topic Re: What lens to buy? in EF & RF Lenses

What lens to buy?

Sisster108 — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:02:43 GMT

Right now I have a Canon Rebel T3I, I have a 18-55 mm lens and a 75-300 mm lens. I have no clue what to get next. I want a new lens for Chirstmas and my mom was wondering what (I know it is very early). We are on a tight budget now. I was taking a peek at the Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens and the Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens. But I don't know. I do love taking portaits and macro. I don't want another zoom lens. What would be the best choice for me? If you have another lens suggestion please let me know I am open to anything.

Thank you again!!

Amanda 🙂

Re: What lens to buy?

ScottyP — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:51:37 GMT

Hi,

Kind of an either-or situation with the 50 and the 100 macro. The 50 won't do macro, and 100mm on your crop sensor camera is 160mm, which is awfully long for portraits unless you are outside with lots of room to back away from the subject.

What about the Canon EF-s 60mm macro? It should do a great job at both portraits and macro.

Good luck!

Re: What lens to buy?

cale_kat — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:47:18 GMT

100mm is a bit long for portraiture. A 50mm is a solid choice though, as would be a 35mm. The 35mm being a little more versatile.

Re: What lens to buy?

RobertTheFat — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:47:51 GMT

@ScottyP wrote:
Hi,

Kind of an either-or situation with the 50 and the 100 macro. The 50 won't do macro, and 100mm on your crop sensor camera is 160mm, which is awfully long for portraits unless you are outside with lots of room to back away from the subject.

What about the Canon EF-s 60mm macro? It should do a great job at both portraits and macro.

Second that. My wife has the 60mm for her T2i, and she's been very happy with it. It's fast (f/2.8), well made, and relatively cheap. The only reason it isn't one of Canon's underrated lenses is that everybody knows it's good.

Re: What lens to buy?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:11:45 GMT

Amanda,

Go for the EF 50mm f1.4 if you can. It isn't a true macro but it will get you very close if you want it to. It has the advantage of a fast aperture which you don't currently have. A whole new world for you. It will do nice portraits, too, as it will act like an 80mm f1.4 lens on your camera.

True macro lenses are fun but pretty limited in their use. Plus the EF-s 60mm is a f2.8 which is two stops slower than the EF 50mm f1.4. You already have slow lenses. Go for the 50mm f1.4, you will love it.

Re: What lens to buy?

RobertTheFat — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:42:56 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Amanda,
Go for the EF 50mm f1.4 if you can. It isn't a true macro but it will get you very close if you want it to. It has the advantage of a fast aperture which you don't currently have. A whole new world for you. It will do nice portraits, too, as it will act like an 80mm f1.4 lens on your camera.

True macro lenses are fun but pretty limited in their use. Plus the EF-s 60mm is a f2.8 which is two stops slower than the EF 50mm f1.4. You already have slow lenses. Go for the 50mm f1.4, you will love it.

One of the first lenses I bought for my first DSLR was an f/1.4 prime. (I guess it was in fond memory of the 50mm f/1.4 lenses on my film Nikons.) But I've never used it much, and can't even remember the most recent time. Modern cameras have such good low-light performance that there's less and less reason to suffer the DoF penalty you get with an f/1.4 lens.

Amanda told us her interests run to portraits and macro; she didn't mention low-light photography at all. Why should she turn down a good, inexpensive macro/portrait lens for a non-macro, in order to get a feature she apparently doesn't need? I stand by my (i.e., Scott's) recommendation.

Re: What lens to buy?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:56:08 GMT

Now she has "options" doesn't she? The exact reason for inquiring on a piblic forum.

BTW, the high ISO capability of modern cameras is bogus at best. A fast lens is always better. Both of us know that.

She may have never thought of obtaining fast glass as a choice. Now she can.

Re: What lens to buy?

hsbn — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:02:34 GMT

I love Bob and Ebiggs argument, one can learn something from both.
I agree with Bob but I root for Ebiggs for the sole reason of EF-S lens. Full frame camera is getting cheaper and cheaper by day. So eventually people will upgrade. I never thought I would go full frame but I did. I tried to sell some of my EF-S lens but after a few fail attempt, I just keep them. 🙂

Re: What lens to buy?

RobertTheFat — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:36:46 GMT

@hsbn wrote:
I love Bob and Ebiggs argument, one can learn something from both.

Thank you!

I agree with Bob but I root for Ebiggs for the sole reason of EF-S lens. Full frame camera is getting cheaper and cheaper by day. So eventually people will upgrade. I never thought I would go full frame but I did. I tried to sell some of my EF-S lens but after a few fail attempt, I just keep them.

A week ago I might have agreed with you. But the 7D Mark II suggests that Canon, at least, has an ongoing commitment to the APS-C format. Only time will tell, but I think it (the 7D2) has a chance to be a big success.

Yes, many (most?) people will eventually go full-frame. (I did, partially, earlier this year.) But Amnda won't, any time soon. I'd argue that it would be silly for her to aspire only to equipment she probably can't yet afford, ignoring lesser equipment that she'll enjoy using now and that will make her a better photographer.

Re: What lens to buy?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:29:17 GMT

One thing for sure she probably is not interested in this discussion at all. But I find it interesting especially with intelligent people on the other side.

hsbn has a point. I never recommend EF-S lenses to anyone anymore. I used to bot not now. However, the vast majority of Canon camera users have Rebels and are content with their performance. And rightly so as the Rebel line does absolutely everything most people want or need. And it does it very well, I might add. I have had five of them myself.

The, among man,y great thing about a Rebel is it uses either mount EF or EF-S. So the question, what next after my kit lens no longer fulfills my needs? This person is showing deeper interest in photography so why not start a lens collection that will stay with you? No matter if it is the only one you get or one of many. Maybe that camera upgrade is in the future but if is not that is fine too. The EF lens is ready for either eventuality

The big problem with buying specialized lenses, like a macro, is they usually don't do other things as well as a more general purpose lens. Hence the EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro vs the EF 50mm f1.4. The EF 50mm f1.4 will serve her better all around than a macro lens.

Bob from Boston, you mention that a f1.4 has a narrow DOF. You are absolutely correct. Is that good or is that bad? Doesn't it depend on what the use is? There is one undeniable factor here also, you can stop down a f1.4 but you can't open up a f2.8.

As to the crop factor camera, I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. The tele advantage, true or false, is still very much liked by a certain part of the camera buying masses.

Both Canon and brand N make them in large quantities.

Re: What lens to buy?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:40:55 GMT

As a side note, I had some four dozen lenses in my darkroom/storage room. I have weeded out and/or sold and replaced every one that wasn't f2.8 or faster. Save for a very small number that are just not feasible in a fast aperture version. I am retired now and I don't need $6000 dollar lenses anymore.

I also do not like variable apertures either so they is also gone. Where possible!

I did keep my EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I bought a Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3.<----Buying a Tamron was a big step for me.

Fast glass is where it's at, man! I even traded my 50mm f1.4 for a f1.2 and I love it. It is the best 50 I have ever used or even seen before.

Re: What lens to buy?

ScottyP — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:49:32 GMT

One lens for those two purposes means some compromise is going to have to be made. The 60 macro gives true 1:1 macro ability, and the focal length is even more ideal for portraits on a crop than 50mm is (96mm equivalent vs. 80mm equivalent).

I do see the dilemma, as the widest apertures are fun, though f/ 2.8 is still considered pretty wide aperture, and is wider than either of her two existing lenses. The 60 is also cheaper, at about $470 vs. about $600 for a 100 macro plus $400 for a 50mm f/1.4.

I do not sense from the original post the OP is considering a move to a $1500 or $3,000 full frame body and all new full frame lenses, certainly not anytime soon, so the EF-s 60 will probably not need to be sold. Perhaps by purchasing a used copy she could be "depreciation-proof" and be able to shoot it for 5 years then sell it on for every penny she paid for it.

We don't know how serious she is about macro. If macro is not something she will do much, then perhaps a 50mm would be better, but it is hard to make that the answer to her lens question unless you are advising her to forget about the macro and just go with a fast normal prime instead. I agree a bright 50 is a fantastic lens upgrade from starter zooms.

Two separate lenses for about $1,000 would be ideal of course,(a 100 macro and a 50 f/1.4) except for the problem that it is twice as much money. The 60mm is a compromise that does both things pretty well at 1/2 the price of 2 separate lenses. But hey, everything in photography is a trade off, right down to the underlying physics. Wider aperture means more light but less DOF. Fast shutter means less light. Higher ISO means worse IQ. Greater DOF means faster shutter or higher ISO needed. Macro ability means f/2.8 aperture max. An f/1.4 aperture means no macro. EF-s lenses cost less but if you go exclusively full frame someday they are not usable.