Are the 60mm good for taking photographs of paintings? or should I go to 100mm
1735989
a 60mm I use for flowers and small insect pictures. It would be OK for paintings.
1735990
I am sure you already know the answer. It depends. The factors that govern will be size of painting to be photographed, distance from surface, lighting and you camera (full frame or cropped sensor). You might consider borrowing or renting a similar focal length lens to see how it all lines up. Best of luck.
609598
I used to use Canon 60D with this lens that didn't come with really good photos. Yet when I upgraded to 5D Mark III that takes a extremely good photos.I won't suggest you to get this unless you upgrade to more high class body.
858189
Hi, thanks question. I think this lens is good for portraits. My recommendation is AF-S 50mm F1.8G, AF-S 35mm F1.8G. If certain distance is short focus , would be good if necessary zoom can afford. Thanks in advance.
136117
close focussing on the 20mm is not great, for sloes up work you would be better off with the 45mm f2.8 macro Pana-leica or the 60mm macro M.zuiko
1190286
It works very well on the 60d. One thing to keep in mind though is it does not have autofocus if you plan on taking photos with it. You have to have a pretty good eye for focusing manually. Also this is a great lens for video, the manual aperture is really handy.
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.
1431095
It's a matter of personal preference I guess. A 60" seemed like a waste to me since I won't be holding that long on a shot to make use of that much track (I'm using it for video). My other consideration was portability and ease of use in tight spaces. Doing a sliding shot in a confined area won't be easy with a 60", but it's a snap with a 32". However, if you're a time-lapse photographer working in open spaces, a 60" track might make sense. Hope this helps.
2101849
yes if you prefer wider angles.Also take in to consideration the type of camera you have if it is not a full fame ( depending on the crop ratio) then that 80 is more like a 120 mm so with a 35 is more like a 50 mm.
2054215
The best way to answer your question is to ask what you're using it for. If you are using it for portraits of family members, I prefer this over the 50mm. However, if you are looking for point and shoot lenses, this is not the one for you.
113468
Yes - this would be a nice match for the 60D. It is somewhat heavy, and it's limited to fairly well lit situations, but I've used it as a walk around lens at indoor horse shows, etc. An alternative that isn't quite as heavy, but not quite as sharp is the 70-300mm (not to be confused with the cheaper 75-300mm) for about half the price. It's a little less heavy, and does turn out very nice images. The 70-200 is sharper, but you may be happier with the less expensive, non-L 70-300 as a walk around telephoto zoom lens. The best walk around all purpose lens in my opinion is the 24-105 mm f/4L lens. Not as long, but I've found over the years that this is the lens that I keep on my camera more than any other. Yes - this would be a nice match for the 60D. It is somewhat heavy, and it's limited to fairly well lit situations, but I've used it as a walk around lens at indoor horse shows, etc. An alternative that isn't quite as heavy, but not quite as sharp is the 70-300mm (not to be confused with the cheaper 75-300mm) for about half the price. It's a little less heavy, and does turn out very nice images. The 70-200 is sharper, but you may be happier with the less expensive, non-L 70-300 as a walk around telephoto zoom lens. The best walk around all purpose lens in my opinion is the 24-105 mm f/4L... » Read More Yes - this would be a nice match for the 60D. It is somewhat heavy, and it's limited to fairly well lit situations, but I've used it as a walk around lens at indoor horse shows, etc. An alternative that isn't quite as heavy, but not quite as sharp is the 70-300mm (not to be confused with the cheaper 75-300mm) for about half the price. It's a little less heavy, and does turn out very nice images. The 70-200 is sharper, but you may be happier with the less expensive, non-L 70-300 as a walk around telephoto zoom lens. The best walk around all purpose lens in my opinion is the 24-105 mm f/4L lens. Not as long, but I've found over the years that this is the lens that I keep on my camera more than any other. « Show Less
366009
It depends on your preferences: if you are serious about photography then you'd want 60D. If you just want to take nice family photos then Rebel will be more then enough.
1723237
I like the SL 1 for general photography, the smaller size and lighter weight would be good for packing in the field. It has a 'cropped' sensor which gives a telephoto factor of 1.6, so a 50 MM lens acts like an 80 MM and 200 MM like a 320 MM, but smaller sensor size means less 'light on film' and might be a problem in low light situations. You might need a longer lens for birds 'a couple hundred feet away' it would be nice to check the lens out in a store or if you know someone with a similar set up.
505058
I always use a tripod, so I can't answer this question. But one would expect a 100mm lens to be very sensitive to movement. It's the price you pay for amazing magnification. I've been using the LiveView focus feature on my computer screen, which allows me to re-focus individual areas of the photo every time there is a position change. I highly recommend setting this feature up if you have a stationary subject.
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.
1587467
In my opinion it performs well in the lower numbers, 17-35ish mm. But you would probably be better off renting one for half a day or w/e your local photography stores rent them by; per day, half day, hour.
1580106
This lens is useful in many low light situations. it is like the 50mm 1.4G (only bigger, longer, heavier, sharper and a lot more expensive). Compared to the 50mm 1.4G, it also and requires more light due to the longer focal length. Is it suitable for museum or church or any indoor shoot? Yes. Is it worth the price? That depends. IMHO, 50mm can perform that just as well, except it does not that reach.
1244450
They both work well. The 60mm will give you a greater Depth of field than the 105, so you will be able to have more of the subject in focus front to back.