When I switched to Canon mirrorless I opted for the 24-105 f4 instead of the 24-70. Experience has taught me versatility over 1 stop of light was worth the trade off. And, I saved a thousand bucks. Besides, the R6 can more than handle the noise of losing a stop of light. Great video!
My Sony 24-105mm F4 is my go to lens, super versatile. I think about my lenses in terms of day and night lenses, fast primes for night, versatile zooms for day.
Love this! As you said it's not necessary to obliterate the background all the time. And, even with a "slower" lens you can soften that background by playing with subject distances between you and between the background. Adjusting that ratio can get you background softness. But, when it comes down to it you need to know what your going to do with a lens first. As an amateur this is why I chose to go with a Fuji system. I can't afford the good FF lenses. But, Fuji makes quite a few really good quality lenses. I think a lot of amateur photographers forget to think about the entire system and that cost when they decide to buy a camera. I'm actually in the process of shopping for a zoom lens to do some youth sports and possibly a bit of auto racing. I shop for quite a while before deciding. I've looked at three of the Fuji lenses. One is more affordable that the other two of course! I've also thought about looking at both third party and used lenses from other brands like Canon and adapting them. As they say, "...it's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase..."!! LOL! (Stole that one from Deep Purple) Have a great week!!
Back when I was shooting portraiture on film f5.6 or f8 was used quite a bit. The one reason I do like faster lenses is simply because most lenses are at their sharpest a few stops down from maximum. Using distance and focal length can give you nice, blurred backgrounds even if you don't have really fast lenses. As you noted in a response, when you really need fast, get 1.4 or 1.8 primes.
If you really need something f/2.8 or larger, Canon's budget primes are optically great at 1/5th to a 1/10th the cost of those L counterparts. For most hobbyists and semi-professionals, these lenses will do the job. Canon has done a great job improving their budget lenses where you really only need to consider those L lenses if you are a workhorse and need that weather sealing or higher quality motor.
The RF 24-105 f4 L is my go-to walk around lens on my R & R3 ................................... The RF 50 f1.8 is also always in my bag, Not great quality but still a great little lens
Even a 24-105 F4 gives plenty of Bokeh, provided you put distance between the subject and the background. Is it the best for Bokeh? Of course not. I'll rely on my 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.4 most of the time. But if for whatever reason I don't have those with me, I have no problems taking a portrait with the 24-105, which is probably the best general zoom lens a person can own.
Like the old saying goes you marry your lenses but date your camera body. When I had my Canon R converted to full spectrum. I ended up going the vintage lens route. I still own two fast zooms only for video or autofocusing convenience. I am blown away with the quality of glass out there in the vintage world and for myself I don't really care for the over corrected modern lenses I find them to be flat and over sharp. The only thing I can really say, everything is a compromise with this art from the lenses to the cannon body. I like one of your other videos only other photographers care about your gear people only care about the image.
I used to shoot weddings, hundreds of them. I now shoot mostly models, headshots, portraits etc. Back when I shot weddings, I had a variety of lenses, but I mostly used these five: 28mm 1.8 for expansive church/wedding location shots, 50mm 1.8 for detail shots. 28-200 2.8 IS L for shots of the actual wedding, and speakers at the reception, etc. A 24-70 2.8 for reception photos. But the lens I used about 80% of the time was my 24-105 F/4 IS L. I used it at the reception, outdoors, with and without flash, etc. It was my workhorse wedding lens. The rest got used as needed but not nearly as much as the 24-105. I still shoot events and I use the 28-200 2.8 IS L and the 24-105 f/4 L, and once in a while the 24-70 f/2.8 almost exclusively for events. So, I agree the 24-105 is a workhorse of a lens. I've shot family shots at receptions, with the 24-105, and had them enlarged to 24x36 many times--they hold together extremely well.
Thank you, great video. Very "punchy". You just got straight into the key points. Awesome 🎉. As a hobby photographer, the best thing that I did for myself was to buy an f1.2 lens. Absolutely beautiful images. As a hobby photographer, the worst thing that I did for myself was to buy an f1.2 lens. The images from my f1.2 lens make the images from my cheaper lenses look crappy! I have spoilt myself!
Well explained and clarified Hayward. As a long time pro I can tell you I've not been one of those f 2.8 shooters. I just personally dislike having only the eyes in focus but not the nose or ears. It just bugged me. Today's technology ensures your focus can nail that tight focus spot, which increases the chances that a good majority of the images are going to be sharp in the most critical place. But as you said, the goal isn't to obliterate the background for most photographers. In fact, for my style, I typically want the background to be recognizable as a support to the story I'm telling. But again, that's my style. Having said that, I do use 2.8 with my astro-photography where that gives me the most light and I really don't have to worry about the stars depth pf field!
I've made the argument in a few videos that if you are above 60mm and you are below f2 and you are printing to like 30 inches, the resulting print will almost be surreal... LOL. its like a face in colored cotton! Agree - to each his own... astrophotography is on my bucket list, I have a nice telescope that I enjoy, but I have yet to get to the photography part. Thanks for watching!
That end is awesome. Good one! It's true. The thing with expensive lenses is, that if you do not earn money with your pphotography and you're not wealthy, the (in case of canon) lense can't be worth 2k more for you just to get a little more light. To be fair. Often they are a bit sharper on the edges and stuff like that. But it's ridiculous with some lenses. I'm looking for a EF 16-35mm F2.8 ll lense for some landscapes now, and I'm open to buy it used, if it's in good condition. Because the RF 15-35 F2.8 is just ridiculously expensive for a hobby photographer like me. Best lenses for the money that I've bought so far and where I don't feel like missing something (except dust protectione etc.) are the RF 100-400 5.6-8 and the RF 85mm F2.0
When I switched to Canon mirrorless I opted for the 24-105 f4 instead of the 24-70. Experience has taught me versatility over 1 stop of light was worth the trade off. And, I saved a thousand bucks. Besides, the R6 can more than handle the noise of losing a stop of light. Great video!
Thanks for watching! I've opted for primes when I really need the speed because they tend to give way more than that 1 stop improvement.
@@CoffeeandPhotographyTalk Same here.
Good point!
My Sony 24-105mm F4 is my go to lens, super versatile. I think about my lenses in terms of day and night lenses, fast primes for night, versatile zooms for day.
Love this! As you said it's not necessary to obliterate the background all the time. And, even with a "slower" lens you can soften that background by playing with subject distances between you and between the background. Adjusting that ratio can get you background softness. But, when it comes down to it you need to know what your going to do with a lens first. As an amateur this is why I chose to go with a Fuji system. I can't afford the good FF lenses. But, Fuji makes quite a few really good quality lenses. I think a lot of amateur photographers forget to think about the entire system and that cost when they decide to buy a camera. I'm actually in the process of shopping for a zoom lens to do some youth sports and possibly a bit of auto racing. I shop for quite a while before deciding. I've looked at three of the Fuji lenses. One is more affordable that the other two of course! I've also thought about looking at both third party and used lenses from other brands like Canon and adapting them. As they say, "...it's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase..."!! LOL! (Stole that one from Deep Purple) Have a great week!!
Thank you so much for watching - good luck with your photography!
Back when I was shooting portraiture on film f5.6 or f8 was used quite a bit. The one reason I do like faster lenses is simply because most lenses are at their sharpest a few stops down from maximum. Using distance and focal length can give you nice, blurred backgrounds even if you don't have really fast lenses. As you noted in a response, when you really need fast, get 1.4 or 1.8 primes.
If you really need something f/2.8 or larger, Canon's budget primes are optically great at 1/5th to a 1/10th the cost of those L counterparts. For most hobbyists and semi-professionals, these lenses will do the job. Canon has done a great job improving their budget lenses where you really only need to consider those L lenses if you are a workhorse and need that weather sealing or higher quality motor.
100% agree!
The RF 24-105 f4 L is my go-to walk around lens on my R & R3 ................................... The RF 50 f1.8 is also always in my bag, Not great quality but still a great little lens
R3 is a helluva camera! Thanks for watching!
@@CoffeeandPhotographyTalk Yes the R3 is a fantastic piece of kit, especially the autofocus, lightning fast and extremely accurate.
Even a 24-105 F4 gives plenty of Bokeh, provided you put distance between the subject and the background. Is it the best for Bokeh? Of course not. I'll rely on my 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.4 most of the time. But if for whatever reason I don't have those with me, I have no problems taking a portrait with the 24-105, which is probably the best general zoom lens a person can own.
Thanks for watching
Like the old saying goes you marry your lenses but date your camera body. When I had my Canon R converted to full spectrum. I ended up going the vintage lens route. I still own two fast zooms only for video or autofocusing convenience. I am blown away with the quality of glass out there in the vintage world and for myself I don't really care for the over corrected modern lenses I find them to be flat and over sharp. The only thing I can really say, everything is a compromise with this art from the lenses to the cannon body. I like one of your other videos only other photographers care about your gear people only care about the image.
I’ve never heard that one - love it!
This is brilliant! What a punchline. 🤠
Thanks for watching!
I used to shoot weddings, hundreds of them. I now shoot mostly models, headshots, portraits etc. Back when I shot weddings, I had a variety of lenses, but I mostly used these five: 28mm 1.8 for expansive church/wedding location shots, 50mm 1.8 for detail shots. 28-200 2.8 IS L for shots of the actual wedding, and speakers at the reception, etc. A 24-70 2.8 for reception photos. But the lens I used about 80% of the time was my 24-105 F/4 IS L. I used it at the reception, outdoors, with and without flash, etc. It was my workhorse wedding lens. The rest got used as needed but not nearly as much as the 24-105. I still shoot events and I use the 28-200 2.8 IS L and the 24-105 f/4 L, and once in a while the 24-70 f/2.8 almost exclusively for events. So, I agree the 24-105 is a workhorse of a lens. I've shot family shots at receptions, with the 24-105, and had them enlarged to 24x36 many times--they hold together extremely well.
Thanks for watching!
28-200 2.8 IS L? That Lens does not even exists... maybe 70-200? f/2.8 L IS USM?
@@GRaf05 You're absolutely right. I meant to write 70-200 not 28-200.
Thank you, great video. Very "punchy". You just got straight into the key points. Awesome 🎉.
As a hobby photographer, the best thing that I did for myself was to buy an f1.2 lens. Absolutely beautiful images.
As a hobby photographer, the worst thing that I did for myself was to buy an f1.2 lens. The images from my f1.2 lens make the images from my cheaper lenses look crappy! I have spoilt myself!
They are astounding instruments…. At a price. Thanks for watching!
Well explained and clarified Hayward. As a long time pro I can tell you I've not been one of those f 2.8 shooters. I just personally dislike having only the eyes in focus but not the nose or ears. It just bugged me. Today's technology ensures your focus can nail that tight focus spot, which increases the chances that a good majority of the images are going to be sharp in the most critical place. But as you said, the goal isn't to obliterate the background for most photographers. In fact, for my style, I typically want the background to be recognizable as a support to the story I'm telling. But again, that's my style. Having said that, I do use 2.8 with my astro-photography where that gives me the most light and I really don't have to worry about the stars depth pf field!
I've made the argument in a few videos that if you are above 60mm and you are below f2 and you are printing to like 30 inches, the resulting print will almost be surreal... LOL. its like a face in colored cotton! Agree - to each his own... astrophotography is on my bucket list, I have a nice telescope that I enjoy, but I have yet to get to the photography part. Thanks for watching!
That end is awesome. Good one!
It's true. The thing with expensive lenses is, that if you do not earn money with your pphotography and you're not wealthy, the (in case of canon) lense can't be worth 2k more for you just to get a little more light. To be fair. Often they are a bit sharper on the edges and stuff like that. But it's ridiculous with some lenses.
I'm looking for a EF 16-35mm F2.8 ll lense for some landscapes now, and I'm open to buy it used, if it's in good condition. Because the RF 15-35 F2.8 is just ridiculously expensive for a hobby photographer like me.
Best lenses for the money that I've bought so far and where I don't feel like missing something (except dust protectione etc.) are the RF 100-400 5.6-8 and the RF 85mm F2.0
As to the ending.. 🤭🤣. But yes, lenses are a HUGE decision with so many factors involved. Thanks for watching!
Hahahha you finished this video in style