Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CrimsonRequiem" data-source="post: 1142055" data-attributes="member: 62286"><p>Kind of need the help of someone who knows a lot more about photography than I do. Working with a Canon EOS 7D. Might end up upgrading to the 5D Mark II or Mark III if there is a price drop. >_<"</p><p></p><p>I currently saving up money to upgrade my kit lens to something of better quality. I'm trying to stay in the ball park of 1k USD.</p><p></p><p>I would like to know if I get a lens that is f/ 2.8 do I need IS? I don't believe that I'm going to be doing any action or sports photography any time soon but I would like a lens that is capable of doing so down the line.</p><p></p><p>Currently I'm working in the studio taking pictures of three dimensional artwork, sculptures, packaging, and printed work.</p><p></p><p>I'm currently looking at a general purpose lens, that can be used for portraits as well.</p><p></p><p>I narrowed it down to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens, and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens.</p><p></p><p>For now I think I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm. As for the other two I might end up getting one of them sometime down the line but not sure if I need the faster of the two or the slower one with IS?</p><p></p><p>Feel free to suggest other lenses.</p><p></p><p>I also would like to ask about prime lenses but maybe I should leave that for another time. I'm still really new to photography or starting to get serious about it. Still not sure what focal lengths I would need.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CrimsonRequiem, post: 1142055, member: 62286"] Kind of need the help of someone who knows a lot more about photography than I do. Working with a Canon EOS 7D. Might end up upgrading to the 5D Mark II or Mark III if there is a price drop. >_<" I currently saving up money to upgrade my kit lens to something of better quality. I'm trying to stay in the ball park of 1k USD. I would like to know if I get a lens that is f/ 2.8 do I need IS? I don't believe that I'm going to be doing any action or sports photography any time soon but I would like a lens that is capable of doing so down the line. Currently I'm working in the studio taking pictures of three dimensional artwork, sculptures, packaging, and printed work. I'm currently looking at a general purpose lens, that can be used for portraits as well. I narrowed it down to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens, and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens. For now I think I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm. As for the other two I might end up getting one of them sometime down the line but not sure if I need the faster of the two or the slower one with IS? Feel free to suggest other lenses. I also would like to ask about prime lenses but maybe I should leave that for another time. I'm still really new to photography or starting to get serious about it. Still not sure what focal lengths I would need. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
Top