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: 1142260" data-attributes="member: 62286"><p>Thanks for taking the time to reply guys. Lots of info to process. >_<"</p><p></p><p>I'm not too keen on shooting wide open as well because I notice that I get some distortion sometimes but I can kind of get away with it depending on composition. </p><p></p><p>The reason I opted for the f/2.8 lenses was because I wanted shoot at night too, or in situations where there wouldn't be a lot of light. </p><p></p><p>I wanted to get some lenses that had bigger apertures but they are kind of out of my price range at the moment and are mostly prime lenses. My concern is that my studio isn't that big and I'm afraid that if I get a prime lens with a long focal length the image will be too tight. Especially for portrait work.</p><p></p><p>I was also considering a 100mm Macro lens, but not so sure about that now. Specificially this one: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A little confused by the wording or typo? >_<". It's early and I kind of don't want to think. I'm guessing you are saying yes you still need it even with a fast glass.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the suggestions on lighting equipment. Currently I'm just using whatever I have in my studio and that stuff will be upgraded soon.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually I did consider the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L as well. However it's not quite as wide as the 17-55 and plus I'm working with a 1.6X crop factor for the time being. Not so sure about the 24-105...maybe if they have a f/2.8.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes I notice this as well. It seems to be quite popular and sells for the high 900s used.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CrimsonRequiem, post: 1142260, member: 62286"] Thanks for taking the time to reply guys. Lots of info to process. >_<" I'm not too keen on shooting wide open as well because I notice that I get some distortion sometimes but I can kind of get away with it depending on composition. The reason I opted for the f/2.8 lenses was because I wanted shoot at night too, or in situations where there wouldn't be a lot of light. I wanted to get some lenses that had bigger apertures but they are kind of out of my price range at the moment and are mostly prime lenses. My concern is that my studio isn't that big and I'm afraid that if I get a prime lens with a long focal length the image will be too tight. Especially for portrait work. I was also considering a 100mm Macro lens, but not so sure about that now. Specificially this one: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens. A little confused by the wording or typo? >_<". It's early and I kind of don't want to think. I'm guessing you are saying yes you still need it even with a fast glass. Thanks for the suggestions on lighting equipment. Currently I'm just using whatever I have in my studio and that stuff will be upgraded soon. Actually I did consider the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L as well. However it's not quite as wide as the 17-55 and plus I'm working with a 1.6X crop factor for the time being. Not so sure about the 24-105...maybe if they have a f/2.8. Yes I notice this as well. It seems to be quite popular and sells for the high 900s used. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
Top