Lens Issue
I have the Canon, everything Canon, I have the 17-40L lens, got it this spring, love it. I sold my 28-135 IS non L Canon, and I don't know why I miss it, but this is the situation.
The 17-40L takes gorgeous photos, I have been using it for the baptism photos I take, unpaid. Gorgeous, and it works, I can run in, take the photo and leave.
Sometimes I like to add a photo of the baby, just for me, and in case someone wants to buy photos :rofl . No one wants me to take the time to change lenses. Believe me, I can't. The priest is looking at his watch, the people are confused, etc.
The 17-40 is seriously distorting my babies. I am trying to think of a solution. I have the cheaper 70-200L. So I think I am covered except in the 40-70 bracket.
(the 70-200 will not work for the baptisms, I tried it, I have to back up to far and don't have the flexibility)
I could 1) buy another 28-135, there is one on sale here, or at b&h or 2) buy a 300.00 dollar 50 mm for low light (those are also L). I don't like 50s, I have not used them, when I have owned them, but i don't have a low light lens, don't really care. But I am trying to figure out an inexpensive solution.
So my question would be in the area of "would the 50 be good for close ups of the baby, when the 17-40 is not". What is the difference between the 40 of the wide angle lens and the 50 of the basic low light prime. Besides some f stops. Would the 50 not distort also?
doG, I hate to go back to the 28-135, though I loved it. If it werer L, I couldn't afford it, since it is not, and I want it to take other photos at baptisms etc., I worry about the photo quality of before baptism and after baptism shots.
what do the experts here think? I only have about 300.00 right now. I could stretch that a bit, but 1000.00 is out. In fact, anything over 500.00 is literally impossible. This is called something like creative financing of "good" photography.
ginger
The 17-40L takes gorgeous photos, I have been using it for the baptism photos I take, unpaid. Gorgeous, and it works, I can run in, take the photo and leave.
Sometimes I like to add a photo of the baby, just for me, and in case someone wants to buy photos :rofl . No one wants me to take the time to change lenses. Believe me, I can't. The priest is looking at his watch, the people are confused, etc.
The 17-40 is seriously distorting my babies. I am trying to think of a solution. I have the cheaper 70-200L. So I think I am covered except in the 40-70 bracket.
(the 70-200 will not work for the baptisms, I tried it, I have to back up to far and don't have the flexibility)
I could 1) buy another 28-135, there is one on sale here, or at b&h or 2) buy a 300.00 dollar 50 mm for low light (those are also L). I don't like 50s, I have not used them, when I have owned them, but i don't have a low light lens, don't really care. But I am trying to figure out an inexpensive solution.
So my question would be in the area of "would the 50 be good for close ups of the baby, when the 17-40 is not". What is the difference between the 40 of the wide angle lens and the 50 of the basic low light prime. Besides some f stops. Would the 50 not distort also?
doG, I hate to go back to the 28-135, though I loved it. If it werer L, I couldn't afford it, since it is not, and I want it to take other photos at baptisms etc., I worry about the photo quality of before baptism and after baptism shots.
what do the experts here think? I only have about 300.00 right now. I could stretch that a bit, but 1000.00 is out. In fact, anything over 500.00 is literally impossible. This is called something like creative financing of "good" photography.
ginger
After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
0
Comments
Maybe you could post an example of this distortion. I have the 17-40, and although think it's a great lens it would not be my first choice for indoor (low light) work. You might think about the 50mm 1.8 good quality optics at a real budget price.
Sam
This is the only baby photo I have of this baby, the latest. I had another one, but I trashed it. Actually it was better, but more distortion. I will delete this from my site momentarily, it is visible right now, has not been worked up in ps, just raw, etc.
Why would 40mm distort and 50mm not distort? The church does not want photos of the baby, so I am to take a photo of the family and leave. There is no big shoot here. Nobody has bought anything yet, and I used to work at it, at least with the photographs. So I take the photo of the family, I know what they want, and I leave.
But if I want to do extra, for me, or just because, I do take a photo of the baby. I grab it, fast. I use flash for all of this. My sunpak was not working with my 20D, so I "fixed" my on camera flash, the one with the camera, the bad one, and I just used that.
The week I could get nothing to work, my husband opened all the doors, I used the monopod, and, yes, natural light was better, but it is also more time consuming, and I have to have the monopod, which I did not have this past sunday (I have "lost" it somewhere on a trail at magnolia during the workshop. I got it back that afternoon.)
I just don't understand why the 40mm setting would distort and the 50mm would not.
ginger
I'm no expert, but I believe this is normal. If you were to back up the distortion would go away, but of course then you would have more empty space and the subject wouldn't fill the frame as you want, so I think the solution is to use a longer lens, and learn to position yourself so you get the framing you want while being far enough back to mimimize any distortion.
Also don't forget that while you may reduce camera shake with your monopod you still need to get a higher shutter speed in the low light to eliminate subject movement.
Sam
How about the 24-70 f/2.8L
I have not tried it in church but it works good for me inside
And have shot portraits with it seems ok as far as distortaion
Or maybe the 100mm f/2.0 about $374 after rebate ($15)
I have never used this lens but seems like it would work out ok
Also check out this canon link it will give you some ideas just click on the "ef Lenses 101" in the right hand side bar
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
Could you point me that way. I looked up the Canon, 28-70, thought the lens sounded perfect, but as you realize, it is just a dream. We can't use credit cards..............and a good thing, too. I think.
I could get the Tamron, I guess, if it is the length of the Canon and gets great reviews, well I would not be ecstatic, but next tax time, or whatever, I could sell it and get the Canon, if I wanted to, maybe.
I use the 17-40 as that is the only lens I have left. Kind of. I have the 300 prime. I had only those two, didn't care about the baptisms, tried using the 17-40, and it worked fine. But I am feeling that gap. There is not the room to back up for the 70-200, I bought the 500.00 dollar one, too. I am getting used to it and used it to good advantage last Sat, but it is not an indoor/outdoor walk about, IMO. At the same time, it fills a gap since the 300 is a prime, I did use it Saturday because it was the lens of choice for the situation. And I did get great photos, don't know which were with what lens, but that one was used alot.
If I had to not have a lens, it would be the same situation I am in now. I love the wide, and I love the long too much to give them up.
Just trying to fill that gap. Maybe the Tamron would help.
ginger
I am going to read the reviews on FM, probably mostly good. And check my money again. If all holds up, that really looks like it would be the ticket right now.
Amazon has a used one from a second, third, whatever party for 339.00 available, but I am afraid of that. Any of you want to sell one?
g (If it is a $10.00 book I trust Amazon, and it has always been fine, on the used, I mean)