Choosing a lens

[Rexxar]

Hi All,

Looking for some advice on choosing a new lens,

It's Mostly portrait / city shots that i take, wanting to throw the background out a little to focus on the subject...

I've looked at the Canon 17-40 F4 L, as well as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

Which would be the better lens for what i use it for? It'd be paired to a 60d if that makes any difference...

Thanks in advance for anyone's input

 

[Raymond Lin]

What do you want to shoot more?

The answer give you a focal range/length.

That answer will lead you to a choice of lenses.

Depending on budget, it will give you your answer.

There are other questions like do you want to go Full Frame down the line?

Do you mind selling up and swapping over to EF lenses if you do? Or even say swapping a lens for a different focal length, i.e. 24-70 now instead of 17-40.

 

[Auraomega]

I'd say a fast prime like the 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) would be ideal for portraiture, and possibly a wider prime for situations where 50mm provides too narrow a field of view on the 60D; if you're doing candid shots you'll find not having a gigantic lens strapped to your camera will make life easier as you'll go from being a 'big scary pro' to 'just another tourist'

 

[Rexxar]

Current lenses limited to a 17-85mm EF-S and a 50mm 1.8

24-70 would have to be the sigma variant as i simply can't justify almost £2k on a single lens.

I mainly want to shoot street photography, with some portrait work occasionally.

My major considerations are, light, low aperture, and good quality.

Full frame probably won't be for many years as i don't shoot professionally so i don't see the necessity at this moment, however, going for any of the lenses mentioned should be fine if i did make the move to full frame with the exception of the 17-85 ?

Budget is really £800-900...

I do like the 70-200, but get the feeling i would be very "detached" from my subject using that kind of focal length? Glad you've replied Ray! Thanks.

I'd say a fast prime like the 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) would be ideal for portraiture, and possibly a wider prime for situations where 50mm provides too narrow a field of view on the 60D; if you're doing candid shots you'll find not having a gigantic lens strapped to your camera will make life easier as you'll go from being a 'big scary pro' to 'just another tourist'

That is a good point, but i do want a zoom for situations where i can't move myself (Big fan of moving me, vs' zooming if i can avoid it)

 

[Auraomega]

(Big fan of moving me, vs' zooming if i can avoid it)

Good habit to get into. The 70-200 is a great lens however you'll find on a crop body you'll get quite a distance between you and your subject for portraiture (I personally prefer a close and 'intimate' photo than one at a distance), I think telephotos are ideal when you can't get closer, but not otherwise. Again personal preference really.

Also don't rule out full frame just because you don't shoot professionally... most of us on here just get the full frame itch and upgrade, not necessarily because we're earning any real amount out of it.

 

[Nexus]

70-200 range is excellent for portraiture as its very flattering, aside from the fantastic separation you get with a shallow depth of field. I've seen some portraiture photographers who say they wouldn't shoot with anything else.

As you've already spotted yourself though, its not really a street photography lens. You aren't as close to your subject, the lenses are big and in the case of Canon aren't even remotely discrete.

 

[a1ex2001]

Current lenses limited to a 17-85mm EF-S and a 50mm 1.8

24-70 would have to be the sigma variant as i simply can't justify almost £2k on a single lens.

I mainly want to shoot street photography, with some portrait work occasionally.

My major considerations are, light, low aperture, and good quality.

Full frame probably won't be for many years as i don't shoot professionally so i don't see the necessity at this moment, however, going for any of the lenses mentioned should be fine if i did make the move to full frame with the exception of the 17-85 ?

Budget is really £800-900...

I do like the 70-200, but get the feeling i would be very "detached" from my subject using that kind of focal length? Glad you've replied Ray! Thanks.




That is a good point, but i do want a zoom for situations where i can't move myself (Big fan of moving me, vs' zooming if i can avoid it)

You need to look at how your using you existing lenses and what it is you want to do that they are currently not allowing or holding you back on. The only reason I'd be considering the 70-200 is if your always finding yourself right around the end of the zoom on yout kit lens and craving more length or a faster aperture. If not the your money would be better off spent somewhere else improving the focal lengths you use most so something like the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 is. If you want a slightly curve ball suggestion for portraits/street work on a crop body you could do a lot worse than a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 it's tack sharp in the bit of the lens you use on a crop and covers quite a useful range for portraits/street.

 

[Rexxar]

Thanks for the input so far all, helps narrow it down slightly.

I think i'll discount the 17-40 for the moment as it's "only" f4 and i have the 17-85 for wide stuff anyway...

So that's the competition between the two sigma's , 70-200 or the 24-70 , both f2.8 which is a must (Low-Light, night shots etc...)

Has anyone owned/used both that can give an opinion? With the wide end of the 70-200, i'd only be about 1.5m away from my subject , though that is a whole 1.1m more than the 24-70!

Hmm maybe it isnt as clear-cut as i'd hoped, think the only way forward is to try them both in a shop and see which i prefer

 

[Raymond Lin]

24-70 are a very different lens to 70-200.

I am still not sure you know what you want.

At 1.5m away from the subject, with the 70-200 you will be getting should/head shots to just the forehead.

Personally I think it is very clear cut as they are very different lenses.

 

[Rexxar]

24-70 are a very different lens to 70-200.

I am still not sure you know what you want.

At 1.5m away from the subject, with the 70-200 you will be getting should/head shots to just the forehead.

Personally I think it is very clear cut as they are very different lenses.

I think you're right Ray, I'm not 100% On what i want at the moment.

If it's mostly street work and candid portraits, which would you say was the best working lens from experience?