Photographer Question
 

If you could only take one sub-$500 (EOS) lens with you for shooting models, what would it be?

depends on the camera body, whether FF or if you are dealing with a focal length magnifier due to smaller sensor.

if you can only buy one lens get the most versatile that you can do the most with.

and a sub $500 zoom won't be so good quality wise and won't be fast for low light work.

if it were me i would buy a fast standard lens (non-zoom) for the best optical quality for the buck---and i would probably buy it on ebay to save ever more.

go to www.fredmiranda.com for lens reviews.

the body is a 400d.. the rebel xti.

friend is trying to launch a solo site on a shoestring budget.. i was told the 50mm 1.8 might be ideal because it's so cheap and so fast?

i think the 400d is a 1.6 crop

Good informative read.. :thumbsup

these biz threads are necessary for the cause

I have that exact lense sitting on my desk on front of me, I dont think I have ever put it on my camera before tho.

It is a cheap lense.

The thing about buying a standard lens (not a zoom lens) is that you'll wear yourself out shooting model sets with that kind of lens. If you want a close up you have to walk-in, if you want a full length you have to walk-out (backup). Because you want a lot of variety in your picture sets, you'll constantly be moving in and moving out and this is a lot of work and will wear you out quickly. A zoom lens will allow you to zoom in for your closeup shots and zoom out for your full length shots and although you may still have to move around a bit - it won't be nearly as hard as shooting with a standard lens. The trade off is that a stardard lens usually has sharper glass with better contrast but unless your shooting super high-quality material - just about any zoom lens on the market will work for your needs. :thumbsup

sigma 24-70 / f2.8 ,if prime 50mm/ f1.4 or the 85mm/f1.8

good advice for this budget.

so fucking true

i used my 11-18 super wide angle lens yesterday and it takes some neat pics but dam it will wear your ass out!

i much prefer to shoot with the 18-70

Hmmm....if someones on a budget, then why even buy an SLR. More especially when shooting for a site. A good quality non SLR will more than do the do. Cheaper, zoom built in, lighter, just as many pixels (after all , how bigga pics are you posting?), easier to work with (you don't have to squint through the viewfinder but can compose on the viewing screen, and many of these can turn through 180°...so much better for funky angles). All decent ones have an external flash sync. And I defy anyone to point out the SLR against non SLR pics when side by side. If your friends really on a budget, his money might be better spent learning alittle about photography, as it'll save him from jumping in with his eyes closed. Baaa.

shootin' on a budget

thanks for all the pointers guys..

jt: there are a lot of things that an SLR are going to get you over a point & shoot in the ways of control. Dean is without a doubt one hundred times more equipped than I am to explain the finer points, but finer lighting control and much better quality flash (with an external Speedlite et al) comes to mind.

Dean, it was an honor to have your insight on this.. hopefully his site will take off and my next recommendation can be to hire a photographer that knows what he's doing, instead of trying to build the world's cheapest SLR kit, lol.

also 50mm/1.8 is a amazing lens espically when you consider the price. One of the sharpest.

yeah i just ordered the 50mm 1.8 for him.. but what Dean said about wearing out the photog is definitely a consideration... he just can't afford something IDEAL like the 17-40 L.

Studio, I just read this thread. Call me if you can 859 806-0521 Lee

Studio, I'm east coast, feel free to call until 5:00 am my time. :thumbsup

Maybe I should shut up because I am a Nikon Kid, but for most model shoots a 18 to 70 lens is a perfect solution. Specially if you shoot in hotel rooms or smaller studios, it will suit most situations. I have recently bought a 18-200 from Sigma and am not as happy with it. I rather use the 18-70 again.

I didn't see this until now.. I'll try to hit you up tomorrow.

While we have this thread getting views.. anyone looking to part with a 17-40 L, 16-35 L or anything similar (similar zoom, quality optics..) for a steep GFY discount? ;)

You there?

DON'T buy anything yet! Got a buddy deal for you ..... Call before 6:30 am EST, or after 2:00 pm Sunday. (Just missed you)

it was nice talking to you Lee.. thanks a lot man

No contest.

EF 28-135mm f/3.5 IS USM (effective 42-178mm on the 400D). $400 new.

I challenge anyone to find a better lens for less than $500. :2 cents:

Studiocritic, With respect...not true. As we know many point and shoot cameras have an external flash output, along with total manual of all functions. It's a marketing game, dividing the peeps into amateurs and professionals and then pushing the gear to egos and aspirations. All the best photographers work with point and shoot (Lei ca M series). The real test is 2 pics side by side....the Pepsi challenge for cameras. As our man is on a budget...he should let his head rule his wallet, not follow an artificially created snob market.

Interesting point of view.. but I'm not sure what makes you think that the best photogs shoot with a point & shoot.. check out photosig.com. You can search by camera/lens/etc.

For web work on a budget why not just use the 18-55mm kit lens? It's a "fair" quality lens but since you're reducing 10 megapixels to about half a megapixel (assuming about 800-850px on the longest side) most lens artifacts such as chromatic aberration or softness will not be visible.

If your friend has large hands then he may want to invest in a battery grip, as otherwise there's nowhere for your little finger to rest.

A good flash may also be a wise investment. If you use the internal flash, try wrapping a tissue over it to diffuse the light.

In my experience the kit lens isn't fast enough for most common lighting situations

Sure, but trying to get a girl's entire body in focus at f1.8 or even f2.5 isn't going to be easy... unless that's the look that is desired. :) That's why I suggested a flash, although that brings its own issues to the table. I generally use a single 580EX bounced off the ceiling - which prevents the deer caught in the headlights look - but that will probably be too heavy for a 400D (on my 350D it feels very unbalanced)

Studiocritic, OK that was a rash statement on my part. I guess my real point is that the gear (within certain confines) is all rather irrelevant. Experienced hands can produce great work with very ordinary equipment (more especially as the No of pixals is a constant). Because our friend is on a "shoe-string budget", then I would have thought it might be wiser to plump for non SLR gear and put the saved funds into the site. But then again, maybe some shoestrings are larger than others!

what he said. we also started our business with a Dimage 7 - and as long as you don't do high end photopraphy it works excellent. do your manual settings, attach an external flash or use strobes. with the non-slr cameras you usually also have a wider zoom range than with most of the zoom lenses

I'm looking at a 580EX also.. The 50mm 1.8 can obviously go higher aperture.. I just figured it'd get better sharpness from a prime lens than from a cheap zoom.

work flow issues my man . .. . what you spend on the DSLR you'll save on modeling fees . . .

and yes I can tell the dif in the images by the clarity and composition . .

any good kit from canon, sony or nikon will do the trick for about 600-800 usd with lens and a small card . . . these are bodies with a pop-up flash BTW . . . bmb

won't matter if ya can't see it and don't have the experience . .

shooting girls ya don't want wanna be to clear :)

In my experience the kit lens isn't fast enough for most common lighting situations: not true anymore with the faster asa that can be shot with the newer line of ccd and cmos chips on the market . . I regularly shoot at 800-1200 asa without any issues and I shoot with a 4mg camera at times with no probs too BTW

lol, for some reason increasing ISO slipped my mind completely, probably because I'm so used to shooting at 100. So yes, the basic kit lens that does f4.5-f5.6 will be useful, even without a flash.

studiocritic, using sharp primes is pointless if you're reducing the image down to a mere twentieth of its originally captured pixels. At that size you probably won't even notice the difference between the kit lens and a 50mm f1.8.

Wanton,
"and yes I can tell the dif in the images by the clarity and composition . .".
Wow, a self-composing camera....something for the musician trapped in the body of a photographer. For a pic on a website (probably less than 100Kb)..no you can't.

Sigma 30mm/f1.4 EX DC

sorry I forgot yer'r brilliant .. my apologizes (I can tell the dif by the forced use of the wide lens and the clarity)

the sigma 24-70 / f2.8 lens suggested is a great lens, i have it in Nikon mount and it works very well and is super sharp. My only "issue" with this glass is that it is not as fast on the autofocus as the Nikon glass..but that goes for any non nikon lens (or canon if youre a canon shooter).
Other than that, spend as much money as you can afford on the lens, dont go for a prime, trust me on that one..anything around 20-80 mm is fine.