Joined Dec 2008 Location: Toronto, CA More info | Jan 20, 2009 07:51 | #16 TaDa wrote in post #7116349   Yeah, so if you can climb up into the rafters of the restaurant, the 85L will be the lens for you 
Brian
LOG IN TO REPLY |
adam* Goldmember  4,411 posts Joined Jul 2005 Location: Sheffield More info | Jan 20, 2009 07:53 | #17 Crop 24L, FF 35L. :: For sale: 70-200 2.8L :: Nikon D700 ::
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nightcat Goldmember 4,533 posts Likes: 28 Joined Aug 2008 More info | 24mm for a crop. You need that extra room.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 20, 2009 11:55 | #19 Just so you guys know, I am using a 5D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
adam* Goldmember 4,411 posts Joined Jul 2005 Location: Sheffield More info | Jan 20, 2009 12:17 | #20 I'd go for the 35L then. Only because i've sat at a table and framed portraits of people sat opposite me, 35L was PERFECT. Which is why I want one :: For sale: 70-200 2.8L :: Nikon D700 ::
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BrianMC Senior Member 358 posts Joined Dec 2008 Location: Toronto, CA More info | Why don't you rent both then? Brian
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Jan 20, 2009 13:34 | #22 BrianMC wrote in post #7118106 Why don't you rent both then? Or just buy them both, they're both excellent lenses. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 20, 2009 13:53 | #23 BrianMC wrote in post #7118106 Why don't you rent both then? I would prefer to just rent one.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 20, 2009 13:56 | #24 I hope to acquire them both in the next year or two. Although I may have to wait on the 24L depending on how good the 21 2.8 ZE is when it is released.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
echo Goldmember  1,964 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2005 Location: A recording studio somewhere in the UK or USA More info | Jan 20, 2009 18:54 | #25 Hi Poe,  http://www.RecordProduction.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dan_1337 Member 138 posts Joined Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia More info | Jan 20, 2009 20:22 | #26 i've found that the 28mm f/1.8 is a useful tool for these occasions. it is a great focal length for indoor-across table shots and of a smaller size than the 24L and 35L. 5D | 24-70L | 28mm f/1.8 | 580EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JeffreyG "my bits and pieces are all hard"  More info | Jan 20, 2009 20:43 | #27 Poe wrote in post #7117640 Just so you guys know, I am using a 5D Also, I will be taking pictures seated at the table of the people across from me. I will not be up and about moving around the room. I don't think this is the kind of restaurant where I want to be firing off my flash. I thank you guys for your feed back. I'm thinking I may rent a 24L for this weekend so I'll know if it's too wide or too tight still. I was also considering the 20 2.8, but that's not as fast as I would like. I'd rather err on the wide side than tight side, which makes me lean more towards the 24L. 35L. I would prefer to just rent one. I did some calculations for the "window" sizes I should get for subjects 3' and 4' away and I liked the results for the 24L better than the 35L 24mm will require you to be about 2 feet from the subject for waist up framing. 35mm needs 3.5 feet. IMO 2 feet is too close. My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirbach/sets/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
grego Cream of the Crop  8,819 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2005 Location: UCLA More info | Jan 21, 2009 00:18 | #28 Poe wrote in post #7117640 Just so you guys know, I am using a 5D Also, I will be taking pictures seated at the table of the people across from me. I will not be up and about moving around the room. I don't think this is the kind of restaurant where I want to be firing off my flash. I thank you guys for your feed back. I'm thinking I may rent a 24L for this weekend so I'll know if it's too wide or too tight still. I was also considering the 20 2.8, but that's not as fast as I would like. I'd rather err on the wide side than tight side, which makes me lean more towards the 24L. 35L is probably the best choice on 5D. But.. but renting the 24L will tell you for sure if it's too wide. 20 on FF will be way too wide. Go UCLA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
suyenfung Senior Member 763 posts Joined Jul 2006 Location: Canton, OH More info | Jan 21, 2009 00:59 | #29 |
Jan 21, 2009 10:47 | #30 Good shot! If this is a 1.3x sensor, then it would be a bit wider on FF.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is ANebinger 1202 guests, 143 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
