lenses with good bokeh...

[boredphuck]

for 1.6x body, i would prefer 35mm as i can zoom in closer with feet. buying wider is better than buying narrow.. Overall, i would prefer a zoom to cover WA n Portraits for events. =)

I just went to check out the prices for the 35 f/2 and sigma 30. i would like to buy the canon but the pricing of the sigma is so much more attractive.

 

[boredphuck]

i was considering about 135mm before, but i afraid that it is quite long for indoors portraits. I get a zoom lens instead which is more versatile. However, i would get a prime 85mm if i am doing portraits, preferably still ones. Cheap n good lens with excellent bokeh.

135 on the crop sensor way too far already. outdoors also not practical. need a loudhailer to communicate. :bsmilie:

 

[boredphuck]

35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 would make a good combo, given you're using a 1.6x crop factor body. 50mm maybe a bit too near to 85mm in terms of focal length.

I guess whether u shoot with zoom lenses or prime lenses for portraiture depends on what you're covering, and personal preference also. Almost all of the non-L prime portrait lens give pretty good image quality, comparable to those obtained from an L zoom. L primes is another story altogether... ;p

thats what i was thinking as well. but look at the 35 non L. the quality ... :nono:

personally, i find my 85 actually gives better IQ than my 2 L zooms.

 

[boredphuck]

Not true. Telephoto lenses will have a shallow DOF by nature. The large aperture does help, but even with a 400 f/5.6 wide open, you will still get very shallow DOF and nice background blur.

Regarding the 35mm vs 50mm issue, it really depends. I have both, and for different situations I will choose different lenses. Sometimes the 35mm with a tight head-shot will give a perspective that is not too flattering, hence sometimes it's better to go with the 50mm, as it is similar to the human eye's perspective.

True but on the crop sensor the 50 becomes a 85 so the 30 or 35 gives the standard view instead.

 

[Halfmoon]

Almost all of the non-L prime portrait lens give pretty good image quality, comparable to those obtained from an L zoom. L primes is another story altogether... ;p

L Prime is in a TOTALLY different price range too!!! 1 L 35mm can get almost 4 non-L 35mm..... :bigeyes:

 

[unseenshadows]

L Prime is in a TOTALLY different price range too!!! 1 L 35mm can get almost 4 non-L 35mm..... :bigeyes:

To quote Homer Simpson: "Doh!"

 

[calebk]

I just went to check out the prices for the 35 f/2 and sigma 30. i would like to buy the canon but the pricing of the sigma is so much more attractive.

How much were you quoted for the Sigma?

Why I went for the 35 f/2 instead is because the Sigma is the antithesis of a general purpose, lightweight, bring-anywhere-you-want lens. It's fat and heavy.

 

[Snoweagle]

that was a typo, i mean large aperture is not so critical for telephoto lens to achieve gd background blur.

Yupz, so the amount of bokeh is depending on the distance between your subject and u, and between the background too.

 

[Snoweagle]

I just went to check out the prices for the 35 f/2 and sigma 30. i would like to buy the canon but the pricing of the sigma is so much more attractive.

3rd party lens prices are always more attractive (other than Carl Zeiss and Leica), but they often do not exhibit the quality in general as compared to originals of the same class.

 

[boredphuck]

How much were you quoted for the Sigma?

Why I went for the 35 f/2 instead is because the Sigma is the antithesis of a general purpose, lightweight, bring-anywhere-you-want lens. It's fat and heavy.

the sigma was 750? I was fine that the lens may not be as light as the canon. IQ is more or less what i am most concerned abt.

sorry. the 35 is cheaper than the sigma. its the 28 that is more expensive. haha.

 

[boredphuck]

3rd party lens prices are always more attractive (other than Carl Zeiss and Leica), but they often do not exhibit the quality in general as compared to originals of the same class.

true but so far sigma lenses seems to be the 3rd party that comes close to matching or surpassing canon lenses.

 

[xunjas]

I just went to check out the prices for the 35 f/2 and sigma 30. i would like to buy the canon but the pricing of the sigma is so much more attractive.

I would still choose canon, cos the build, the image quality and value and resale value are much better.. =)

 

[xunjas]

135 on the crop sensor way too far already. outdoors also not practical. need a loudhailer to communicate. :bsmilie:

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[xunjas]

true but so far sigma lenses seems to be the 3rd party that comes close to matching or surpassing canon lenses.

Canon would be much more better than Sigma products.. Canon has L series..

 

[xunjas]

3rd party lens prices are always more attractive (other than Carl Zeiss and Leica), but they often do not exhibit the quality in general as compared to originals of the same class.

i agree, even reviews on Canon lens esp L series have much better review and rating than third party lens. =)

 

[Garion]

L Prime is in a TOTALLY different price range too!!! 1 L 35mm can get almost 4 non-L 35mm..... :bigeyes:

Yes the pricing is nuts. :sweat:

Fantastic image quality (and bokeh), definitely YES. But is it worth the pricing to purchase? That is up to you to decide. Simply put, 2k-3k is still a LOT of money to dump on a single lens. If you are using it on daily basis to make money from assignments, sure. (or if you are a bokeh and IQ obsessed nut that gotta have the best no matter what ) But if not, a non-L version does the job almost as well and at a fraction of the price.

I think L lenses are great, but really not worth all that extra dough to spend especially if you are just a hobbyist...that money can be put to better use elsewhere. Just my 2 cts worth.

 

[boredphuck]

I would still choose canon, cos the build, the image quality and value and resale value are much better.. =)

L lens la. the consumer series is so so only.

 

[boredphuck]

Canon would be much more better than Sigma products.. Canon has L series..

L series is the TXWD series leh. :bsmilie:

 

[unseenshadows]

I disagree. Sure, L lenses give better contrast, colours and sharper images = better overall image quality, but that is not to say that mid-consumer grade lenses such as the EF 28-135 IS USM, EF 100-300 IS USM can't produce good and sharp images. 'so so' does not justify the quality of images they produce, especially if put into the hands of someone who knows how to work around their limitations.

 

[xunjas]

L lens la. the consumer series is so so only.

the L lens are top notch products in design and specifications. =)