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.