What's your street lens?

[Asher Kelman]

Everyone has a favorite!

A prime or a zoom, a rangefinder manual focus or DSLR?

What's yours and show some examples of its versatility!

Asher

[Kathy Rappaport]

Well, I've been using the 24-70 2.8 but I just bought the 24-105 for my 5. So I will swap back and forth for a while while I decide which one I like best. I took this in San Francisco at the Love Fest Parade. The press were taking their photos from the front and the spokesmodels I called the Feather Girls were posing.

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, the 24-105 is a gem. I am impressed with the range and the quality. Also being IS, make it seem like it is not just f4.0.

Still when I walked around for weeks with only an M8 with just 28mm lens (x1.3 = 34.2mm equiv), I was happy. Everything could be done with that one lens, except of course sports and birds!

Then, for the past several weeks, with my new 50mm 1.2, I feel I don't need another lens for most occaisions. Now how can I be so satisfied with primes?

I guess, it's like romance, we adapt to the one at hand and say it's perfect!

That's what puzzles me. In reality, I should be saying that the 24-105mm lens is the ideal street lens, but why is it I leave it at home? Is it a conceit or could it be that working with one lens at a time give us beter pictures?

Asher

[Sue Butler]

Hi Asher,

I have to agree with you. The 24-105 lens is great but the prime lenses definitely make you work harder and think more about where to be when taking a picture.

Your feet become your zoom and I think it makes you more focused on creating the picture you want and becoming involved rather than standing back and using your zoom to capture the picture from a distance. I must admit I really have to gather courage to use my prime lenses up close but it's been good for me and good for my photography.

I have been using the 50mm and 35mm for the last year (approx) and in the last 1-2 weeks bought the 24-105mm for taking overseas in March this year.
I couldn't believe how attuned I'd become using the 50mm and using my feet as my zoom until I had the 24-105mm on my camera and realized I didn't have to move to get the same picture. It was actually kind of disappointing and took the actual 'thinking' of creating a picture from me.

So now I'm back to thinking what lenses to take with me overseas and if I'll even take the 24-105mm.

BTW, the 24-105mm is lovely and sharp and has really nice colour!!

Regards,
Sue

[Ken Tanaka]

Yes, indeed, the 24-105mm f/4 is a wonderful general lens with perfect focal length range and excellent sharpness and contrast. Nothing much to add to its laurels.

But it can be a bit bulky, even on a small camera like the 5D. I am currently working on a project to document --well -- a street here in Chicago. As I can generally predict the nature of, and distance to, my subjects in this work, I've found that small, light primes really make my 5D into a wonderfully small, agile instrument. As Susie notes, yes, primes do make you work harder for each image but the results, and small primes' contribution to the compactness of your photo gear, can be very worthwhile.

In particular, I have been most often using two modest Canon lenses. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is hard to beat for lightness, compactness, sharpness, contrast and speed. It's simply superb.

For example:


I also had been using my EF 24mm f/1.4L and EF 35mm f.1.4L for wider coverage. Although these are both superb lenses they are each just a bit bulkier and heavier than I sometimes want to carry. So I've recently been using the often overlooked EF 28mm f/1.8 for wide scene coverage. It's a wonderful small light, sharp, relatively inexpensive lens that I sometimes use solely all day.

For example:


Lately, however, I've sometimes been leaving my dslr cameras home in favor of using a Canon G7. Its p&s form factor make it the most inconspicuous type of camera today, far more so than any Leica M. But its performance puts it ahead of anything I've used in this class of camera. For example:




(BTW, having been a Leica M7 (film) user I naturally looked forward to the M8 for such work. But with the quirkiness and general lack of reliability of early models of this costly camera I've begun to reevaluate my real need for it at all.)

Only the image counts to me. The best instruments for any job are the ones with which you are comfortable and adept.

[Harvey Moore]

35L, 50L, one on the 5D, other in a pocket or small bag.

As an old M3 and M4 user, I too was enthused about the M8. In a moment of temporary insanity I made a spreadsheet of funds possible by selling my Canon gear. Then a dealer friend loaned me his personal M8 for a couple of days. Files were too close to the 5D for me to spend $10K for a body and three lenses, let alone the launch problems with it.

[Mark Coons]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Everyone has a favorite!

A prime or a zoom, a rangefinder manual focus or DSLR?

What's yours and show some examples of its versatility!

Asher

Well I guess my current choice is my Canon EF 28-135mm IS but I have been having second thoughts about it.





I have been considering replacing it with a Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS lens.

[Dan Lovell]

For a street lens, and on a full frame I love the 50L...the 50mm focal length is perfect for street IMHO....2nd best for me is the 35L.

[Jerry Kurata]

I have thought about getting a Canon 24-105 for my 5D, but the 28-75 has been just fine.

[Jonathan Hutt]

I recall seeing a post somewhere (maybe here, maybe FM, not sure) regarding pancake lenses for street photography. The particular lens I recall was somewhere in the 25-50mm range but was only 3/4" deep! It was 1/2 the size of the nifty fifty 1.8


Anyone know what I'm talking about? As I recall, it was on a 5D body.

[Kathy Rappaport]

I'd love a light small lens for my 5d for when I travel. I bought the 18-200 Tamron lens for when I had the 20d and sold it with the body. It wasn't crisp enough for me since my other lens at the time was the 24-70 2.8 and the 50 2.5; I am now a lens-a-holic. and use the 24-105 for walking around and the 50. 1.2 frequently. I am hoping for a 24-200 2.8 L is one day that weighs two ounces. - lol)

[Nicolas Claris]

Guess what?
my preferred is the Sigma 12-24 @ 12

ISO 800 - ƒ7 - Madrid Summer 2007 - Lonesome cello player

[Kathy Rappaport]

Nicolas!

C'est Magnifique!

I never think to use the 12-24 as a walk around. There is some distortion with it - do you have to correct it in PS for much of your work? My style is usually tight as it is, so maybe I need to shoot wider for a while and see how it fits in with my style. With the 5D there is enough to crop in tigher when needed.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nicolas,

Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris

Guess what?
my preferred is the Sigma 12-24 @ 12

I also have "Popeye" but too rarely keep it on my 20D.

I generally keep the EF 24-105 F/4L IS on it.

[Joe Thibodeau]

Ken nice images.

I have EF lenses 35mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4, 85mm F/1.8 and 135mm F/2

I might carry a tele and wide in the field but sometimes I like to take one lens and use it exclusively as such the case with my Fairfax portfolio. Those photographs were taken with the 35mm lens and in some cases using a 10 stop variable ND filter.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Joe Thibodeau

Kev nice images.

I have EF lenses 35mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4, 85mm F/1,8 and 135mm F/2

I might carry a tele and wide in the field but sometimes I like to take one lens and use it exclusively as such the case with my Fairfax portfolio. Most all those photographs were taken with the 35mm lens using a 10 step variable ND filter and long exposures.

Joe,

In quality of your images, how would you rate the 85 1.4

At a recent fashion shoot I was surprised that the guy used that modest lens. In fact I was flummoxed! I didn't know if I should be impressed by his economy or lend him a 70-200 2.8L IS to see the light.

Asher

[Ken Tanaka]

Canon's EF 85 f/1.8 (not a f/1.4) is an outstanding and economical lens, Asher. I owned one for several years and ultimately sold it when I got the f/1.2L. But to this day I'm not at all convinced that the additional expense can be shown in image quality or flexibility. Personally I'd have to rate the EF 85mm f/1.8 a 9.8...but only because I have to rate the f/1.2 a 10.

BTW, my new favorite walk-around lens in Canon's EF line is the EF 35mm F/2. It's also superb (corner-to-corner on full-frame), very sharp, excellent contrast, almost a pancake-length, and very lightweight. Its only shortfall: like the other non-L lenses it does not have full-time manual focus. Tush. At $240 it sure is much less costly than my 35mm f/1.4L and at only 0.5 lbs much, much less bulky. Slap one of these puppies on your 5D and prepare to be impressed.

[Joe Thibodeau]

Canon makes a 85mm f/1.2 and a f/1.8. IMO the f/1.8 is a better value all around. It's lighter and sharp as a tack. I evaluated a f1.2 but didn't see the big draw especially concerning price and size and auto focus is more difficult to obtain wide open. The f/1.8 rules this focal length in my opinion. The 35mm f/1.4 is superb. Haven't tried the 35mm f/2 but suspect it is a great lens. I enjoy full-time manual focus on all my lenses.

[Tony Psaltis]

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM is the one I use since I sold my Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM and have grown to love the upgrade. I am lucky to have a sharp copy as I understand those are not so easy to come by.

ALL the images in this gallery were shot exclusively with the 24-70:

http://www.buckeyephotography.smugmu...83885#60402872

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Tony Psaltis

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM is the one I use since I sold my Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM and have grown to love the upgrade. I am lucky to have a sharp copy as I understand those are not so easy to come by.

Hi Tony,

Would you feel short changed by the 24-105 L IS or you'd miss the extra stop?

Asher

[Scott B. Hughes]

Asher, that stop is precious stuff.

We often find ourselves in the ISO1600 range at 2.8 and shutter speeds which are tough w/o IS.

INteresting times.

[Asher Kelman]

Scott and Tony,

To me, a 24-105 2.8L IS would be just about perfect for almost anything!

If it was possible, I'd pay $2,000 for it! Would you?

Asher

[Scott B. Hughes]

If it's sharp throughout the range and has a nice 'look', you bet... I'd plunk down two big ones.

Wait, I'm looking forward to that 1D3, the 50/1.2 and a 135/2... and the 35/1.4.

The 35L interests me..... any comments?

[Benjamin Kanarek]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Everyone has a favorite!

A prime or a zoom, a rangefinder manual focus or DSLR?

What's yours and show some examples of its versatility!

Asher

Hello Asher;

I would have to say the Pentax 16-45 f4.0 lens...For now.

[Mike Funnell]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Everyone has a favorite!

A prime or a zoom, a rangefinder manual focus or DSLR?

What's yours and show some examples of its versatility!

Asher

If I were to use a zoom, I'd use my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS (availability of this lens is one of the actual advantages of a crop-factor camera). Its fast, it has IS and it has a good zoom range (its the rough equivalent of a 28-90 on full-frame). While I think its a good lens, its pretty bulky and obvious. People seem to really notice when a 77mm objective surrounded by a large hood is pointed at them. So, I mostly use it for other things.

Instead, for "street" type shooting I've mostly been using small, fast, cheap primes like my..

Canon EF 50mm f1.8


or Canon EF 35mm f2


They are both small and discreet (and did I say cheap?), and do a decent enough job.

However, of late I've been using a film RF camera much more for this kind of shooting (a digital RF being beyond the reach of my current budget). For reasons I could easily speculate on, I tend to "see wider" with an RF than an SLR, and shoot mostly with my...

Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f2


or Konica M-Hexanon 35mm f2


But I also use 75mm and 28mm focal lengths occasionally.

...Mike

[Antonio Correia]

I am now in Kerala, India.

I don't have time to read the post which has been written after mine, but till now I can tell you this:

I brought 2 * 20 D. One with the 16-35 and the other with th 24-70.
The first with a CPF and the second with a NDF 4.

As far as it goes I found one important thing:
The filters give a spectacular result to the photos in terns of density. I rarely have a blown up sky, I mean a burned sky.

I am amazed !
I have suspected of this fact but now I am sure.

On the wide angle I use a resident 430 EX flash set at 2/3 of power and HSS (Hight Speed Sync) or SCS (Second Curtain Sync) with good results.

I have to go now to have dinner because I don't want the group to wait for me.
Soon, photos from Kerala, India.
Cheers.

[Asher Kelman]

Antonio,

ND Filter 4 is split?

Bom apetite!

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Antonio,

ND Filter 4 is split?

Bom apetite!

Asher

Asher,

I don't understand what you mean by the filter beeing split !...
The filter is grey and it's grade is 4.

In this hotel - in Kerala - there is a card reader.
Unfortunately I have backed up the photos and formated the CFs...

I can't post any pic. Oh I forgot ! They are all in RAW format. So, I really could not post any of them ...

Menawhile my friends, try the NDF or the CPF and see the results !

Cheers. :)

[Asher Kelman]

Antonio,

I mean that the grey is on the top to correspond to the sky. There is a gradient after that at the transition to clear. That way the sky is passed through the NDF while the land is not changed!

Asher

[Clayton Lofgren]

Most on this forum are using top of the line equipment, but I expect there are several like myself that are more frugal, and here to learn. For those on a budget, the Sigma24-135 is a suprisingly good lens , considering the price.
I seldom use flash, and less seldom direct flash, but think this pic with flash shows off the lens sharpness quite well.