Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Landscape/Portrait Lens

  • 26-06-2017 3:44pm
    #1
    Nebaw
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭


    Im looking to buy a new Lens and as the title says it'll be for Landscape and Portrait. I've a budget of about €700. Would a 2nd hand mark 1 24-70 f2.8 be the best bet? Any recommendations would be great.


Comments

  • #2
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    What body are you using?

    If it's a full frame then it could be a good choice to cover both. The wide end for the landscapes and the long end for portraiture.


  • #3
    Nebaw
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Nebaw


    CabanSail wrote: »
    What body are you using?

    If it's a full frame then it could be a good choice to cover both. The wide end for the landscapes and the long end for portraiture.

    I'm using the 6D sorry i should have included that.


  • #4
    wersal gummage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭wersal gummage


    The 24—105 also an option. Probably new for within your budget and definitely loads available second hand (mark i). A second hand example might leave you enough change for a second hand 85 or 100 prime if you want wide apertures.

    I have a 24-105 and have often thought about upgrading to the 24-70 mark ii but can't really find any compelling reason to do so. Most of my portraits (amateur) are at the longer end of the range. I guess if you will be shooting any indoor or low light /no flash stuff then the 2.8 is probably the better bet.


  • #5
    wersal gummage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭wersal gummage


    Even with low light, everyone always says to go for the wider aperture lense. Is that just a historical sort of hangover? Most modern dslr seem to go to crazy ISOs and keep pretty good quality images....


  • #6
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    The wider aperture will allow a shallower DoF along with the full frame sensor.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    wersal gummage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭wersal gummage


    CabanSail wrote: »
    The wider aperture will allow a shallower DoF along with the full frame sensor.

    Yes of course. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When you read various online commentary, there seems to be a general consensus that if you need to do any low light photography you need the 2.8 over the 4. Leaving aside the dept of field and blur effect etc, is it really necessary to have f2. 8 for low light photography with a modern dslr with very high iso?


  • #8
    123shooter
    Registered Users Posts: 964 ✭✭✭123shooter


    wersal gummage wrote: »
    Yes of course. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When you read various online commentary, there seems to be a general consensus that if you need to do any low light photography you need the 2.8 over the 4. Leaving aside the dept of field and blur effect etc, is it really necessary to have f2. 8 for low light photography with a modern dslr with very high iso?

    Never ever remember that being mentioned when those lenses came out. It was more about the quality of the lens that is why it was always referred to as the 'wedding lens' because it was used by wedding photographers and the press obviously for portraits.

    Every portrait pic isnt in low light and would a medium quality lens on a new camera take as good a pic in good light as the 24-70 2.8?


Advertisement