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

al4x said:
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
Click to expand...
Did you create this thread to reaffirm your decision on the Canon 17-55 IS (which is a cracking lens no doubt), or did you want actual feedback that you would consider? My money is on the former.

I have a question though, have you shot indoor portraits of people before? If you have then they are not much different to pets apart from you won't be needing a huge space to do a full length shot and you can get away with using a 10-22mm as the distortion can be fun. Otherwise pick a moderate zoom 17-55 or 24-70 and be done with it as you won't have the versatility otherwise. Yes you lose the quality of the bokeh but honestly 99% of people won't care because they aren't pixel peepers they are pet owners who probably love their animals.
 
al4x said:
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
Click to expand...


There aren't many people with it because it's APS-C only so won't go on a full frame and it isn't particular cheap so a lot of people are put off there.

The focus range is narrow but it's a whole lot more than on a prime ;) Yes you could move to recompose but then again you can say that about any lens? You could move and recompose with the lenses you have already ;)

The EF-S 17-55 F2.8 is definitely a good lens and I doubt you'd regret buying it but then again I doubt you'd regret buying the 18-35mm either :)
 
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
 
I haven't had anything betweem 35mm and 100mm for a while now and I can't say I've really missed it! Then again the only thing I've ever had in that range was the 40mm which was just inside it and my original kit lens was 18-135mm but I always preferred the sharpness from my other lenses.

Covering every single focal length isn't a necessity and sometimes you can get better shots from not using the 'obvious' lens :)
 
You've got the wide and tele ends covered in your 10-22/100/120-300. Something versatile in the middle would fit well with what you have described. The 35mm art is sublime (wouldn't part with mine) but consider a degree of versatility you may need.
 
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
 
17-55 or 24-70mm, I don't like short lenses for portraits and if the animal is moving around and you want to do action shots they are a pain.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
al4x said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could always buy a cheap 35mm prime to see how you like the length? or just set the 17-55mm to 35mm and pretend? :P lol
 
al4x said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
al4x said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
I use my 17-55 at f/2.8 95% of the time. If I don't use it at 2.8 it's to get more things in focus rather than having to step down because of CA or focusing problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom