Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

Some of you can already tell that I'm very new to microstock and I'd like to get some opinion in terms of lenses for a Canon body. Actually I'd like to know what you're using with good results for microstock needs. I'm thinking of acquiring some lenses later in the year or perhaps January of 2010. My budget is $2000 USD.

I currently own:
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (I really like it)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK II (I really like it, very sharp, very light)
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (non IS) (My favorite so far)
Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro (I'm getting rid of this one) (It's ok a bit too soft at f/2.8 for my liking, the focusing mechanism is actually pretty quick, but struggles in low light)

I'll be primarly shooting landscapes and still life, but occasional portraits and small group events may happen too.

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 6248 Location: The other Nevada

Dump the Tokina and replace it with the Canon L glass equivilant. Much better lens. That'll wipe out about 3/4 of your budget. The Canon 70-200 is fine for portrait work.

You didn't mention whether you're using a crop sensor or full frame body. That'll effect which wide angle lens would be best for your landscapes. You've got a pretty decent selection already. I'd suggest adding one lens at a time and using it for a couple of months. No point in going out and buying a bunch of stuff all at once, only to find you didn't really need all of it.

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

If you like the 50mm f/1.8, you'll love the f/1.4.

Also, you've got no macro lens, but it doesn't sound like it's a need for you?

I would probably spend the money replacing the third party lenses with Canon, too.

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

I do like 50mm 1.8. I was thinking of Canon 24-70mm and Canon 100mm macro f/2, which will put me closer to $2500..., but i think I'll go with the zoom first and get the macro lens some time later.

I don't think that the 70-200mm is good for portraits, the IS version of this lens is probably much better choice. It is relatively heavy and shooting without a tripod is a challenge.

I'm shooting with a full frame sensor.

tank_bmb · Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1790 Location: Cincinnati, OH

Is that $2000 for lenses for for lenses plus a body?

If both, I would get a 50D and a 17-55/2.8IS. Great lens.

Or even a Rebel body plus the 17-55/2.8IS. I shot Rebel bodies with good lenses for my first several years before finally plunging to the 5D MkII and had great results.

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

tank_bmb · Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1790 Location: Cincinnati, OH

vclements · Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:30 pm

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

tank_bmb · Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1790 Location: Cincinnati, OH

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

I wish somebody could provide some feedback about the new L version of this lens. I already read a review indicating the the non-L non IS version is pretty much equal, but the L is weather sealed. I also like IS feature on the new version.

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

IS on a macro is killer.

lukaszb · Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 145

Killer in a bad way?

abros · Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1