What Camera would typical Amateur Photographers upgrade to for next level ??

[JohnJon82]

While I fully agree that the person behind the camera is important. How important is debatable, many say more important than the camera, some say equally important and many say you can not win with a Hyundai in the race of Porsche.

However, what I and many like me experienced is, You being the same person with same photographic skill .. different camera produce different results. It is grossly unfair to say that people has money and hence they spend on expensive gear ... NO, they see the glaring difference in their own photos and feels that upgrade is justified.

However, when you master the DSLR, naturally your skill improves and you can take better pictures with your PnS.

Agree agree. Great work = Great skill + Great Tool

A photographer's skill being the constant, better camera produce better work.

 

[WhaleGaga]

Hi all,

I would like to seek advice on lens upgrade.

Wish List
Set A
EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (1.9K - based on New Grey Set)

Set B
EF17-40mm f/4L USM (1k - based on New Grey Set)
EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM (1.5k - based on New Grey Set)


My current portrait shooting style is as follows.

I still have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II for low light or large aperture.
I also have EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM but I think the whole lot will screw me for wasting time on this lens. lolx


Seems that F2.8 and below is redundant. Lolx
I have to agree that it is still recommended to have F2.8 minimum.

Yes, I am switching to EF Lens but then again, I really doubt I'm those non-flash fellow shooter after all.
What do you guys think? Set A or Set B?

I've spoken to a friend of mine, who've seen my pictures and recommended EF35mm f/2 & EF50mm f/1.4 USM


Hmmm ................

 

[avsquare]

Hi all,

I would like to seek advice on lens upgrade.

Wish List
Set A
EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (1.9K - based on New Grey Set)

Set B
EF17-40mm f/4L USM (1k - based on New Grey Set)
EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM (1.5k - based on New Grey Set)


My current portrait shooting style is as follows.

I still have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II for low light or large aperture.
I also have EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM but I think the whole lot will screw me for wasting time on this lens. lolx


Seems that F2.8 and below is redundant. Lolx
I have to agree that it is still recommended to have F2.8 minimum.

Yes, I am switching to EF Lens but then again, I really doubt I'm those non-flash fellow shooter after all.
What do you guys think? Set A or Set B?

I've spoken to a friend of mine, who've seen my pictures and recommended EF35mm f/2 & EF50mm f/1.4 USM


Hmmm ................

lolx I am at a loss on what to recommend after reading your post lolx..

You doesn't seem to know what you need, what wide aperture lens is for and I have having difficulty in understanding your English (no offense).

You've mentioned lens upgrade, but you didn't mention what lens you have?

From what I see, you seems to do portrait/studio shoots, maybe you can also consider investing more lighting/strobbing equiments instead of lens? Lighting looks flat especially for picture #2

Do you shoot with 1 light, on-axis?

 

[WhaleGaga]

haha,

Why at a loss?

Either Set A or B based on the picture seen. If my friend can recommend lens, I'm sure others will.


i) Yup, I didn't seem to know what I need is because I do not have much issue with EF-S15-85 on my current 450D set up. It can serve either tele-zoom or wide. Only downside is F3.5-5.6.
That is okay with me because most of my picture doesn't really suggest dof effects. But since I wanted to switch to EF lens. Gotta start from somewhere and not compromise the after-effects.
I'm considering F2.8 and below is because I might practice room portraiture w/o using much lights. The large aperture will come in handy.
Easier to understand now? lolx.

Anyway sorry, my bad on my language. didn't do well in school Lolx.


ii) This thread is started by me, existing lens was long mentioned, perhaps you thought I'm a new guy who gatecrash in?
Anyway just to refresh.

I own 3 lens so far
- EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II
- EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

That is why I came up with set A or set B. I want to replace the 15-85 with either (16-35) or (17-40+70-200) set.
This is purely a fight between lower cost and loss of larger aperture.


iii) The picture is indeed taken with 1 light/ on-axis. Some people does comment on the flatness, why never add back light etc ..... but it is generally acceptable and I am pretty happy with the outcome. Of course there's room for improvement.

Hope this explains the confusion.

No offenses at all. Owning a Camera is like driving a Car or simply just buying a mobile phone. Sure have people shoot here or there, very common.
It's the end product we're all interested in, inbetween is of course the investment.... and that is where advice is greatly appreciated.

 

[SkyStrike]

Looking at the pics and what you want... I don't quite see why your 50 f 1.8 cannot give you the shallow dof.

If you really want the shallow dof on crop, I suggest looking into primes of f1.x

 

[WhaleGaga]

I confess ... I seldom use 50mm f1.8 ... mostly is cropped from 15-85mm

I want to start training using 50mm f1.8 thou but I wish to retain the wide angle feel.
50mm f1.8 is not gonna give me that.

I might have to switch lens inbetween the shoots, and it's habit I don't usually practice.

So I am more or less into 16-35 or 17-40, only dof stands in the way. I gotta decide if it is important to me.
I top up additional 600 bucks and I can get 17-40 + 70-200 F4 as compared to 16-35 F2.8.

70-200 F4 gives a reasonable dof too. Then again it's back to switching lens inbetween the shoots.

Most importantly of all, all of the above lens can still be used when I switch to FF.

15-85 won't be able to achieve that.

 

[twitism]

I confess ... I seldom use 50mm f1.8 ... mostly is cropped from 15-85mm

I want to start training using 50mm f1.8 thou but I wish to retain the wide angle feel.
50mm f1.8 is not gonna give me that.

I might have to switch lens inbetween the shoots, and it's habit I don't usually practice.

So I am more or less into 16-35 or 17-40, only dof stands in the way. I gotta decide if it is important to me.
I top up additional 600 bucks and I can get 17-40 + 70-200 F4 as compared to 16-35 F2.8.

70-200 F4 gives a reasonable dof too. Then again it's back to switching lens inbetween the shoots.

Most importantly of all, all of the above lens can still be used when I switch to FF.

15-85 won't be able to achieve that.

pardon me, but i just browsed through the posts here, but based on what you have written... seems u more or less know what you want alr?

u dont' really want to change lens in between shoots and you don't wish to lose the wide angle so just go for the 16-35?

 

[WhaleGaga]

Looking at the pics and what you want... I don't quite see why your 50 f 1.8 cannot give you the shallow dof.

If you really want the shallow dof on crop, I suggest looking into primes of f1.x

May I check how do you overcome shaky images when using f2.0 and below?
Slow shooting or tripods?

It can be a good solution that I am seeking for natural light/ room.

 

[WhaleGaga]

pardon me, but i just browsed through the posts here, but based on what you have written... seems u more or less know what you want alr?

u dont' really want to change lens in between shoots and you don't wish to lose the wide angle so just go for the 16-35?

Yah,

You're right but think of it another way.

16-35 - wide angle, no fight but wait, 17-40 can do it too.

17-40 F4 can have almost give a forgivable effect as 16-35 F2.8 for dop. (Seriousy, we're not gonna use close to F2.8 unless you either have to use a tripod or you have the arms of Aronld S. .... gonna shake like hell + the load of the Cameras.) But there's always gonna be someone who can do that

70-200 F4 can give a fight for $$$ 16-35 F2.8 can give for dop? Remember 16-35 is limited to 35mm and 200mm ... well ... additional points to think about.

So the price of combined (17-40 + 70-200) vs 16-35 ... That's where I'm coming from. I for sure will go for 16-35 but not when I think too much about pros and cons lolx.

 

[avsquare]

haha,

Why at a loss?

Either Set A or B based on the picture seen. If my friend can recommend lens, I'm sure others will.


i) Yup, I didn't seem to know what I need is because I do not have much issue with EF-S15-85 on my current 450D set up. It can serve either tele-zoom or wide. Only downside is F3.5-5.6.
That is okay with me because most of my picture doesn't really suggest dof effects. But since I wanted to switch to EF lens. Gotta start from somewhere and not compromise the after-effects.
I'm considering F2.8 and below is because I might practice room portraiture w/o using much lights. The large aperture will come in handy.
Easier to understand now? lolx.

Anyway sorry, my bad on my language. didn't do well in school Lolx.


ii) This thread is started by me, existing lens was long mentioned, perhaps you thought I'm a new guy who gatecrash in?
Anyway just to refresh.

I own 3 lens so far
- EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II
- EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

That is why I came up with set A or set B. I want to replace the 15-85 with either (16-35) or (17-40+70-200) set.
This is purely a fight between lower cost and loss of larger aperture.


iii) The picture is indeed taken with 1 light/ on-axis. Some people does comment on the flatness, why never add back light etc ..... but it is generally acceptable and I am pretty happy with the outcome. Of course there's room for improvement.

Hope this explains the confusion.

No offenses at all. Owning a Camera is like driving a Car or simply just buying a mobile phone. Sure have people shoot here or there, very common.
It's the end product we're all interested in, inbetween is of course the investment.... and that is where advice is greatly appreciated.

Hmm I see. Yeah, I thought your question was a different question ("gatecrash"), cos this thread was really really long :bsmilie:

Ok. Going into EF line of lens and shooting portraiture and "room" portraiture, which means tight spaces, you may wish to focus on anything that is 50mm and below.

The next question comes - you intend to stay on crop, or has intention to move towards FF? If crop, sell 15-85 for 17-55 since you feel that f/3.5-5.6 is a downside. 17-55 has f/2.8 constant aperture which gives you some low light capability and bokeh for your portraiture. If you find it expensive, consider Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. If going to FF, you can consider picking up a 24-70L (new or 2nd hand). This lens is a primary workhorse of many FF users.

I see you already have a 50mm f/1.8 - it comes very handy in low light situation especially if you want to shoot inside a room using natural lighting. If you stay on crop, I strongly urge you to consider for another fast prime, cos 50mm is like 80mm on FF. Inside a normal room, it's very tight IMO, unless all you do is head/half-body shots. You can consider the EF 35mm f/2 or if not, Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I would have picked the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for the 1-stop wider aperture. More light and more delicious bokeh IMO.

I sense that you are likely to stay on crop (and moving to FF is FREAKING EXPENSIVE), my personal suggested line up, in summary:
- EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 OR Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (VC or non-VC, your call).
- EF 50mm f/1.8 (which you already own)
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4

It should give you a good kick start.


As for lighting - it's perfectly fine with 1 light, but it is still possible to go off axis (off hot-shoe). Try playing around with the angle you fire your flash from, you may be delight it can make an immediate impact to your pictures. Quoting one of the famous saying "to create interesting light, you need to create interesting shadow". Shooting on-axis creates a flat lighting since both sides of the face is equally illuminated. Shift abit, cast some shadows for more interesting pictures

 

[kelchew]

Yah,

You're right but think of it another way.

16-35 - wide angle, no fight but wait, 17-40 can do it too.

17-40 F4 can have almost give a forgivable effect as 16-35 F2.8 for dop. (Seriousy, we're not gonna use close to F2.8 unless you either have to use a tripod or you have the arms of Aronld S. .... gonna shake like hell + the load of the Cameras.) But there's always gonna be someone who can do that

70-200 F4 can give a fight for $$$ 16-35 F2.8 can give for dop? Remember 16-35 is limited to 35mm and 200mm ... well ... additional points to think about.

So the price of combined (17-40 + 70-200) vs 16-35 ... That's where I'm coming from. I for sure will go for 16-35 but not when I think too much about pros and cons lolx.

sorry dont understand this part, if you using a f2.8, yr s.speed will be faster and why you still need to have a tripod, when you dont need, when using f4? (is it becos the lens is more heavy?)

 

[Gigarex]

Yah,

(Seriousy, we're not gonna use close to F2.8 unless you either have to use a tripod or you have the arms of Aronld S. .... gonna shake like hell + the load of the Cameras.)

Erm, I think you need to go back to basics and understand the 3 key control functions of a DSLR, which is Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. The bigger the Aperture (e.g. f1.4), the more the light can enter, given time is a constant, against a smaller aperture (e.g. f4). In a nutshell, the smaller the F-stop, the faster you can up your shutter speed and hence, less likelihood of blur pictures caused by handshakes. You logic seems to be reversed.

Please correct me if I had misundertood your remarks about hands shaking if you are referring instead to the weight issue of a f2.8L lenses. Then, you are not wrong to say that generally, an f2.8 usually weighs more than an f4. But how long do you have to hold the entire camera up to frame your shots? I have arms like Popeye's girfriend, but i have no problem handling some of the 2.8 lenses.

 

[WhaleGaga]

sorry dont understand this part, if you using a f2.8, yr s.speed will be faster and why you still need to have a tripod, when you dont need, when using f4? (is it becos the lens is more heavy?)

its more of personal preference. i tot being at f2.8-4 is much more comfortable for me than at f1.8 n bigger.
the bigger e aperture, e more u need to focus correctly. i might get brighter picts but no necessarily sharper ones. so havg a firm grip n aim is important to me. if not, i rather go easy on dof. less thing to worry on
i'm sharg views from a beginner point of view. i'll b surprised if u tell me u started shooting using primes lens of f1.x n bodies like 5dmii etc as a beginner.

hope dat clarifies my explainatn. its a personal preference issue.

 

[avsquare]

its more of personal preference. i tot being at f2.8-4 is much more comfortable for me than at f1.8 n bigger.
the bigger e aperture, e more u need to focus correctly. i might get brighter picts but no necessarily sharper ones. so havg a firm grip n aim is important to me. if not, i rather go easy on dof. less thing to worry on
i'm sharg views from a beginner point of view. i'll b surprised if u tell me u started shooting using primes lens of f1.x n bodies like 5dmii etc as a beginner.

hope dat clarifies my explainatn. its a personal preference issue.

note: having wide aperture lens doesn't means you need to always shoot at widest aperture. you can stop down the aperture. but if you buy a small aperture lens, you don't have the option of opening it up when you need it. that's kind of one of the reason why people buy bright lens.. not to spam at f/1.2 or f/1.4, but because it allows them to shoot at such apertures when they want or need to

 

[WhaleGaga]

note: having wide aperture lens doesn't means you need to always shoot at widest aperture. you can stop down the aperture. but if you buy a small aperture lens, you don't have the option of opening it up when you need it. that's kind of one of the reason why people buy bright lens.. not to spam at f/1.2 or f/1.4, but because it allows them to shoot at such apertures when they want or need to

u gotta learn to balance cost vs practical needs. my style of shoot might not required a f2.8 lens dat badly thru its good to have. dat is y i toying with 17-40 + 70-200 = 16-35.
f4 in my opinion isn't dat bad. just need to ensure iso is high n still sharp enough for low light shoots.

 

[WhaleGaga]

Erm, I think you need to go back to basics and understand the 3 key control functions of a DSLR, which is Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. The bigger the Aperture (e.g. f1.4), the more the light can enter, given time is a constant, against a smaller aperture (e.g. f4). In a nutshell, the smaller the F-stop, the faster you can up your shutter speed and hence, less likelihood of blur pictures caused by handshakes. You logic seems to be reversed.

Please correct me if I had misundertood your remarks about hands shaking if you are referring instead to the weight issue of a f2.8L lenses. Then, you are not wrong to say that generally, an f2.8 usually weighs more than an f4. But how long do you have to hold the entire camera up to frame your shots? I have arms like Popeye's girfriend, but i have no problem handling some of the 2.8 lenses.

holy cow, must have said wrong things. lolx.
yup, its the weight i referg to. for framing picts depends wat ure shooting. i take portrait n i might stand there for ages just trying to get a good shot. so it depends really.

 

[avsquare]

u gotta learn to balance cost vs practical needs. my style of shoot might not required a f2.8 lens dat badly thru its good to have. dat is y i toying with 17-40 + 70-200 = 16-35.
f4 in my opinion isn't dat bad. just need to ensure iso is high n still sharp enough for low light shoots.

erm, that's why my recommendation of either EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to complement your EF 50mm f/1.8?

The above lens still cost less than 16-35L II or 17-40L and 70-200L combined. Cost savings + f/2.8 and below. Best of both worlds.

 

[WhaleGaga]

erm, that's why my recommendation of either EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to complement your EF 50mm f/1.8?

The above lens still cost less than 16-35L II or 17-40L and 70-200L combined. Cost savings + f/2.8 and below. Best of both worlds.

i undstd yr recommendatn but i will stop buying EF-S lens. need to think long term as well.

 

[avsquare]

i undstd yr recommendatn but i will stop buying EF-S lens. need to think long term as well.

Then you can try Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 + EF 24-105mm f/4L (buy those from kit set, very cheap). Both usable on crop and FF. Crop gives you 19.2mm - 168mm coverage, and no overlapping. Cost? If both buy new, it's the same as 16-35L II.

 

[WhaleGaga]

Then you can try Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 + EF 24-105mm f/4L (buy those from kit set, very cheap). Both usable on crop and FF. Crop gives you 19.2mm - 168mm coverage, and no overlapping. Cost? If both buy new, it's the same as 16-35L II.

u really do ur hwork well. lolx. thx a lot