New lens for Canon 70D, 18-35

[THaNaToZ]

I'm looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens for my Canon 70D.
I already picked up the 50mm 1.8 a while ago.

I find that the kit lense for pictures at conventions and of people up close doesn't have that good bokeh.
I found the following lens and looking for some recommendations

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8

I would like to be able to take it upcoming conventions and a wedding and be able to filter out all that background that the 3.5/f won't give me on my kit lens.

[Dude]

I would think if your shooting at a wedding and a convention that you'll need something longer and faster than the 18-35.
Maybe something like a 70-200 F2.8
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?len...max=none&res=3
As for a good portrait lens with beautiful bokeh I would be looking at the 85 mm F1.8 prime , on the crop body it would be an equivalent of a 136 mm .
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=26
In fact you could just use that 70-200 for those closeups without having to get close.

[THaNaToZ]

Thanks for response. The pictures look great but I don't think I'd be that far even at 70.
The most recent convention I went to I tried the 50mm prime and it was far too zoomed at the distance I was taking. (I have a longer kit lens for the stage shots, etc).
I ended up taking most of my pics with the 18-55 kit lens hence why I think I would need something wider.

[Dude]

Take a close look at your EXIF data from the images you did shoot and see what your average focal length is if you haven't already, if your not surpassing 35mm then you should be fine going with the lens your looking at, your giving up nearly half your focal length. that 55mm on the 70d is acting like an 80mm due to the crop factor.
Now if your wanting to use a prime lens and your shooting in the area of that 55mm with your kit lens , then you could take a look at the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens cause after that 28 X 1.6 crop factor multiplier you'll be at a 44.8 equivalent.
Its also nearly half the price of that Sigma..
http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...s/canon_28_1p8

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=37&p=1

I actually just bought the same camera ( 70d ) with the 18-135 STM , it's an upgrade from my t3i. one thing I decided to do is tape my lens at that 44.8 equivalent range and go shooting to see if I'm happy with that focal length. If I am then I'll buy that faster lens at that focal length... I wish there was a place in my area that would allow me to rent a lens however I don't have that option so it's plan be for me ..

[William W]

I'm looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens for my Canon 70D.

I already picked up the 50mm 1.8 a while ago.

I find that the kit lense for pictures at conventions and of people up close doesn't have that good bokeh.I would like to be able to take it upcoming conventions and a wedding and be able to filter out all that background that the 3.5/f won't give me on my kit lens.

For making a vertical orientation, full length photograph with your camera of someone standing keeping a little bit of ground space and a little bit of air over the top (i.e. Field of View of about 7ft):

> using F/2.8 you’ll get about 3ft Depth of Field (DoF)
> using F/1.8 you’ll get about 2ft DoF

The point being made is that’s not much shallow DoF gain by using an F/1.8 lens at F/1.8 as compared to using an F/2.8 Len sat F/2.8.

AND - the DIFFERENCE of the DoF between the two apertures being used will become LESS as the FRAMING because tighter.

Now DoF is NOT Bokeh, but the two are related.

The way I see it is that you’d be better to get an F/2.8 zoom in the range of 17 to 50 ~ 17 to 55 and have the extra FL even if you use that extra FL only occasionally.

WW

[DanK]

I was going to make the same suggestion as WW. There are quite a number of good, f/2.8 lenses in the 17-50 or 17-55 range. If you don't want to spend a lot, check out the several Tamron and Sigma offerings in this range.

[chauncey]

Ankit...it sounds as if you're kinda new to this game. Take the time to acquire an education.
Using a wide angle lens on people is an exercise in futility. See these examples http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutor...GES/strip1.jpg
That is why most wedding pros carry a 70-200 mm lens.

That Sigma lens has worse MTF characteristics than does your current canon lens.

How do you define "bokeh"...it's not simply blur, but the quality of blur...
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/
note that your new 50 mm is decent.

[Dude]

Those example pictures are awesome , it puts things in perspective rather quickly.

[William W]

Ankit...it sounds as if you're kinda new to this game. Take the time to acquire an education.
Using a wide angle lens on people is an exercise in futility. See these examples http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutor...GES/strip1.jpg
That is why most wedding pros carry a 70-200 mm lens.

The ‘distortion’ that is shown in the link is because of the Shooting Distance
The Camera’s Viewpoint determines the Perspective of The Shot and the “squishing” or “elongating” of the facial features is because of the PERSPECTIVE of the Image.

WW

[THaNaToZ]

So based on the suggestions, I had picked up the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (I just saw a thread on this from over the weekend too). Plus the one I was looking at seems to be backordered everywhere.

So i still have the same problem and I guess this is where being new plays a role.

I went to a festival on Saturday to try it out. At the top end around 40-50mm, at 2.8, I was able to get good bokeh focusing mainly on subjects.
However, at the lower end at 17 or so, at 2.8, I would take a picture and end up getting the entire crowd in the background. I tried both manual and auto focus and same result. I would be a pretty close as opposed to backing up like I did for the higher end shots.

Any help?

[Ido]

So based on the suggestions, I had picked up the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (I just saw a thread on this from over the weekend too). Plus the one I was looking at seems to be backordered everywhere.

So i still have the same problem and I guess this is where being new plays a role.

I went to a festival on Saturday to try it out. At the top end around 40-50mm, at 2.8, I was able to get good bokeh focusing mainly on subjects.
However, at the lower end at 17 or so, at 2.8, I would take a picture and end up getting the entire crowd in the background. I tried both manual and auto focus and same result. I would be a pretty close as opposed to backing up like I did for the higher end shots.

Any help?

It's not something you did wrong, or a fault of the lens. It's physics. You'll always get a lot of depth of field with a wide lens (and 17mm surely is wide), unless you're focusing on something very close.

It's just that your expectations are unrealistic...

[William W]

. . . I went to a festival on Saturday to try it out. At the top end around 40-50mm, at 2.8, I was able to get good bokeh focusing mainly on subjects.

However, at the lower end at 17 or so, at 2.8, I would take a picture and end up getting the entire crowd in the background. I tried both manual and auto focus and same result. I would be a pretty close as opposed to backing up like I did for the higher end shots.

Any help?

It is not that the wide angle lens, per se, always gives you a larger depth of field than a telephoto lens – but rather it is the framing of the subject.

That’s why I gave you a specific example in my reply, here, which references a specific FRAMING of one person standing up:

“For making a vertical orientation, full length photograph with your camera of someone standing keeping a little bit of ground space and a little bit of air over the top (i.e. Field of View of about 7ft):

> using F/2.8 you’ll get about 3ft Depth of Field (DoF)
> using F/1.8 you’ll get about 2ft DoF

The point being made is that’s not much shallow DoF gain by using an F/1.8 lens at F/1.8 as compared to using an F/2.8 Lens at F/2.8.”

*

In the Opening Post you were asking about taking a photo of “people up close” and wanting to blur the background.

On this last weekend if you took the same framing of the photo of people “up close” with the 17mm end of the lens as the 50mm end of the lens, and you used F/2.8 for both shots, then the background would be equally out of focus in both shots.


But I suspect that you did not do that, but rather, I suspect that made a very wide shot of the person when you used the 17mm end of the lens and you did not move in closer to the person to frame them tightly in exactly the same framing as you did when you were making the shot with the 50mm end of your lens: and thus there is a greater Depth of Field when you made the shot with the 17mm end of the lens .

WW

[n8changus1aj]

they are awesome...

[THaNaToZ]

It is not that the wide angle lens, per se, always gives you a larger depth of field than a telephoto lens – but rather it is the framing of the subject.

That’s why I gave you a specific example in my reply, here, which references a specific FRAMING of one person standing up:

“For making a vertical orientation, full length photograph with your camera of someone standing keeping a little bit of ground space and a little bit of air over the top (i.e. Field of View of about 7ft):

> using F/2.8 you’ll get about 3ft Depth of Field (DoF)
> using F/1.8 you’ll get about 2ft DoF

The point being made is that’s not much shallow DoF gain by using an F/1.8 lens at F/1.8 as compared to using an F/2.8 Lens at F/2.8.”

*

In the Opening Post you were asking about taking a photo of “people up close” and wanting to blur the background.

On this last weekend if you took the same framing of the photo of people “up close” with the 17mm end of the lens as the 50mm end of the lens, and you used F/2.8 for both shots, then the background would be equally out of focus in both shots.


But I suspect that you did not do that, but rather, I suspect that made a very wide shot of the person when you used the 17mm end of the lens and you did not move in closer to the person to frame them tightly in exactly the same framing as you did when you were making the shot with the 50mm end of your lens: and thus there is a greater Depth of Field when you made the shot with the 17mm end of the lens .

WW

So here's an example of the pic...
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...97509731_n.jpg
basically if I'm gathering what you are saying...I should have either
(a) zoomed in
(b) or moved in even closer
So the subjects would make up the majority of the picture and I would get better bokeh?

Or did I misinterpret?

[William W]

So here's an example of the pic... basically if I'm gathering what you are saying...I should have either
(a) zoomed in
(b) or moved in even closer
So the subjects would make up the majority of the picture and I would get better bokeh?
Or did I misinterpret?

You did not misinterpret. That is what FRAMING is. If you either move in closer OR zoom in tighter, then the AMOUNT of background blur will increase.

Note this might not give “better Bokeh” – because “Bokeh” is a SUBJECtTIVE QUALITY

Also note that your sample picture has background blur and it does separate the Subjects from the background.

Also understand that every portrait that you make, need NOT have extreme background blur for it to be a good photograph.

WW