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
 
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.
 
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)
 
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
 
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
 
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!
 
Cleisthenes said:
What about the 35 art?
Click to expand...

It's right on the price I want to pay (haven't read about it yet) but my main concern is I may not have part of the focal length I need

For example that lens would leave me with

100mm macro L f2.8 for long.. This should be fine for that range?
50mm f1.8.. Would hopefully do for now
35mm f1.4.. The lens in question

What I don't know yet is if that is viable.
Particular concerns I have are

Missing focal length
Swapping of lenses

I'm definitely not saying no.. Primes and their usable wide apertures, nice bokeh and low light friendliness are very appealing

Say I go the prime route..
I suspect a second body would be ideal?
 
Been trying out my lenses today just to practice and get a feel for distance/size

My wide angle made some nice shots actually where the nearest parts of the subject are distorted.
I also tried my 100mm, long, only useful for outdoors but takes very nice head shots

Now the difficulty is the bit in between.
As said the 24-70mm would cover it perfectly.
The 17-55mm would also probably do.

The prime temptation is high tho.
As much for the shallow dof that won't be quite as nice as on a zoom

I think realistically it's
17-55mm
Or
Sigma 35mm f1.4 art

I don't think there would be any point in new 50mm as the 1.8 will do

Edit

That little sigma zoom is also interesting. Especially 1.8
There is mention of af inconsistency?
 
Last edited:
I think I'm swaying to the prime.
It seems like a once only purchase. As in I would not need another 35mm lens from what I read
Generally it seems better than the canon alternative or near as to not worry about it

Ok. I'm going to drop the 17-35mm. It's a bit of a narrow range Tbh.

So looks like it's between 17-55mm and 35mm
This is tough as they are different as opposed to 'better'

I really like those shots
They look sharp and accurate but real. The bokeh looks amazing!
 
Great pictures. Especially like the hearing gulls! Very cute!

Very good lens obviously especially on a zoom!

So if the both look good enough on image quality (they do from this thread) it's down to

The safe 17-55mm.
Will always be able to get a portrait shot
General purpose very good lens
Missing extreme bokeh
Missing some low light (compensated by IS)

The specific 35mm
At its range I will probably have nothing better
Amazing bokeh (this is hard to ignore tbh)
If I need a wider/narrower option it's lens change time
I'm not sure how I will get on with the specific focal length
 
Phal said:
Considering a 35mm prime but not a 18-35mm lens because it's not a big enough range seems a bit lol :P

Prior to having my 18-35mm lens, I had the canon 40mm stm lens and whilst I liked it, as Janesy mentioned, the focal length just wasn't that useful. At least with the 18-35mm you get a pretty sharp 35mm lens as well as 18mm and everything in between. I used the 18-35mm more in the first few months than I ever used the 40mm :\

The new Canon EF-S 24mm pancake could be worth checking as it's a better focal length for crop sensors but only F2.8
Click to expand...

I just don't see many people with this lens.
I thought that the range is so narrow I could just move my position.
It's not like the 17-55mm which basically spans 3 lenses and has is

I guess the benefit isn't so much the light benefit but the shallow dof
 
I do genuinely want opinions. I haven't really done any of this type of photography at all before
Before this thread I thought it was going to be 17-55mm but it has been hardly unanimous
Bugs, buildings, birds, zoos, is mainly what I have tried hence the thread.
Thus the gap in my lens collection is between 22mm and 100mm with only the 50mm 1.8 in there which I have hardly used

My head says a zoom as it's just easier
But I want the 35mm f1.4 just from some of the shots I have seen ( including in this thread)
The 18-35mm sits between the two and does a great job it seems
Same as 17-55mm with more range less aperture
The 24-70mm is very expensive

For this stuff I see use from the bottom to 100mm but with no priority to fill between 50 and 100
I think 50mm is a non priority coupled with my existing 50mm

So do I fill that range with a zoom
Or go artsy with a prime I might never sell but may be a frustration being fixed
 
Gonna make the decision this weekend. I still am on the fence

Reminds me of deciding between canon and tokina UWA but at least they were same lens!

Still torn by heart vs head
 
looks like you guys are mostly saying 17-55mm
its definitely the sensible choice
but i still would love a 1.4 prime

thanks for the offer to try it out, i dont really get down that way very often but if something comes up i would love to take you up on that offer.
 
CGrieves said:
I think there's your answer- you would love a 35mm prime. Get a 35mm prime. Get what you think will make you happy and give you the most enjoyment, not what is a "sensible" choice, or a choice for everyone else.

If you'd asked me a year ago I would have spouted on about the 17-55, because I was having a lot of fun with it.

Now I'm using a manual focus 12mm f2 and a 35mm f1.4 (on crop) and I rarely want to use anything else, I'm having so much fun with them.

I will say that for me the creative opportunities offered by f1.4 far outweigh the flexibility of a zoom, but that's just me.... and I may change my mind and all my gear in six month's time.
Click to expand...

This last line is what has me where I am.
The 35mm has that creative flare

At what aperture are pictures acceptable on the 17-55mm?
Same question on 35mm

Silly question but I would guess the prime not only starts wider but also works better at that point. A double bonus.

So you have both 17-55mm and 35mm?

Up until recently I was just interested in understanding using the camera, getting a sharp subject. Now I find myself thinking about background, thinking about bokeh, the thirds rule, I've even just learnt what bracketing is (HDR) and how to use that, white balance and picking it relevant to my situation.

Annoying I don't actually have a 35mm to physically gauge. I have to look at my 50mm, then my 22mm end of wide angle zoom and imagine the middle!
 
Last edited:
CGrieves said:
Just to clarify, I have the Canon 17-55 f2.8 for my 50D and the Fuji 35mm f1.4 on my X-E2. I don't have a Sigma 35 but I was close to pulling the pin on one.

The 17-55 is usable at any aperture, I didn't hesitate to use it wide open. As I say, the only real caveats were that it preferred distant subjects to close ones- 3m or less. Fine by me as I like landscape and architecture. Other than that (and it's not a big deal) it's an epic lens.

The Sigma 35mm Art is a fabulous, class leading optic at every aperture, and I think everyone here would agree. Use it at f1.4 and don't look back!

Speaking of sharpness, without wanting to sound like Ken Rockwell, it's not the whole story. I shot a friend's wedding a few years back, and my normal first phase of processing was to move out all the shots that weren't sharp into another folder. I processed and presented the sharp and pleasing ones. Fast forward three years or so and Google plus randomly decided to process (Auto Awesome) them for me today, and looking through the slideshow it gave me, some of the shots are really great, and came out of the ones I'd discarded. So I'm learning that sharpness isn't everything. Indeed, being in focus is nice, but isn't everything either.
Click to expand...

I actually stumbled across that Ken Rockwell (interesting website and strong opinions) sharpness article the other day

I like architecture, not so much landscape myself. My wide angle was bought solely for this initially. But I quite like it's creative distortion potential. My gf also likes the distorted pics it can produce at Super wide.

That big draw of the sigma being so good is strong in that if I get it, that's 35mm done. I won't need to think about upgrading it etc.

The intended use of this lens would be indoor shots where you don't know how much space (short focal length appeal) or light (good at full wide) is available.
With the 10-22mm I have to get extremely close. In regards to animals this may or may not be possible. Even with my dog. She doesn't really like that inches from face position.

Today my thoughts are trying to figure if 35mm @1.6x crop is viable for a small to large dog.
Or will it be to close
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom