I can't decide for my 60d canon 85 mm 1.8 vs 60 mm macro , family,children,newborn is what I mainly photograph, like to start some macro for fun ~ I did just order, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet a sigma 30mm 1.4 for inside work. So I'm looking for something to compliment that for outside family work I can't decide for my 60d canon 85 mm 1.8 vs 60 mm macro , family,children,newborn is what I mainly photograph, like to start some macro for fun ~ I did just order, but haven't had a... » Read More I can't decide for my 60d canon 85 mm 1.8 vs 60 mm macro , family,children,newborn is what I mainly photograph, like to start some macro for fun ~ I did just order, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet a sigma 30mm 1.4 for inside work. So I'm looking for something to compliment that for outside family work « Show Less
204307
85mm f/1.8 EF USM is a good choice for portraiture and standard photography, especially if you're shoot'n low light conditions using natural light with the wider aperture. 60mm macro would be fun..May I suggest the Canon EFS 17-85mm f/3-5.5 USM Ultra wide...it has a wide focal range, still wide aperture and GREAT for all photography ($750)...my Canon is always wearing it until I put on a larger 90-300mm lens :)
50069
this would be a great camrea just for that. it will take great shoots, but team that up with a good speed flash and you got a killer camera.
204308
My comment would be that for the 85mm, the minimum focus distance is pretty far away and pretty zoomed in for indoors. I would think the 60mm will give more flexibility especially for shots of the baby close up and baby plus mom
204309
You won't go wrong with either lens, but since the 60mm will also give you a macro lens, you probably should make that your choice. C'mon, that's the one you really want anyhow, isn't it.
204310
The 85mm is perfect for portraits on a Full frame an almos equivilant on the 60d will be the 50mm 1.4. In my opinion a 50mm and the macro will be a better choice.
204311
85mm for a newborn? For children running and playing; yes, but for babies the 60mm mac is perfect imho.
1244448
This is one of the better Micro/Macro that I've work with. But for newborns ? Yes, it still darn good. It would be good for tiny hands, sleepy smiles, or good for Mom and babe together. It has a focal length that is a good all around use and I've had one of these macros in my bag since 1965. If your a Nikon shooter and your question leads me to think you are or will be, stick with this 60mm, you won't be disappointed.Your the one that the lens has to please and it's you and not the equipment that takes the picture/image.
676894
Hi I like mine a lot. Just be sure you not getting the most powerful one as its too much magnification( the 250) . It's no macro lens but I think it's worth the money
101689
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit? This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail
537013
TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the... » Read More TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. « Show Less
604836
My advice is to go to DPReview, which is an excellent resource for looking at digital cameras. That is where I get my info. My lens will focus only to ~ 8", so I'm guessing that the macro lens can get closer. Enjoy - it's an awesome camera!
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
2228567
Thanks Branden, I didn't think it was a "macro" lens, but wanted to ask. I'm planning on buying this lens when ever I decide I can afford a $1,000 lens. I've since purchased the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro lens and like it very much.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
101690
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s)... » Read More I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail « Show Less
948953
ken Rockwell said that works well on every night on DLSR camera. he speaks very highly of it in his review and I have no complaints about it at all. Having just had a newborn myself however I would recommend a 35, 50, or 85 millimeter for portraits. The 18-200 lens is a very good lens for general purposes but iif you want to bump up the quality of your newborn portrait shots, consider the 50 millimeter F 1.8 g or the 85 millimeter F 1.8 G.
13733
135. The macro is a great lens and opens up so much more photography. However if you are specializing in portraits you may not NEED a macro. Shots with the 135 are surreal and have the most beautiful bokeh. The macro is close but not the same. Also for event or wedding photography, the 135 makes for a sharp lens that gives you a farther reach, especially if you use prime lenses during the ceremony.
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
1356282
It doesn't get super close, but it's really damn sharp. If you want to get closer, I'd suggest Sigma's 28mm f1.8 macro (they also have a 24, a 50, etc.)The macros are reviewed well enough, may not be as optimal in the corners, but for center-frame macro shots, everything else will be bokeh-d out anyway. This is more of a perfect travel lens- sharp as anything corner to corner for the landscape shots, and wide f1.8 for the people shots, while still being practical and relatively distortion-free.
316100
Sharp lens, at 120mm its longer than the 1.8 45mm, which works out to 90mm. It is a bit slower, but just as sharp. Yes and no, it gets you close from the edges of a room, head shots are fine, its a cheaper alternative to the oly 75mm.The 25mm 1.8 might be more useful, I have the sigma 60. Do it all would be the pro zoom, but its pricy. The sigma would be great on the old, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
176768
For macro work you would really want a lens ratio of 5:1, but as you can imagine those are a bit pricey. In response to your question of whether or not it is good for macro work, I would say it's alright. There is such a thing as a poor mans macro which is essentially four filters you place on your lens with various levels of magnification. This is a very affordable option as it will probably cost you less than 20 dollars. However, in doing so your depth of field will be very shallow. I suggest googling and doing research about it before you make a purchase.
1567210
Wow, quite a question. You really need to ask your self what you will be shooting most of the time. One review wanted to take pictures of her baby, most of the time. Another may like scienery and travel. You really need to narrow your preferences. You could get this lens for a general all around lens, however there are many trade offs to consider. Generaly this wide zoom range will have issues with anything printed larger than 4x6 inches. Some may argue that point and say 8x10 to still have an acceptible image. Are you involved with other photo people to evaluate your images? Do you use photoshop to adjust your images? If so this lens will be a compromise in most cases. Two lenses with overlaping zoom ranges say 18-70mm and 70-200mm would be ideal. However I would recommend the Canon 28-135mm f 3.5 IS, it depends on your budget. You may want an image stabilized lens which this lens is. Check the reviews, also www.Photozone.de for excellent lens reviews. Good luck.