Lens for animals (pets) portrait - aps-c canon

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,192
Location
Llaneirwg
So the inevitable has come. I've been asked by a few people to take pictures of their pets and I don't have a lens that is really appropriate

My macro 100mm l IS 2.8 is far too long most of the time
My 50mm isn't really versatile enough

Is my only real option the 17-55mm f2.8 is?

This would likely be indoor and out
 
Guess it depends whether you're trying to do portraits or just shots of them running about?

the 50mm might still be a bit long for anything indoors on a crop camera but outdoors I would have thought it was fine if the pet isn't running at you all the time.
 
It would likely be both. That's why I thought this was the best/only option
Anything else would probably need another lens in addition to 17-55mm anyway?

ie better bokeh indoors with a 35mm prime with wider aperture.

Would that be a correct assumption?
 
I think the 24-70 would be too long and is significantly more expensive.
Would be the choice at full frame I feel

Would a 17-55mm be best to start
Then maybe a good 35mm or 50mm prime later?

I don't think I could get just a prime initially as I may be times that I need range.
 
The new 24mm STM might be something to consider if it's going to be like the 40mm STM

Cheap, very small and sharp :)
 
Pets tend to move a lot, so my first suggestion for indoor shooting would be a large aperture prime, provided you and the cam can nail focus with a narrow DOF.

With a zoom you're talking f2.8 (Sigma aside), so you'll probably be using high ISOs or flash indoors. Now I'm a flash novice admittedly, but even experimenting with diffusers, bounce and off-camera, I never got good pet results with a flash.
 
Alternatively perhaps a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (crop only) and a Canon/Sigma 50mm f/1.4. With the Sigma zoom you gain some extra light but lose out on IS.
 
Yeah that's one issue with the 17-55mm. I wonder if I need a bigger usable aperture
Would you say you need the 17-55mm f2.8 +other primes is really the question I guess


Or at the very least Until I got primes (if I like this)
 
al4x said:
Yeah that's one issue with the 17-55mm. I wonder if I need a bigger usable aperture
Would you say you need the 17-55mm f2.8 +other primes is really the question I guess


Or at the very least Until I got primes (if I like this)
Click to expand...

Do you have a zoom lens already like the kit lens etc? Do you know what kinds of focal lengths you'd want before you pick one that's sharper or faster etc?

Might be worth trying one out from somewhere to see what you want out of the lens first and they're dirt cheap :)
 
No, all I have in that bracket is nifty 50
That's why I thought at least this would show me what I should look to get
Only range missing would be 55 to 100mm with this
 
I have a 10-22 for really wide stuff but obviously not a lens for this stuff, too slow.

The 24-70 someone mentioned is effectively 38mm on aps-c and I thought too long at the bottom and the 17-55mm might have the opposite problem being quite far away from 100mm
The 70-200mm would obviously cover anything long really well but I probably wouldn't need my sigma (if I even keep it)
To me those are the zoom options with only the 17-55mm really an option

Primes.. There are loads.
A short and long might Not be enough coverage? That I am not sure about
 
Why would the 10-22mm be too slow? Too wide maybe but too slow? F3.5 to 4.5 is fast enough for pets unless you're doing low light romantic shoots with the pets or playing Frisbee in the dark? :P

You planning on doing action shots or something?
 
I was thinking more for indoors.

It seems most love the actual iq of the 17-55mm f2.8. The IS is a nice benefit (it makes so much difference on my 100mm L it's unbelievable)
Saying that I thought the 24-70 was much more expensive than it is, but lacks is

I think the first decision is between these two
The extra top end of the 24-70 vs the 'traditional' range of 17-55mm + IS
I dunno if 10-22mm is appropriate. I forsee these close shots being indoors, and thus, exactly where you want IS + wide aperture

Tough
 
al4x said:
I was thinking more for indoors.

It seems most love the actual iq of the 17-55mm f2.8. The IS is a nice benefit (it makes so much difference on my 100mm L it's unbelievable)
Saying that I thought the 24-70 was much more expensive than it is, but lacks is

I think the first decision is between these two
The extra top end of the 24-70 vs the 'traditional' range of 17-55mm + IS
I dunno if 10-22mm is appropriate. I forsee these close shots being indoors, and thus, exactly where you want IS + wide aperture

Tough
Click to expand...
The Tamron 24-70 has IS, it's called VC on their lens.
 
al4x said:
I was thinking more for indoors.

It seems most love the actual iq of the 17-55mm f2.8. The IS is a nice benefit (it makes so much difference on my 100mm L it's unbelievable)
Saying that I thought the 24-70 was much more expensive than it is, but lacks is

I think the first decision is between these two
The extra top end of the 24-70 vs the 'traditional' range of 17-55mm + IS
I dunno if 10-22mm is appropriate. I forsee these close shots being indoors, and thus, exactly where you want IS + wide aperture

Tough
Click to expand...

I think if you're looking to do anything indoors then you'll want to look at lighting too if you're looking at lenses. It's rare I shoot indoors but if I did then some flashyness + decent lighting would definitely be required to get anything that really looks good.
 
I'll probably stick to Canon lenses in this case. I don't see the tamron mentioned too much. The stabilisation is appealing if it works well

Yep, I expect for indoor I will need a dedicated flash. Almost no flash experience here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom