Wide Angle Vs larger aperture....

peanutismint · 17 Jun 2011 at 03:11

I'm still a relative photographic beginner, but I think I'm ready to expand my lens collection. I started with my camera's stock 18-55 lens, then purchased a second hand 70-300m telephoto which is great for wildlife photos.

I'm now trying to decide which type of lens to purchase next to keep fanning the creative flame - I've done a bit of live music photography and I notice people use wide angle lenses, especially in smaller, cramped music venues, something along the lines of a 10-20mm lens. My other option is that my friend has a fixed 50mm lens that goes down to 1.4 which takes some stunning close-up photos with a great shallow depth-of-field. Does anybody have any suggestions on either of these kind of lenses? Are there any wide angle lenses that go down to that kind of aperture?? Or is that combination technically impossible??

mangobreeder · 17 Jun 2011 at 06:52

get the 50mm, with the crop factor on your camera, and F1.4, is a great combination.

may i suggest if you a beginner, that you work on technique first, to get better photos, rather than thinking the lens does the hard work

canon do a 14mm f2.8 L II , which is nearly 2k

feriso · 17 Jun 2011 at 10:26

I'll second that; once you've worked on yout technique you then find out what the limits of your current lenses are and why you need new lenses and what to use them for - NEVER buy them 'just because'.

If you want to try things like your mate then try your hand at using a 50mm f/1.8; quite a bit cheaper and you'll get the hang of using a prime before splashing out on a 1.4 (£70 vs £270)

Raymond Lin · 17 Jun 2011 at 12:20

You can get 24mm 1.4....abotu £1.5k

That's the widest you can get that fits both criteria.

mangobreeder · 17 Jun 2011 at 12:44

feriso said:
NEVER buy them 'just because'.

quoted for truth

I'm dying to buy a 70-200L, i have the money, but every time. go to get it that little voice in my head says, but you never shoot long.

feriso · 17 Jun 2011 at 13:24

mangobreeder said:
quoted for truth

I'm dying to buy a 70-200L, i have the money, but every time. go to get it that little voice in my head says, but you never shoot long.

It was the same for me, then I started doing shows photo shoots where I needed a long lens and the one I borrows from a friend was slow and suffered from CA so I had a need for lens of that length that was 'reasonably wide'. So my budget was set by my bonus hence I got the 70-200L; now having never owned an L before I took some shots and went :eek:

peanutismint · 17 Jun 2011 at 16:43

Thanks for the input guys; I feel I may have undersold my ability somewhat.... I am a 'relative' beginner, relative to a pro who takes photos for a living and carries two or three cameras with them at all time! :-)

But I am very comfortable using my friend's 50mm f/1.4, so wouldn't necessarily be buying 'just because'.

I was just wondering if there were any lenses that would fit both criterias but, as I expected, the ones that do are well out of my price range. I think I'd probably be happier sticking with my 18-55mm for cramped rock venues and maybe investing in a nice prime lens like a a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 for general outdoors-y stuff. If I end up doing a lot more gig photography I'll think about investing in a wide-angle too.

While I'm asking, what do you guys think about buying 1st/3rd party lenses? Is there much difference between, say, Sigma stock of lenses against the proper Canon or Nikon lenses? The price is obviously different, but I can only expect the mechanisms/glass suffers as a result of that.......??

neil_g · 17 Jun 2011 at 16:47

the sigma 50mm 1.4 gets better reviews than the canon, its sharper than the canon wide open and has a better AF motor system.

feriso · 17 Jun 2011 at 17:12

True, each lens has it's merit. I have a Canon, tamron and a sigma, all because they are the best for buck in their respective areas.

ElDude · 17 Jun 2011 at 18:11

I've got the 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and it's awesome. TOTALLY worth the price in my opinion. I wouldn't get the Canon one unless money is extremely limited (and lets face it, when isn't it these days), but it's still worth the extra dosh for me. Canon rumours site is starting to show rumours of a new Canon 1.4 next year, so unless you desperately need the 50mm1.4 it may be worth waiting a year to see what that lens is like.

100% kid by Niall Allen, on Flickr

That's with the 30D, and it's my favourite shot with it so far. Best viewed in the largest size on Flickr

In a week I'm off for two weeks, and I've just got the 60D so I'll be scooting about with it again on a new body for nerdy photo fun

mangobreeder · 17 Jun 2011 at 18:56

feriso said:
It was the same for me, then I started doing shows photo shoots where I needed a long lens and the one I borrows from a friend was slow and suffered from CA so I had a need for lens of that length that was 'reasonably wide'. So my budget was set by my bonus hence I got the 70-200L; now having never owned an L before I took some shots and went

i think i will get one one day, but at the moment, i just don't need the lens, so the £900 is sitting in the demijohn, and just keeps increasing until i find a lens i need.

if i keep this up, ill be able to get a TS lens