Purchasing New Canon Glass: Help

[smalls]

Abstract: For documentary work, do I need an off camera flash or should I pick up the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5?

---------------------------------------------------------

For my graduation present my parents were originally getting me a macbook. However, I have since decided that I would benefit much more by getting better glass and other gear rather than a new computer, since the one I have now is still functional.

I am most certainly getting a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.4, as well as some accessories (monopod, hoods, new strap, some B+W filters, Crumpler Whickey & Cox pack).

The dilemma is with my final purchase. I will be doing some documentary photography this summer, which will involve a lot of on the scene portraits in low light/night (thus the need for the 50/1.4). I'm wondering if I should invest in an off camera flash and the required accessories or if I should get the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 to fill my gap. (I currently own a 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, but have been using a bunch of photo gear through my school for the past year and have just begun to experiment with using off-camera flashes).

For those that have done some documentary work, do you ever set up an off camera flash, or do you generally just shoot with what you have? I've heard good reviews for the 28-105, but is this the type of lens that I would keep in my bag for years to come, or something that I will upgrade out of in a year or two?

Hopefully this random assortment of words made sense.

[summit]

I regretted selling my 28-105 as an all around carry point and shoot lens... of course with the 24-105 f/4 around now...

[dipstik]

From the experience of my very short photojournalism career thus far, I would say get the lens and skip the external flash (provided you already have one to mount on the camera body itself, in that case go for the flash).

Most of my best pictures, or the ones that get used, are taken with little to no control of the light or the environment - If you really want to capture the "moment", than you need to let the subject act naturally, and use your zoom to quickly respond to changes in the environment. Setting up flashes and what not takes a lot of time, and depending on exactly what or who you will be shooting, it might be detrimental to the whole process.


Another idea: maybe skip on the f/1.4 and get the f/1.8 instead. It is an amazing little lens, and also costs $230 less than the 1.4 - Then take that extra $$$ and put it toward a 24-105 f/4 IS !?!

Hopefully that made sense.

[summit]

i agree with everything dipstick just said

[smalls]

as much as i'd love to get the 24-105 f/4, that's just not in the cards right now.

would a better combination be the 50 f/1.8 and 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS (as opposed to the 50/1.4 and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5). I'd really like something with IS, as I'd like to get some panning shots.

However, low light is where most of my shots will be done this summer. Summit, IIRC, you used to have the 50/1.4. What's the biggest problem with it? I know that it can be fairly soft with apertures larger than f/2, but most of the softness I've seen came with shots further than ~8 ft. away. I pretty much want this lens for two purposes, which is shooting at night in and around tents/capmgrounds and portraits in very low light (read: low-light close-ups). Will the 1.4 give me any advantage in this area, or should I just save the money and get a 1.8? On that note, have you used the 1.8 mk1 and mkII? If so, is there enough of a build difference to warrant the extra expense for the original, or is the plastic on the mkII not that much of an issue?

thanks.

[Tippster]

Well, it'll give you an extra stop....

As far as the Flash goes, if you have a good flash and soft box for it you can buy a synch cord for next to nothing and hold the flash off-axis. Takes some getting used to but works great for portrait photography. By soft box I mean something like this:



Don't forget to always light the "short" side of the face - if the subject is in 3/4 profile to your camera put the flash on the far side of their nose - toward the hidden ear. This is called "modeling" and works in either stills or video. If you light the "long" side - the side whose ear is showing - you will get a flatter looking picture.

[smalls]

^^^that's exactly what i was thinking.

i know that it would be far too hard to set up a flash stand for documentary work. i was thinking more along the lines of a handheld flash (w/soft box) just to add a little more depth to some of the portraits. i'm not sure how feasible it is, but it sounded good in my head.

On another note, how about the 28mm f/1.8 (as opposed to the 50/1.4)? I've heard good things about it, but would it be worth it on my 20d? I'd like a little bit shorter focal length then the 80mm that the 50 would give me, but I've just heard so many good things about the fifty that it makes me think I should stick with that route. thoughts?

[Tippster]

depends what you want it for. Lotsa Depth of field with the shorter focal length lenses - that's why most portrait lenses (in the 35mm world) are around 100mm. With those lenses you can get a nice tight crop and still have a shallow depth of field to throw the background out of focus.... sometimes even the rear part of the head, depending on how tight you're shooting.

IMHO the 50mm is a more useful prime than a 28mm. The extra 2/3 stop (1.4 vs 1.8) gives you more latitude as well.

[summit]

20D? WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO??? I'd thought you were on a FF camera. If you make your widest lens a 28mm you are shooting yourself in the foot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if you are getting a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 prime and want a 3rd lens (and $1000 is too much money)...

May I suggest instead of the 28-105 ($255) and a 50 1.4 ($310) get a 50 1.8 ($80) and a:

$340 Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
$390 Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
$440 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP <-----------Get this one

[summit]

would a better combination be the 50 f/1.8 and 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS (as opposed to the 50/1.4 and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5). I'd really like something with IS, as I'd like to get some panning shots.

No... and the 28-135 ($435) doesn't support single axis stabilization which you need to get panned IS shots. Just pan without IS.

However, low light is where most of my shots will be done this summer. Summit, IIRC, you used to have the 50/1.4. What's the biggest problem with it? I know that it can be fairly soft with apertures larger than f/2, but most of the softness I've seen came with shots further than ~8 ft. away. I pretty much want this lens for two purposes, which is shooting at night in and around tents/capmgrounds and portraits in very low light (read: low-light close-ups). Will the 1.4 give me any advantage in this area, or should I just save the money and get a 1.8? On that note, have you used the 1.8 mk1 and mkII? If so, is there enough of a build difference to warrant the extra expense for the original, or is the plastic on the mkII not that much of an issue?

thanks.

I have a 50mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.8 Mk I. I have also used the Mk II. The Mk I's nonrotating front, metal mount, wider focus ring, and focus distance scale means that... well... if you have a chance to purchase a Mk I for under $150 shipped, buy one. It is a freaking awesome little thing. It is a jewel of a lens. Never sell it. So that addresses the Mk I vs the Mk II. Their optics are identical. The Mk I weighs perhaps 2 ounces more than the Mk II.

1.4 ($310) vs 1.8 ($80)? 1.4 is a little low contrast at 1.4... The 1.4 is only marginally better optically than the 1.8 in competitive ranges. You earn an extra 2/3 stop of DoF control and light control, full time manual focusing, silent focusing, and a heavier lens... costs you about $230.... you get more gain out of putting that $230 into your standard-wide zoom I think.

UNLESS you are doing tons-o-portraits and *need* 1.4 for extra shallow DoF. 50mm primes are wicked awesome portrait lenses on 1.6 crop DSLRs. However, the 50mm 1.8 will work great as well being equivelent to the 85mm f/1.8 that is popular for portraits on full frames.

----

Basically, from what you have said, you have around $1750 to revamp your full lens lineup for a 1.6x DSLR. You've seem to have said you want to put 70&#37; of that budget into the telephoto range with the canon 70-200... OK. Just don't trap yourself into a 28-200 coverage limit on a 1.6x dslr.

Your setup should probably be:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP

You might also consider (if and only if you anticipate really wanting IS and not using your long lens as much or needing to travel light and appear lower key than the white 70-200mm monstronsity):
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX HSM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

[smalls]

Your setup should probably be:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP

The top two will certainly be included. I've wanted the big white one for a while and this poses the perfect opportunity. As you've said, the 50 is a gem of a lens, especially considering the price. The input on the various models is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Basically, from what you have said, you have around $1750 to revamp your full lens lineup for a 1.6x DSLR.

That's not entirely the case. I have about that much to help me revamp my lens lineup. Meaning, I want to purchase lenses that I will keep. I would like to have more flexibility, but I see this more as an opportunity to purchase a couple/few good pieces of glass that I will be fortunate enough to improve with. That's also why my question involved the flashes. I know that I will be using off camera flashes in the future. So if I can't find a third lens that I will keep for a long time (one reason I was drawn to the 28-105, and even moreso after your comments), I'd prefer to start getting the essentials for a lighting kit together.

That Tamron has piqued my interest though. I'm going to have to read more about it.

[summit]

My initial comments were based around the thought that you were shooting full frame. I used a 28-105mm when I first started shooting Canon 35mm film SLRs about 10 years ago.

I would NEVER recommend a 28-105 3.5-4.5 as a primary lightweight carry zoom for a 20D. It's like a full frame shooter deciding that a 45-170mm f/3.5-4.5 is their primary lens. It's not a general purpose zoom because you've cut out half the normal and all of the wide end. The aperture ranges on the 28-105 make a lot less sense when you apply a 1.6x to your shutter speed requirements. Again, I strongly recommend not limiting your widest focal length to a mere 28mm.

I have a 20D. I have a 70-200 2.8. I have 2 50mms, a 15mm, a 20mm, a 100mm, and a 105mm prime. But, my primary walk around lens is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

[anotherVTskibum]

I'll second the recommendation for the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Yeah, it's a Tamron, it's not an L lens, and it doesn't have IS like the Canon 17-55. However, it's one heck of a lens for the price, the focal range is awesome on a crop camera, and it can be had for less than $400 used. My lens collection (for my 20D) consists of the Tamron 17-50/2.8, a 50/1.8 MkII, and a Sigma 70-200/2.8 (well, those, and some crap that I don't use anymore that I should really sell), and I find the combo of those three lenses to cover most of the focal lengths I want most of the time. There are definitely times where I'd like some real tele glass, there are times where a true wide-angle (10-22 or the like) would be helpful, I'll probably buy a 90mm or 100mm macro in the next few months, and I really want a fisheye...but I consider those three lenses to be a very solid all-around setup. YMMV, but I find having a reasonable set of f/2.8-capable zooms to be damn near indispensable.

[smalls]

Well the new glass just arrived. I wound up going with the Tamron, the 70-200 2.8L and the 50/1.8 mk1. And I love them. The Tamron hunts quite a bit in low light, but other than that it is superb.

Thanks for the help.

[summit]

you made the right choice

now lets see pics!

congrats on the mk 1... that lens is freaking pure EOS AWESOME

[smalls]

got a chance to play with the new glass out at the barn recently and haven't gotten around to converting all of them yet.


still learning the nuances of B&W conversion


horse's eye view


the pup


last one

[truth]

That 3rd image is nice. I like the composition and it's sharp as a tack. I might try to darken the 2 tree trunks as they are distracting. Even when the background will be OOF you need to pay attention to it. What software are you using for your B&W conversions? The first one is a decent conversion, the last image has way too much filter applied.

[smalls]

As previously noted, I purchased the 50 1.8 mk1 awhile back. However, when it arrived at my door the box was completely beat to shit and much to my chagrin the lens was broken. So I returned the lens (props to KEH on this one), but they didn't have any mk1's availabe at the time of my return, and I needed at lowlight lens immediately. As such, I picked up the 50 1.4 and got a decent deal on it ($240), and I can't decide if I'm happy with it. I love it when I have a tripod and when I have time to manual focus, but otherwise i'm getting a lot of backfocusing. I know this is a fairly common problem with the 50/1.4 + 20d, but is there a way to fix it? Can I take in my camera to be calibrated with the lens?

Or... another 50/1.8mk1 just became available, but it's more spendy than I'd like ($180). Should I pick up the mk1, test it out, and return whichever I like least? Should I just return the 1.4 and get the mk1 (here's lookin' at you Summit)? Or should I sell some of my internal organs to pick up the 1.2 (seems the way to go, though I've developed somewhat of a rapport with them)?

My main problem is that there are only 7 days left in my return period for the 1.4. If I return it now, I'm guaranteed to get a refund. If I wait for the 1.8 to show up, it may be too late and I'll have to flip it on FM or somewhere else. Any advice would be helpful.

(edit: thanks truth. i was using PS elements while waiting for CS3 to ship and I really wasn't happy with the results. I'm a big fan of the built in B/W conversion integrated in CS3's RAW convertor. Here's one I'm happy with. Let me know what you think.)

[summit]

I believe Canon can tune the lens and camera to solve that issue.

For documentary work, all $$$ being equal, and since you already have a good lens lineup, the 1.4 is probably more usefull.

[midget]

OK< so I didn't feel like reading everything on this thread so forgive me if I've duplicated someone else's comments.

Now while you can go with something smaller like Tippster recoomended I'd go with a real soft box or umbrella. Now since you seem to need portability unless you plan on spending a lot of money with a battery powered studio strobe setup (and big and bulky) you can go with say 2 speedlights going into one soft box or umbrella and just put them pretty close to your subject.

I'd go with either Nikon speedlights as they have a pc sync cord built into them. Look at the SB-26, 28, 24, or 80 as you can find them in the $75-150 range used. They have a good amount of power for a compact speedlight, pc sync socket built in, built in optical slave (for remote triggering of flash without radios, or cables) and short flash durations which are necessary if you decide to use these to ever shoot sports.

Also you'll want one of the Canon flashes too (550EX minimum for digital) for the times when you need TTL or on-camera flash. Your choices if you are digital for that are limited to a 550EX, 580EX, 420EX. Only EX series Canon flashes work with the Canon DSLR's.

So, you'll also want a PC-Sync cord to go from your camera to your flash that's off-camera to fire the flashes that are setup with the umbrella/soft box. I'd suggest an umbrella no less than 36", soft box around the 24x36" size.

So, you'll need the flashes, an Umbrella or soft box, umbrella/flash bracket, roll or electrical tape to tape the flashes together, light stand, and a PC Sync cord.

Umbrella Bracket:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...i_Bracket.html

Convertable Umbrella (you can take the black backing off and shoot through it like a soft box, or keep the backing off, and bounce the flash like is traditionally done. Get a white one, not one with reflective material inside, the light is softer)

PC cord go here:
http://www.paramountcords.com/products.asp?cat=18

then custom make your cord to use 2 pc cord heads and how ever long of a a cable you need.

get an umbrella like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Umbrella.html

Hope that helps, pm me with questions if you have any

[Tippster]

You ever walk through a reception trailing a 36" soft box on a stand?

Yes, the light is amazing, but not exactly unobtrusive for "Documentary" work.

[midget]

haha, well i wasn't talking about a wedding or candids!
If he's taking the time to go off-camera flash then he'd want to take the time to make the light better.

That being said for weddings I'm pretty much all ambient except for the receptions. I've gone ape shit with lighting for those receptions recently but use a lot of bounce flash that's shoe mounted.