Jump to content


Photo

Canon 400d Which Lens


7 replies to this topic

#1 Loula

Loula

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:11 PM

sad.gif Hi, I am very new to the world of photography and am very much impressed by this site. My husband me a bought a Canon EOS 400 D with the 18-55 mm lens. I now want to buy a lens, primarily to take photos, indoors and out doors, of my little ones who are very fast (some posed and other of them just playing and doing whatever comes natural)
Many thanks to any one help.
Regards
Louise smile.gif

#2 markgoldstein

markgoldstein

    Super Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 17 March 2007 - 07:59 PM

Hi Louise,

I would have thought your current lens would be OK - just increase the ISO to 800 and you should be able to get a fast enough shutter speed.
Mark Goldstein
Editor, PhotographyBLOG

#3 Jonathan Harrowven

Jonathan Harrowven

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Location:Norfolk
  • Interests:Photography, Walking, Cycling

Posted 18 March 2007 - 08:53 PM

Hi Louise

I would tend to agree with Mark.

I used the 18-55mm lens for about two years, it is well capable of some great photos!
If you really want a bit more range and quality then I can recommend the EF-S 17-85mm. It is equivilent to the L-series lens and is great for portrait work.

Hope you get on well! Great camera!

Jon smile.gif

www.harrowvenphotography.co.uk

#4 Loula

Loula

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 11:57 AM

biggrin.gif Thank you guys great help biggrin.gif smile.gif

#5 pacificphoto

pacificphoto

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,411 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 01:48 PM

As an addition to any Canon line, I recommend the 50mm 1.8 II. This is pin sharp and very inexpensive. Read the rave reviews about it on fredmiranda.com. I also recommend the 28-135mm IS, which can help you get shots at slower shutter speeds than you might not normally use. That's my workhorse lense. Hardly ever leaves the camera. --Chris

#6 shutterbug

shutterbug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 02:55 AM

Chris,

I checked out the lense you are using most (the 28-135). I found one that has image stabilization and 3.5 is widest aperture. Costco sells it fror $420. Does this sound like yours?

I am super curious about this lens because I have been looking to upgrade, however, the lens I really want is $1200 (24-70 f 2.8).

My photography is very different from yours in that I shoot in an in home studio environment taking portrait style photos. Do you think this lens would work well in this scenario. I typically shoot with the 50mm 1.8 lens you mentioned above which I like because my aperture is normally around 2.5, 3.2+ when more people are in the shot. I love a blurry background.

My photography is purely a hobby for now. Some day I may branch out in a little side businesss, however, can't quit my day job if you know what I mean. Having said that, the $1200 lens would be a completely unjustifiable splurge - but.....sometimes I just can't resist! But, I digress...

$420 is something I can wrap my mind around, so I guess my question is, if you were shooting portrait style photography - would you use this lens or slap the 50mm on instead??

Thanks for your advice. I have been admiring your work for some time and appreciate and value your opinion

Melissa

#7 pacificphoto

pacificphoto

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,411 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 05:13 AM

I have read somewhere or other, that a 50mm lens doesn't compress perspective enough, and therefore some people don't like how big their noses look if used in a portrait. I've heard that around 80 to 85 mm is perfect for a portrait, for the same reasons.

The reason I got the lens with the IS is that I have developed a very slight shake in recent years, and I needed the added stabilization when not using a tripod. If you shoot in a studio setting with your camera on a tripod, you won't need the IS. I'd say investigate third party lenses. Tamron is supposed to make a lens (forget the spread, but it's similar to the 28-135) that's highly praised by its user, but is actually cheaper than the Canon.

As with cameras, lenses come in so many varieties, you really do have to specialize it for your needs, and ignore others' needs. Myself, I haven't been sorry about getting my 28-135, but I have noticed myself over-trusting the IS sometimes, and not taking my time, thereby getting unnecessary shake.

Best of luck with the search.

--Chris

#8 pacificphoto

pacificphoto

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,411 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 05:25 AM

Melissa,

I re-read what I wrote and realized I didn't actually address one of your questions. Yes, that one you mentioned that you can get at Costco, that is the same as I got. I got mine through Sears. It arrived in perfect working order. I amazed myself right away by taking hand held shots at 1/30 of a second that were sharper than my old 18-55 could do (I traded that one in with my 350 when I got my 400).
--Chris

P.S. the price you quoted sounds great. I would use that lens with weddings because you can very quickly reframe in lots of perspectives.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users