Author Topic: If you could only shoot micro with one lens, which would it be? (Read 35404 times)

Suljo · « **Reply #50 on:** May 23, 2010, 20:18 »

Sigma 17-70mm F2,4-4 macro starts at 2 cm

pet_chia · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2010, 21:37 »

Been shooting everything with the Canon 50mm f/1.8, after doing tests comparing it to 18-55mm kit lens. I find it has good sharpness and minimal chromatic aberration, especially shooting in studio on bright white background. I've also been shooting outdoors with it and I didn't find the fixed focal length as limiting as you might think.

I would like a fixed focal lens with a bit more magnification however, as many shots would benefit from the flatter perspective. The 50mm is I think equivalent to about 85mm on my T2i. Something over 100mm effective FL would be useful, if its sharpness and CA are good.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #52 on:** May 23, 2010, 21:43 »

Quote from: Zeus on May 23, 2010, 10:20

Quote from: Lee Torrens on May 23, 2010, 04:29

As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?

The extra stop cosst a lot. Take for example the 70-200; the f/4 and f/2.8 vary widely in price. Have all the same features except aperture. I think the f/4 is slightly sharper. I used to have the f/2.8 in this series but sold it for a f/4. Again for me the extra stop wasn't as important as the smaller size and convenience. 2.8 is great in the studio but on the road it's a PITA.

+1

Funny thing I sold my 70-200 IS USM f/2.8 and bought a 70-200 F/4 (non-IS), with the extra money I got a 24-105 and some other things. Whether the tests say the f/4 is sharper or the same, I can't see any difference and that's good enough for me. I will also point out that I can shoot it hand held easier, all day long, and it fits into the bag better.

24-105 is my walk around lens, which fits with the general consensus of the thread.

Crop camera

Depending on what you shoot, and if it's a full frame or crop... I'd say either of these (or any of the 70-200 variations) are the best one.

Megastock · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2010, 22:41 »

I'd go with the 24-105 f/4 as well for my goto lens (on a crop body). I find with the extra few mm I don't pull out the 70-200mm as much, so this lens pretty much stays on my camera unless I'm doing something that requires a macro lens...

ann · « **Reply #54 on:** May 23, 2010, 23:54 »

Quote from: leaf on May 22, 2010, 04:35

If you were forced to do a microstock shoot with only one lens, which one would you pick?

I am starting to look at primes more recently and thinking they might be a good choice for shooting micro, but if I was forced to shoot with only one lens I think I would be tempted to go with a zoom. Perhaps the 24-70 f/2.8 That way I could get some nice wide angle shots as well as have a decent portrait lens and get good diffused backgrounds using f/2.8

That said I also really like the 70-200 f/2.8 but if I was only using one lens I think I would really want a wide angle.

How about you?

well, to stick with lenses I have -
   for practicality's sake:
Nikon 18-200 /3.5-5.6 DX (or)
Nikon 24-70 /2.8 ED
   but my heart would miss:
Nikon 14-24 /2.8 ED

   and I'd love to have (afford):
Nikon 70-200 /2.8 ED

basti · « **Reply #55 on:** May 24, 2010, 01:21 »

Definitely Zuiko 12-60/2,8-3,5 - there is no other zoom with such versatile range and superb optics.

FD · « **Reply #56 on:** May 24, 2010, 04:54 »

Quote from: Caz on May 23, 2010, 14:49

I use my Canon 24-70 (but I do hate the CA I get with that)

I'm glad you mention CA. I found it to be surprisingly high for a lens of that price, especially visible on black peaky hair on a blown out white background. I thought it would be much less. It's easily solved in the RAW DPP of Canon though. Apart from that, it's a very heavy lens.

stormchaser · « **Reply #57 on:** May 24, 2010, 13:38 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 22, 2010, 07:44

Tamron 28-75 2.8

I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.

Here too. Best bang for the buck. I know a few wedding shooters who have multples of this lens because it easily fits in their budget..

VB inc · « **Reply #58 on:** May 24, 2010, 14:10 »

Quote from: stormchaser on May 24, 2010, 13:38

Quote from: elvinstar on May 22, 2010, 07:44
Tamron 28-75 2.8

I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.

Here too. Best bang for the buck. I know a few wedding shooters who have multples of this lens because it easily fits in their budget..

after doing some extensive research on price and sharpness... i bought this lens for my canon and is extremely happy with it

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #59 on:** May 25, 2010, 13:21 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on May 23, 2010, 04:29

As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?

If you need rapid auto focus having twice as much light reaching the AF sensors makes it work faster, so if you were shooting nature or wildlife you would want the wider lens (but probably a longer one, too). For portraits you may want shallow DoF.

I do most of my shooting with a standard length macro lens.

travelstock · « **Reply #60 on:** May 25, 2010, 14:05 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2010, 13:21

Quote from: Lee Torrens on May 23, 2010, 04:29
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?

If you need rapid auto focus having twice as much light reaching the AF sensors makes it work faster, so if you were shooting nature or wildlife you would want the wider lens (but probably a longer one, too). For portraits you may want shallow DoF.

I do most of my shooting with a standard length macro lens.

I've found also that in general the faster lenses tend to give more consistent and accurate AF results as well as being faster.

ap · « **Reply #61 on:** May 25, 2010, 15:00 »

for my nikon d700, i found the tamron 90mm 2.8 macro to be really versatile. it does macro, portraits, studio, tight landscapes. it's lightweight and fast. i also like the nikkor 50mm 1.8 (super fast), but obviously can't do macro as well.

however, i found the nikkor 200mm 2.8 vrII to be the best all around lens for when i'm outside, trying to sneak up on animals (or even people), events, sports, etc. the picture quality is truly wonderful. it's only drawback is its heaviness and inability to shoot closer than 3 ft.

peolsen · « **Reply #62 on:** June 01, 2010, 17:57 »

About the Canon 24-105 F4L... I own the 24-70 but thought I'd prefer the weight and range of the 24-105. Did a two-week swap with a fellow photog to try it out. Found that the distortion (both close in and wide) was loads worse than what I was used to from the 24-70 (which only has some distortion zoomed out wide). Also, in the end I decided I preferred the wider aperture to the IS. So no final swap. Now I'm thinking I'll end up with the 17-40 F4L and the 100 F2.8 IS Macro. And possibly the 50mm F1.8II because it's dead cheap, light and nice to have indoors in poor light.

leaf · « **Reply #63 on:** June 01, 2010, 18:21 »

Quote from: peolsen on June 01, 2010, 17:57

About the Canon 24-105 F4L... I own the 24-70 but thought I'd prefer the weight and range of the 24-105. Did a two-week swap with a fellow photog to try it out. Found that the distortion (both close in and wide) was loads worse than what I was used to from the 24-70 (which only has some distortion zoomed out wide). Also, in the end I decided I preferred the wider aperture to the IS. So no final swap. Now I'm thinking I'll end up with the 17-40 F4L and the 100 F2.8 IS Macro. And possibly the 50mm F1.8II because it's dead cheap, light and nice to have indoors in poor light.

if you like the 2.8 series lenses why don't you go for the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 instead

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #64 on:** June 01, 2010, 18:57 »

While I have a large collection of nice L glass I would most probably pick a Canon EF 50mm 1.4 if I must only shoot with one lens.

Dan_Wiedemann · « **Reply #65 on:** September 28, 2010, 19:45 »

It really depends what and where you shoot.

If you shoot people in a studio, like me, I'd say the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM.

SNP · « **Reply #66 on:** September 28, 2010, 20:22 »

I would shoot with my 35 MM, f/2...it is by far my favourite lens

crazychristina · « **Reply #67 on:** September 28, 2010, 20:31 »

Most of my current work is with my Pentax 50mm macro on a 1.5 crop body. If I had to go with just one though it would probably be the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 LTD, which is slightly more versatile for most of the work I do (food photography).

However, I'm thinking of changing to MF with the Pentax 645D. If I do that I'll be using only the 55mm lens, which works out to be the equivalent of about 45mm on a 35mm FF camera, due to the sensor on the 645D being a crop sensor.

shotupdave · « **Reply #68 on:** September 28, 2010, 20:43 »

Quote from: scoutingstock on May 22, 2010, 06:53

Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks

Actually a 2x crop factor would make it a 48-240mm. MY D90 and D300 have a crop factor of 1.5x so my 50mm comes out close to a 85mm.

Some of the Canons have a crop factor of 1.3 and 1.6 I believe so you would multiply by those factors to the lenses.

MatHayward · « **Reply #69 on:** September 28, 2010, 20:50 »

Great thread, I'm glad it's been revisited.

Of course like most I use several different lenses for different things but if I were forced to give up all but one for microstock I would have to keep the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L

My style of photography is reasonably "in your face" so I can get a nice portrait when up close and personal or a nice shot that shows the environment really well. It's a fast lens and super sharp.

That being said, if I didn't have my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS I would be very sad as I use it about as much as the 16-35.

I have been playing with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro lens more recently as well and I've been using it in place of the 70-200 sometimes as it is faster and sharper.

Have a good one!

Mat

luissantos84 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 28, 2010, 21:46 »

yes it is a nice topic!.. I need to buy a new lens.. anyone have the 18-200 from nikon?? the latest version..?

travelstock · « **Reply #71 on:** September 28, 2010, 23:47 »

Quote from: shotupdave on September 28, 2010, 20:43

Quote from: scoutingstock on May 22, 2010, 06:53
Correction... The Olympus 24-120 is actually a 11-60 with a 2X factor due to the four thirds system's chip size.. Thanks

Actually a 2x crop factor would make it a 48-240mm. MY D90 and D300 have a crop factor of 1.5x so my 50mm comes out close to a 85mm.

Some of the Canons have a crop factor of 1.3 and 1.6 I believe so you would multiply by those factors to the lenses.

Its actually a 12-60mm (24-105 equivalent), and regardless a very nice lens.

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #72 on:** September 29, 2010, 08:02 »

This one is completely out of left field.

Leica R 35 1.4. I had to file down the back metal of the lens so it fits the 5D II but together with the shortest extension tube from canon is my ultimate one lens solution for pictures and video. Out of focus softness is nothing like you have ever seen. Shoot wide open as you like. Being fixed to 1/30s exposure with video you can shoot at available darkness levels at base ISO. No funny colors around contrasty borders. LOVE IT.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #73 on:** September 29, 2010, 10:01 »

For my Olympus, ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 is the one I use most of the time.

Except a prime for macros: ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro.
But I am thinking about adding a ZUIKO DIGITAL 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5, for wide angle architectural photography

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #74 on:** November 05, 2010, 17:23 »

I'm with Race. My favorite lens for shooting lifestyle.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: If you could only shoot micro with one lens, which would it be? (Read 35404 times)

Suljo

pet_chia

RacePhoto

Megastock

ann

basti

FD

stormchaser

VB inc

BaldricksTrousers

travelstock

ap

peolsen

leaf

Konstantin Sutyagin

Dan_Wiedemann

SNP

crazychristina

shotupdave

MatHayward

luissantos84

travelstock

Read_My_Rights

microstockphoto.co.uk

Jonathan Ross

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors