Forums > True Life Stories > lenses heeeeeelp
| Author | Comment |
|---|---|
 mia 310 posts |
|
 April Foster 7338 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 07:53AM
i LOVE my canon 50mm 1.4 I take pics of my animals all the time with it and it looks great. it's a fixed lens, so you can't adjust the focal length, but it has a low f-stop (the 1.4 #) so you get a great blur in the background I also love my Tamron 2.8. it's 25-78mm (i think). Caroline and Jenn Olson have the same lens, so they can speak to it. - April Foster |
 kathleen 1296 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 08:12AM
Hi Mia! I just sent you an email. I have a great article on Canon lenses, but I don't know how to add it to this post Good to hear you like your Tamron 25-78 April! That is one of three I'm looking at. |
 brains32192 8910 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 08:47AM
(have to agree with April...my Canon 50mm 1.4 is on my camera 95% of the time!) Nicole =)
|
 scrapally 2800 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 09:00AM
Yup - the 50mm 1.4 is a FAB lens. I totally LOOOOOVE mine. If you want a similar lens, but with less expense, you can also pick up the 50mm 1.8.
Basically, the difference between a 50 and 100 is how close the lens makes the subject look. If you are using a 100, then you can be further away from something and still see it close up in your lens. If you are using the 50, you have to physically be closer to the subject to see them with the same closeness as the 100.
The difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is how wide open (the aperture) the shutter will go. The smaller the number, the wider the shutter will open when taking a photo. The wider the opening of the shutter, the more light the lens will allow in naturally (hence you can shoot in less light and still get a clear photo). I will be honest though, unless you are fairly skilled, (and can afford the $300.00 for the 1.4 over the $75.00 for the 1.8), you may want to consider the 1.8. It will give you the same effects for a lot less money and the difference in clarity is really only noticed by us crazies.
If you want to spend around 400.00 you may want the 28-135 IS lens instead. It won't give you as much range in low light - but it will allow you to take those kitten photos and adjust the the focal length of the lens without physically moving yourself. - Scraps-R-Fun: The Blog |
 amy coose 881 posts |
|
 micheleomega 1016 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 09:03AM
hey, mia ... if you want to get close pictures without disturbing your subject, you'll need a GREATER focal length, not less. i'd say something that gets you to 200 or 300 mm might work better for you. here ... this is a good place to check out lenses and what their strengths are: and the good thing about a longer focal length is that it will give you greater bokeh (that "blurriness" behind the subject) when the subject is set apart from the background. - michele |
 Scarlet 3594 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 09:15AM
Mia, I also have the 100mm macro, and I love it! I use it for all of the close-up photos for the slideshows and galleries. My only complaint is that it is HEAVY, but that's because my other primary lens is the tiny 50mm f/1.4. Since you have already used this lens, you know how it feels. As the other ladies mentioned, you need a bigger distance between you and the subject when comparing the 100mm to the 60mm. Do you want a macro lens specifically, or are you just looking for a good everyday lens? - Scarlet Namvong
|
 amyrjoy 2981 posts |
|
|
mia 310 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 11:16AM
thank You all now its starting to make some sense I love my 100mm macro the only complaints i have about it is that sometimes the cats walks towards me and i miss the photo cause they are simply to colse plus its not focusing fast enough i do have a tele lens for taking photos on stuff far away so perhasp the 60mm is more what i do need?? |
 Caroline 2845 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 02:29PM
yep, like april said, i have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (and also the 50mm f1.8), which is on my camera about 90% of the time. it is sort of a macro lens (i think they call it "macro"), and allows me to get fairly close (WAY closer than my 50mm). but if you want to get SUPER close, an actual macro lens like the 100mm is probably better....but the 28-75 does what i need it to do :)
|
 Lisa 196 posts |
|
 Stephanie Homburg 374 posts |
|
 kirsty_wiseman 1747 posts |
|
|
scrapally 2800 posts |
Posted: Thu, Aug 21 2008 at 08:54PM
Oh heck, you can get blur at 2.8! Portrait mode is usually auto set around 5.6 so really anything below a 5.6 will give you some blur. The key difference is as Stephanie said, in the quality of the glass. But if you cannot afford the 1.4, the 1.8 will serve you well. I rarely go down to 1.4 when shooting because it is actually shallow of a depth of field - everything not on the same plane is blurred. For example, I can focus on a child's nose, but the lips and eyes will be blurry with that shallow of a depth of field at 1.4. The 1.4 allows in more light. However, 1.8 is still VERY good in low light situations. Just up your ISO. (and much of this matters very little if you are shooting on auto mode). If you shoot auto, there is no need for the 1.4. - Scraps-R-Fun: The Blog |
| Login or Register to comment. | |
I am looking to buy a new lens too. It can be very overwhelming!!! Good luck! 
I have a canon macro lens 100mm and my husband wants it back.. I love the lens except its a little slow and i cant go to close as i take a lot of photos of kittens the tend to walk towards me and want to be close it sometimes can get tricky , but when i manage to get them i love teh result, now my husband rekomended a ef 60mm how ever i am not very godo on cameras and i have no idea what the 100mm and 60mm stand for the price isnt much diffrent
can any one give me advice in this please
/mia