Canon 35mm f/1.4 L.
Oct 11, 2016 08:13:26 #
machia wrote:
The field of view equates to 80mm . Where am I going wrong ?
50mm X 1.6 = 80mm
50mm X 1.6 = 80mm
In your previous post you wrote:
machia wrote:
.... However if you camera is an APS-C type , just remember that the lens will become an 80mm .
It's the terminology, not the math.
The actual focal length remains the same. The missing term was Full-Frame equivalent field of view or something similar. The focal length of the lens does not change. I think you know that.
Cheers!
Oct 11, 2016 08:15:39 #
You stated that the lens becomes an 80mm. Just the field of view becomes different depending on the crop factor. The focal length does not change. So, I was just trying to clarify what is often a confusing issue regarding crop factor, especially for newer photographers. My camera for instance has a 1.3 crop factor. That gives about the field of view of 110mm lens when using an 85mm lens. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you.
I meant no offense.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
I meant no offense.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
Oct 11, 2016 08:26:58 #
jkaufman wrote:
This is very helpful discussion for me, I really a... (show quote)
The 35 will move you even closer to your child than the 50 and may introduce some distortion of features unless you are trying to include the environment the child is in.
Going with a longer lens is probably the direction you need to go. That's why I suggested the 85 as an option.
I assume you are using on camera flash. You may want to explore getting the flash off camera. You can often place it in a corner of the room and trigger it remotely. That gives you the freedom to follow your child's movements. You can shoot in manual mode or in ETTL. I would suggest ETTL to start with. You can control the flash exposure using flash exposure compensation. It is not that hard it just takes a little education and practice.
You should be able to get flash enhanced shots that have just the slightest hint of flash using these tools. No need for you to end up with photos that look like flash photos.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
Oct 11, 2016 08:44:59 #
machia
Loc: NJ
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
You stated that the lens becomes an 80mm. Just the... (show quote)
Lol !!!!!!
Absolutely no offense taken !
Yes I know about focal Length and FOV . I was just trying to explain in easy terms that a 50mm w/ an APS-C crop factor will be like using an 80mm lens .
Oct 11, 2016 08:47:41 #
machia
Loc: NJ
GoofyNewfie wrote:
It's the terminology, not the math.
The actual focal length remains the same. The missing term was Full-Frame equivalent field of view or something similar. The focal length of the lens does not change. I think you know that.
Cheers!
The actual focal length remains the same. The missing term was Full-Frame equivalent field of view or something similar. The focal length of the lens does not change. I think you know that.
Cheers!
Yes thank you . I was trying to use easy to understand comparisons .
Oct 11, 2016 08:55:45 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
Your not wrong. The previous reply was meaningless information given the original question.
Oct 11, 2016 09:00:20 #
jkaufman wrote:
I am trying to find a good low light lens so I don... (show quote)
Try the 50mm f1.4 less expensive and will not exaggerate perspective.
This lens hhas been used for billions of great family shots for decades and I doubt has ever failed to do the job.
Oct 11, 2016 09:04:13 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
I've often wondered why the crop factor on a Canon is 1.6, and a Nikon is 1.5 ?
Oct 11, 2016 09:37:38 #
I've been shooting photos for over 50 years and I can't figure out the fascination with shooting indoors without flash. If you must then I would recommend the 50mm F1.8 that you can pick up for about $150. The 35MM F1.4 is about $1,000. As the saying goes light is life in the photo business. Yes the new cameras are great in low light, but indoors at night in a house for the most part has crappy light. Somehow some have grabbed onto the fact that no flash is more "natural" which is "always" superior. That is not true. Yes indoor photos with light from a window is nice, but a great flash photo is also great. Remember that probably 90%+ of indoor and outdoor wedding photos(depending on sun) are taken with flash. Why? It's a once in a lifetime event and you can't chance that poor lighting in a church, reception etc gives you marginal pictures. Shooting without flash has it's place, but shooting with flash also has it's place.
Oct 11, 2016 09:43:45 #
mas24 wrote:
I've often wondered why the crop factor on a Canon is 1.6, and a Nikon is 1.5 ?
Nikon's APS-C sensor is slightly bigger.
Oct 11, 2016 10:50:41 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Nikon's APS-C sensor is slightly bigger.
Now I know. Thanks.
Oct 11, 2016 12:07:56 #
I would think that using a fast prime to shoot family shots would not be the way to go. Your children are probably easy to control, now that they are younger, but wait a year or so. I'd be looking at good zoom, with IS. I'd suggest a 24-70mm, but with IS, VC or any other image stabilization. There are also several EF-S zoom lenses that do a wonderful job at tracking moving children. As far as low light is concerned, just adjust the ISO up a stop or two for shooting open rooms with windows. But, when the light fades, you'll need that flash. So, for your indoor work, get proficient with your flash. On most flashes you can turn down the power, so just drop the power a bit just to enhance the image.
B
B
Oct 11, 2016 12:59:23 #
Oct 11, 2016 14:36:57 #
jkaufman wrote:
I am trying to find a good low light lens so I don... (show quote)
It's a great lens but think about this; it's not all about how much light...but also the QUALITY of light too. You should be thinking about how to improve the light rather than just get enough light.
Example: I'd much rather see a bounce flash portrait indoors any day of the week over a crappy bad light "natural light" photo. If you snoot/flag your flash so that it shoots ONLY to the up/45 deg ceiling, then nobody will get flash in their eyes and your images will really improve.
I'd do that BEFORE I'd spend another 1000.00 on another lens you don't need.
Oct 11, 2016 16:10:29 #
duanes
Loc: Madison, Wisconsin
I also had looked into the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lenses and settled for the Sigma as it was much sharper and of course a few hundred dollars less cost.
I have never looked back. Compare the prices at Adorama.com.
Duanes
I have never looked back. Compare the prices at Adorama.com.
Duanes
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.