Hi, after your opinion, i normally fish rivers so space is never an issue so which of the 2 lens is better, btw most of my shots are after dark if that makes a difference, appreciate any advice
In reply to Post #1
What body will you be using?
What body will you be using?
In reply to Post #1
If most of your shots are after dark you might be better off with the 35. You can get closer to the subject with the 35 which means you can get your light source (which you'll defo need to get real good shots) closer without interfering with the shot.
Downside, I believe the Canon 35 is significantly more expensive than the 50. Like 3 times the price
. The results will not be 3 times better. The 50 will give great results for very little $$$.
If most of your shots are after dark you might be better off with the 35. You can get closer to the subject with the 35 which means you can get your light source (which you'll defo need to get real good shots) closer without interfering with the shot.
Downside, I believe the Canon 35 is significantly more expensive than the 50. Like 3 times the price
. The results will not be 3 times better. The 50 will give great results for very little $$$.
I'm currently using a 40mm 2.8 that came up cheap s/h.
Anything decent between 50 and 35 will do the job just fine.
Anything decent between 50 and 35 will do the job just fine.
In reply to Post #3
I'd actually go with the 50 for flash shots, moving the flash further away lessens the difference between subject-background illumination and will help avoid blown out fish
I'd actually go with the 50 for flash shots, moving the flash further away lessens the difference between subject-background illumination and will help avoid blown out fish
In reply to Post #5
Fair comment, and one that highlights the importance of selecting the correct backdrop which I find is more challenging than the issue with finding room to use the 50 which I hear people mention a lot. I used the 50 for some time and never once had an issue with room. Currently use a 32 and not noticed any difference between subject-background illumination - but I can't say I've looked for one. Defo something I will look at going forward.
I would defo say that if we consider price, the 50 is a no brainer.
Fair comment, and one that highlights the importance of selecting the correct backdrop which I find is more challenging than the issue with finding room to use the 50 which I hear people mention a lot. I used the 50 for some time and never once had an issue with room. Currently use a 32 and not noticed any difference between subject-background illumination - but I can't say I've looked for one. Defo something I will look at going forward.
I would defo say that if we consider price, the 50 is a no brainer.
In reply to Post #6
For capture shots ive been using a Yongnuo 35mm on a Canon body, switched from a Canon nifty fifty which seemed to have AF locking issues and caused no ends of problems when doing self takes.... decent results with the 35mm at a good price
For capture shots ive been using a Yongnuo 35mm on a Canon body, switched from a Canon nifty fifty which seemed to have AF locking issues and caused no ends of problems when doing self takes.... decent results with the 35mm at a good price
In reply to Post #2
Canon 600D
Canon 600D
In reply to Post #8
Have a look at the magnificent 24mm Pancake lens. A stunning lens for trophy shots. On the 600D you will get you and the fish in easily with the camera only 4 feet away. Flat field, high resolution. Honestly it is stunning.
Link
Have a look at the magnificent 24mm Pancake lens. A stunning lens for trophy shots. On the 600D you will get you and the fish in easily with the camera only 4 feet away. Flat field, high resolution. Honestly it is stunning.
Link
In reply to Post #7
Ive heard good and bad things about those yongnuo lens,
Ive heard good and bad things about those yongnuo lens,
In reply to Post #6
This ain't the thread to go in depth with it but the difference will be there. If you want to dissappear down an Internet wormhole tap 'inverse square law, photography' into your search engine of choice. Those just starting to get to grips with camera settings would do themselves a favour by ignoring this!
This ain't the thread to go in depth with it but the difference will be there. If you want to dissappear down an Internet wormhole tap 'inverse square law, photography' into your search engine of choice. Those just starting to get to grips with camera settings would do themselves a favour by ignoring this!
Apologies to the OP but I'm going to go temporarily off-topic. Sort of.
Canon announced this week that will not be releasing any more DSLR ( EF/EF-S) mount lenses. So basically the current range is all you get, the DSLR mount is now abandoned. All new lenses will be mirorless (R) mount.
Nikon introduced their mirrorless (Z) mount. With 13 new Z lenses in the pipeline and I think just 1 or 2 DSLR (F) mount lenses planned, I think a similar announcement will soon come from them (if they haven't done it already).
So basically it's no longer a question of if DSLR will die, but when. It'll take years and years to disappear so nowt to worry about yet for anyone already invested in DSLR tech, and there's adaptors out there to use all the old DSLR mount lenses on the new mirrorless cameras. BUT, there are no adaptors to use the new mirorless lenses on the old DSLR cameras.
With the above in mind, I liken the purchase of a DSLR today to buying a PS3 after the PS4 has been released (bit of a crap analogy but you get my drift).
There's been a few posts recently asking about what camera/lens to get and they're all asking about DSLR. Now I'm pretty sure that this is because many just don't realise the situation. You'd not know any of the above unless you keep a reasonably close eye on the camera world. The impact right now is pretty insignificant unless you're hoping/waiting for a new DSLR lens to be released, but that will change over the coming years.
The logical thing to do (imo) is buy mirrorless, which are now coming down in price. You can then use all future lenses AND the old lenses with an adaptor. Where with DSLR, all the new lenses cannot be used.
I didn't mean this post to be this long and thinking about it I probs should have started a new thread (again, sorry to the OP) but there you go lol.
Canon announced this week that will not be releasing any more DSLR ( EF/EF-S) mount lenses. So basically the current range is all you get, the DSLR mount is now abandoned. All new lenses will be mirorless (R) mount.
Nikon introduced their mirrorless (Z) mount. With 13 new Z lenses in the pipeline and I think just 1 or 2 DSLR (F) mount lenses planned, I think a similar announcement will soon come from them (if they haven't done it already).
So basically it's no longer a question of if DSLR will die, but when. It'll take years and years to disappear so nowt to worry about yet for anyone already invested in DSLR tech, and there's adaptors out there to use all the old DSLR mount lenses on the new mirrorless cameras. BUT, there are no adaptors to use the new mirorless lenses on the old DSLR cameras.
With the above in mind, I liken the purchase of a DSLR today to buying a PS3 after the PS4 has been released (bit of a crap analogy but you get my drift).
There's been a few posts recently asking about what camera/lens to get and they're all asking about DSLR. Now I'm pretty sure that this is because many just don't realise the situation. You'd not know any of the above unless you keep a reasonably close eye on the camera world. The impact right now is pretty insignificant unless you're hoping/waiting for a new DSLR lens to be released, but that will change over the coming years.
The logical thing to do (imo) is buy mirrorless, which are now coming down in price. You can then use all future lenses AND the old lenses with an adaptor. Where with DSLR, all the new lenses cannot be used.
I didn't mean this post to be this long and thinking about it I probs should have started a new thread (again, sorry to the OP) but there you go lol.
In reply to Post #11
tap 'inverse square law, photography' into your search engine of choice.
I did that, and found an article that demonstrated your point regarding flash/distance perfectly. Nice one.
tap 'inverse square law, photography' into your search engine of choice.
I did that, and found an article that demonstrated your point regarding flash/distance perfectly. Nice one.
In reply to Post #13
I think we're still a fair while away from those lenses being obsolete, since you can easily adapt them to mirrorless, and even get more out of them using speedboosters. but it will come to a point where most aren't considered good enough when the megapixels make another jump, which won't be far away given 8k tvs are round the corner. I'd expect 36+mp to be the norm inside 10yrs
I think we're still a fair while away from those lenses being obsolete, since you can easily adapt them to mirrorless, and even get more out of them using speedboosters. but it will come to a point where most aren't considered good enough when the megapixels make another jump, which won't be far away given 8k tvs are round the corner. I'd expect 36+mp to be the norm inside 10yrs
In reply to Post #14
Tbh I was more concerned by those buying cameras than lenses but you make another good point.
Tbh I was more concerned by those buying cameras than lenses but you make another good point.
In reply to Post #12
As a very casual DSLR user (D5600) who is still learning and investing in better kit I honestly no nothing about mirrorless cameras and the differences etc. Hopefully by the sounds of it it's a problem that's many years away and I can keep on as is with my DSLR
As a very casual DSLR user (D5600) who is still learning and investing in better kit I honestly no nothing about mirrorless cameras and the differences etc. Hopefully by the sounds of it it's a problem that's many years away and I can keep on as is with my DSLR
In reply to Post #16
The difference is mirorless projects the image directly onto the cameras sensor instead of via a mirror. This allows cameras to be manufactured much smaller and opens up new possibilities with regards to tech/performance. In terms of use there'e no difference.
There is no problem in the short term but as said, the mounts are now redundant for new lenses. Defo worth considering if you're investing in better kit.
The difference is mirorless projects the image directly onto the cameras sensor instead of via a mirror. This allows cameras to be manufactured much smaller and opens up new possibilities with regards to tech/performance. In terms of use there'e no difference.
There is no problem in the short term but as said, the mounts are now redundant for new lenses. Defo worth considering if you're investing in better kit.
In reply to Post #9
I use the 24mm lens on my 700d with flip screen and love it . You can get nice and close and I use a couple of rhino type lamps at night and more than happy with the results 👍
I use the 24mm lens on my 700d with flip screen and love it . You can get nice and close and I use a couple of rhino type lamps at night and more than happy with the results 👍
No one need Image stabilising then?
In reply to Post #19
I'm used to the camera doing the stabilising, can't say it would ever used for a trophy shot though
I'm used to the camera doing the stabilising, can't say it would ever used for a trophy shot though
In reply to Post #20
Yeah I have a cannon 50mm 1.4, and as good as it is, on the tripod. I wish it had image stability.
Slower shutter speeds not so great when hand held. Probably just me shakey..
Yeah I have a cannon 50mm 1.4, and as good as it is, on the tripod. I wish it had image stability.
Slower shutter speeds not so great when hand held. Probably just me shakey..
In reply to Post #21
I'm so used to in body stabilisation I couldn't do without it now. I've only got one lens with ois and that is always turned off as the body does a better job.
I'm so used to in body stabilisation I couldn't do without it now. I've only got one lens with ois and that is always turned off as the body does a better job.
In reply to Post #21
Quite surprising that with a fast lens like a 1.4. Have you tried bumping the ISO up slightly? With more modern sensors you can go quite high before the quality suffers.
Quite surprising that with a fast lens like a 1.4. Have you tried bumping the ISO up slightly? With more modern sensors you can go quite high before the quality suffers.
In reply to Post #23
7D getting on a bit now.
7D getting on a bit now.
Hi All
Thought resurrecting this better than creating a new thread -
When using a 50mm lens at night, do you always look to have a background or are you happy without? I am talking about trees, something more solid then a pathway behind you!
I use a night light so lighting isn't an issue.
Thought resurrecting this better than creating a new thread -
When using a 50mm lens at night, do you always look to have a background or are you happy without? I am talking about trees, something more solid then a pathway behind you!
I use a night light so lighting isn't an issue.
In reply to Post #25
I always look to have a background at night, otherwise you just appear in a big black void.
I always look to have a background at night, otherwise you just appear in a big black void.
In reply to Post #26
That's what I thought, cheers for the reply.
Some swims will be a squeeze but sure I will manage.
Cheers
That's what I thought, cheers for the reply.
Some swims will be a squeeze but sure I will manage.
Cheers
In reply to Post #10
One of my go-to lenses is the 24/70 Sony GM. As a wedding photographer, it's my bread and butter lens by I use it for fishing a lot. It's not super fast at f2.8 but if you know about topaz denoise you won't be too concerned about stupidly high ISO levels. I love the versatility of tight shots and also going wide without the faff of swapping out lenses being the lazy bugger that I am. I also love my portrait lens the 85mm f1.4, that's pretty magical. It requires you to focus with the feet but the bokeh and depth is crazy good.
One of my go-to lenses is the 24/70 Sony GM. As a wedding photographer, it's my bread and butter lens by I use it for fishing a lot. It's not super fast at f2.8 but if you know about topaz denoise you won't be too concerned about stupidly high ISO levels. I love the versatility of tight shots and also going wide without the faff of swapping out lenses being the lazy bugger that I am. I also love my portrait lens the 85mm f1.4, that's pretty magical. It requires you to focus with the feet but the bokeh and depth is crazy good.
yonganou 35mm on a canon body are really good for the money
In reply to Post #26
In reply to Post #8
OK, a cropped sensor. For many years I've use a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8. Brilliant lens and image quality is close to an L series prime. Awesome for self-takes and great in general for man with fish pictures. Also worth mentioning the big aperture of this lens and how much light it lets in - meaning less need to use flash and pictures really do pop with this lens.
OK, a cropped sensor. For many years I've use a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8. Brilliant lens and image quality is close to an L series prime. Awesome for self-takes and great in general for man with fish pictures. Also worth mentioning the big aperture of this lens and how much light it lets in - meaning less need to use flash and pictures really do pop with this lens.
In reply to Post #28
There is a lot to be said for a good zoom
Its a shame there is that gap between 35-50 in the sigma 1.8 zoom lineup, a lense bridging that gap would be great for angling!
There is a lot to be said for a good zoom
Its a shame there is that gap between 35-50 in the sigma 1.8 zoom lineup, a lense bridging that gap would be great for angling!
In reply to Post #32
I have said this once already but seriously, if you are running a Canon and you want a trophy shot lens that works within a few feet then this is the only option. Its also very thin (hence the term pancake lens).Stunning thing that gives amazing results for all close portraiture.
link
I have said this once already but seriously, if you are running a Canon and you want a trophy shot lens that works within a few feet then this is the only option. Its also very thin (hence the term pancake lens).Stunning thing that gives amazing results for all close portraiture.
link
In reply to Post #33
A 35mm lens is a great lens. I once worked with a wedding photographer who only used a 35mm lens the whole wedding. One of the biggest downsides of a 35mm lens is that you must be very close to your subject in most portrait scenes.
A 35mm lens is a great lens. I once worked with a wedding photographer who only used a 35mm lens the whole wedding. One of the biggest downsides of a 35mm lens is that you must be very close to your subject in most portrait scenes.
In reply to Post #9
That's lens I use 24mm on a Canon 250d
That's lens I use 24mm on a Canon 250d
In reply to Post #35
24mm 👌
24mm 👌
In reply to Post #26
Which can have its advantages
Which can have its advantages
In reply to Post #37
There are much nicer ways to hide a background
There are much nicer ways to hide a background
I much prefer the compression of longer glass as close as possible to a subject, and lit artistically. You can't really go wrong nowadays if you know your way around off camera flash and photoshop
Sorry to hijack the thread - had a look but can't see anything elsewhere... However, is anyone able to link me to a thread which has any advice on preventing the 'shine' on the middle of a fish during a self take, during day and night - is it a lighting issue which could be solved by a flash or a light source at an angle, etc?
Any links or tips appreciated, sorry to hijack
Any links or tips appreciated, sorry to hijack
In reply to Post #40
move your camera slightly left or right
are you using a flash?
move your camera slightly left or right
are you using a flash?
In reply to Post #41
Generally no, i use a light beam thingy (like the rhino one) at night
Generally no, i use a light beam thingy (like the rhino one) at night
Reading ALL pages