5Dmk2 Lens choice for FULL body shoot

setsuken wrote in post #11764216
budget is around £300 ish, i am considering the 35mm canon f2 lens however, what about the sigma 30mm 1.4? is it comparable?

If you're willing to manual focus there's a whole world of quality MF lenses that'll meet your needs below your budget.

Sp1207 wrote in post #11764541
If you're willing to manual focus there's a whole world of quality MF lenses that'll meet your needs below your budget.

Such as?

i dont think the sigma 30 f1.4 fits a FF body

tomme wrote in post #11764719
i dont think the sigma 30 f1.4 fits a FF body

it does but it has corner sharpness issues, im reading up on it now. The 35mm f2 canon has it as well but its more compatible on FF

I guess I'm confused. You own a lens that covers from 17-40. Why would you double up focal lengths by buying another lens? Only reason to do this is if you're going for limited depth of field in which case you'd want a prime.

braidkid wrote in post #11764873
I guess I'm confused. You own a lens that covers from 17-40. Why would you double up focal lengths by buying another lens? Only reason to do this is if you're going for limited depth of field in which case you'd want a prime.

the 17-40 even at the 'correct' focal length, ie around 35 still has some distortion ive found, plus f4.0 isnt massively fast.

setsuken wrote in post #11764887
the 17-40 even at the 'correct' focal length, ie around 35 still has some distortion ive found, plus f4.0 isnt massively fast.

Can you go faster that that for a full body?

keyframe14 wrote in post #11764989
Can you go faster that that for a full body?

16-35 2.8 II
24-70 2.8

-> yes you can. (+ primes)

If the lady would like a bigger bust in the photos stand about 2 feet away from her and open that lens up to 17mm!! should make a interesting shot...

Seriously though, the lenses you have will easily cover what you need, I would put my priorities in renting a bigger room and looking for tastefull poses and working out how to pull them off.

If you feel you really need a lens for one shoot just go rent it, Calumet here in the UK keep most Canon L's in stock.

setsuken wrote in post #11764887
the 17-40 even at the 'correct' focal length, ie around 35 still has some distortion ive found, plus f4.0 isnt massively fast.

I think you'll notice that the (lens) distortion at the same subject distance, although sliiiiiiighly less noticeable with most primes, will be about the same as your 17-40 in the 30-40mm range. Given the same focal length, of course.

f/4 isn't fast, sure, but if your lighting isn't good enough for f/4, it will likely not be good enough for f/2.8 either. I would assume you'd be using flash indoors for a shot like this anyway.

It sounds to me like you're trying to justify buying a wide prime. Nothing wrong with that, but you can take pretty much the same shots with the gear you have. If you're dead-set on a cheaper wide prime for full-body shots, I recommend the 35 f/2 or the 28 f/1.8.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #11763829
The 35 f/2 is definitely a good cheaper alternative for FF lens

Like him, I also have a 17-40L; I'm always wondering 35 f/2 Vs 17-40L @ 35mm.

Many thanks

DetlevCM wrote in post #11765017
16-35 2.8 II
24-70 2.8

-> yes you can. (+ primes)

Sorry I meant do you really want to shot at 2.8 at full body. I have no experience in this , that's why i'm asking.

keyframe14 wrote in post #11765278
Sorry I meant do you really want to shot at 2.8 at full body. I have no experience in this , that's why i'm asking.

You can shoot full body shots at f/1.2 or f/1 if it makes you happy. Just make sure the person is completely in the depth of field (if you care about this sort of thing).

keyframe14 wrote in post #11765278
Sorry I meant do you really want to shot at 2.8 at full body. I have no experience in this , that's why i'm asking.

2.8 still pretty easily - depending on the persons position.

The Canon 50 1.4 or the Sigma 50 1.4 will do great full length body shots.