What lenses to get now? - DPChallenge Forums

12/11/2008 02:07:16 PM · #1

Okay, so my main concern is portrait photography, most of which are outdoors and not more than 6 people (family portraits).

Now, I'll have somewhere between 500-600 dollars to spend when I do get new lenses. I have already used the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, but I used it maybe 5% of the time max when doing actual shoots (I ended up using it more for my carry-lens) so I don't think I'll get that one again, at least for a while anyway.

So what I have been considering are these:
1: Canon 70-200 F4L for DOF purposes and would love the reach (available lighting isn't a huge concern for outdoor portraits)
2: Canon 85 F1.8 because it is hailed as "the" portrait lens and then I'll have like $150-$250 for something else
3: Canon 100 F2.8 Macro because I've heard it's a pretty good portrait lens as well.

I guess another concern is that I don't want to shoot myself in the foot versatility-wise.

I am curious to see what you all think. Thanks again.

12/11/2008 02:15:32 PM · #2

The 100mm macro is an excellent portrait lens but too long for full body portraits. The 85mm is also great but a little long for full body portraits on a 1.6 crop camera unless you have some room. But full body portraits turn out nicer anyway with a shorter lens.

With your budget I would buy the 100mm macro for shoulders up portraits and a 50 f/1.8 (big bang for the buck!) for body and group portraits.

The 85mm would have been a good option but if you do get the 50, the 100 is a IMO a better mix - plus it's also IMO Canon's best macro lens. Many photogs argue that it has "L" quality.

12/11/2008 02:17:47 PM · #3

Oh, I forgot to mention I already have the Canon 50mm f1.8 II. That lens has been my bread and butter since day one on portraits.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 14:18:08.

12/11/2008 02:20:48 PM · #4

Originally posted by goinskiing:

Oh, I forgot to mention I already have the Canon 50mm f1.8 II. That lens has been my bread and butter since day one on portraits.

I would still get the 100mm macro. Unless of course... you could buy a second hand 135mm f/2.0L. This is an awesome shoulders-up portrait lens (have one myself)! Very sharp and excellent bokeh.

12/11/2008 02:35:21 PM · #5

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by goinskiing:
Oh, I forgot to mention I already have the Canon 50mm f1.8 II. That lens has been my bread and butter since day one on portraits.

I would still get the 100mm macro. Unless of course... you could buy a second hand 135mm f/2.0L. This is an awesome shoulders-up portrait lens (have one myself)! Very sharp and excellent bokeh.

Trying to decide on lenses is tough!

12/11/2008 02:46:15 PM · #6

I wouldn't bother with the 100mm macro for portraits - too slow (the real problem) and too sharp (yes you can fix that later). The 70-200 F4L is a better portrait lens in that context than the 100mm macro.

Depends a lot on the style of portraits you really want to take and the subjects (age/sex etc)

I've shot almost exclusively with an 85 1.8 for portraits (and just about everything else) for the last year. Far and away my most favourite lens, on a 1.3x crop camera. I used to love the 50mm 1.4 for portraits on a 1.6x crop body - even though it is maybe a wee bit too short to get decent compression on facial expressions, but on a 1.3x it really suffers.

Out of the 3 you suggested, I own them all and would rate the 100mm macro last for portraits, the 70-200 then the 85 as my most favourite, but you need to take that in the context of the crop factor and subject matter. I mostly do street portraiture, available light, and fairly tight crops. The book in my profile was shot exclusively with the 85mm 1.8, as an example.

I'd recommend just renting each one and seeing which works for you and how you like to shoot. The 'recommended' lenses don't mean much if you really would prefer to be shooting your portraits at 35mm. You can spend a few bucks and try them out, or borrow them and get an idea if they work well for you or not, before spending the money.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 14:55:38.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2008 02:56:29 PM · #7

I'm seriously considering the Canon 70-200 F4L because I know it performs well in available light and I want the reach as well for things like marching band tourney pictures. I would love to get my hands on both really, but funds are tight. I may save up for the 85 f1.8 after that though.

I can just use my little kit for group shots if the 50 isn't wide enough.

It's just a tough decision because I need to give good justifications for my wife for the $ as I'm in college and what-not.

Thanks for the suggestions! If there is something else I haven't considered let me know.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/11/2008 03:00:00 PM · #8

Originally posted by Gordon:

Hmmm. I primarily use my 50mm (f1.4 now, previously f1.8) for portraits. Second would be my 85mm f1.8. I've used a 100mm lens, but I find the standoff distance a bit much for anything but H&S shots. My 28mm f1.8 is nice in tight spaces, but you can get a bit of distortion if you aren't careful.

I just don't use my 70-200 f4 for people much, but it's definitely a great lens.

12/11/2008 03:10:59 PM · #9

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I just don't use my 70-200 f4 for people much, but it's definitely a great lens.

I agree spaz.. Also had the 70-200 f4 and later upgraded to the 70-200 f2.8L IS (on FF cameras). Both of them stayed in the bag almost all the time while I used my primes - such a waste of money for me. But it's all a matter of preference as Gordon suggested. And Gordon is right in that the 100mm is slow (if you need the speed for portraits?). That's why I bought the 135mm f2.0 (much faster!).

Ask

scarbrd for instance. We have been on photo shoots together and my 16-35 2.8L, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS stayed in the bag most of the time while I used my 100mm macro and 50mm 1.4. :) I just couldn't justify using lenses that were not as sharp as my primes when I had them available to me.

I have never owned an 85mm of any kind though.

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/11/2008 03:42:42 PM · #10

I have both the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8 and I got the 100 first. I was BLOWN AWAY by this lens and have created lovely portraits with it.

The cool part about it is that you also then have a Macro lens - which I thought I wouldn't use, but turns out I use quite frequently.

It's quiet and fast and SHARP!

The 85 is lovely too. But I would buy the 100 first again if faced with that choice.

rmezzo

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/11/2008 04:01:08 PM · #11

You said that your 50mm was your bread and butter lens for portraits. If you purchase the 85mm I could see you not using the 50 anymore.

I think the other lenses are better choices because you either get the reach of the 70-200 or the macro ability of the 100. Now just decide what you would use more.

12/11/2008 04:15:58 PM · #12

Originally posted by TrollMan:

(if you need the speed for portraits?).

I certainly do, because I don't really shoot posed portraits. It depends very much on how you want to use the lenses. The 100mm is just about useless for me for doing street portraiture.

Prof_Fate

12/11/2008 04:25:53 PM · #13

Originally posted by goinskiing:

So what I have been considering are these:
1: Canon 70-200 F4L for DOF purposes and would love the reach (available lighting isn't a huge concern for outdoor portraits)

FOr DOF purposes you want the 2.8 lens, not the F4. The 4 is nice but the bokeh isn't nrearly as nice. And get the IS version. Yeah, it's not cheap but you buy it only once. And it's a great lens.

Originally posted by goinskiing:

2: Canon 85 F1.8 because it is hailed as "the" portrait lens and then I'll have like $150-$250 for something else

Maybe. The 1.2 is THE lens IF you have FF body. I find 85 long on a crop body. The 50 1.2 is a killer lens. Way better than the 1.4 - find someone/somplace to try both and you'll see a huge difference wide open between the two. the 1.8 is junk in comparison.

Originally posted by goinskiing:

3: Canon 100 F2.8 Macro because I've heard it's a pretty good portrait lens as well.

That is a very nice lens. Also consider the 135 2.8 SF. It's not USM so it's a tad slow to focus but it's sharp and you have the soft focus options. It' even longer than the 85 ona 1.6 crop body so you need space or do just head shots. It's cheap though. The best 135 is the 2.0 of course.

Versatiltity wise you need them all, so to speak. For potraiture you don't really need wide, but for weddings you do.
The 24-70 is probably the most versatile lens overall.

60 to 120mm range is probably the most used for head/head and shoulders portraiture. So a 70-200 works well. Outdoors it's my #1 lens for 1 or 2 people.

I find myself wanting tigher than 70 or wider than 70 depending on the lens so I've considered the 24-105 F4 several times but never quite bit hte bullet. I think I'm going to go FF and see how my lenses work at well, to me, shorter focal lengths.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2008 04:41:47 PM · #14

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The 1.2 is another lens I don't much like because of the speed. I had it for a while and went back to using the 1.8. Again why I'd suggest trying them out. the 70-200 f2.8IS is another fine example - a very nice lens, but potentially heavy and unnecessary, depending on the type of shooting the OP wants to do. I also dislike zooms for portraits, less stuff to fuss around with means more time paying attention to the subject and less time playing with the camera. My feet zoom well enough to do. Seems like the more pictures I take, the fewer wizzbang lenses I feel I really need.

Some of the more successful portraitists in the world do most of their headshots with a moderately wide prime lens. It is very much a personal choice. There's probably a career waiting to be made shooting 17mm portraits.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:48:00.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/11/2008 04:41:49 PM · #15

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by goinskiing:

2: Canon 85 F1.8 because it is hailed as "the" portrait lens and then I'll have like $150-$250 for something else

Maybe. The 1.2 is THE lens IF you have FF body. I find 85 long on a crop body. The 50 1.2 is a killer lens. Way better than the 1.4 - find someone/somplace to try both and you'll see a huge difference wide open between the two. the 1.8 is junk in comparison.

Either of those f1.2 lenses are well beyond the $500-$600 budget proposed my the OP.

12/11/2008 04:46:45 PM · #16

Originally posted by Gordon:

The 100mm is just about useless for me for doing street portraiture.

I agree - for street candids/portraits I use my 135 2.0L. But the f/4L does lack bokeh (ref prof_fate) for me. This is of course not as important if you are taking mostly environmental portraits.

When I compared sharpness between the 100mm and 70-200 2.8L IS it was disappointing to see how much blurrier the 70-200 was. The f/4L was no better. I still maintain that a cheaper prime often is better than a hyper-expensive zoom though. But the primes do of course lack versatility. If you are willing to sacrifice sharpness and better bokeh for versatility and faster AF is of course a personal preference.

I also agree with you Prof_fate but the lenses you mentioned are maybe too much on a college budget and probably not realistic for goinskiing.

The 50mm 1.4 for reference is great but useless below 2.8. I'm going to trade it up to the 50mm 1.2 before Xmas. But I also want the new EF24 1.4L II... badly! I NEED more money!! :)

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:48:43.

12/11/2008 05:23:04 PM · #17

I think that's where I'm still trying to decide as I really like the versatility of the the 70-200 F4L, it would be awesome for daytime events like marching band competitions. I have seen some pretty nice portraits from others' F4L's and though the DOF won't be ideal it would still work I think. I personally would LOVE to get the 2.8, but even the non-is is out of the proposed budget, if it were up to me I would get it in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, the Canon 100 F2.8 is quite sharp and that is very appealing to me, but not as versatile. I like the fast aperature (though not as fast zoom, but I have been using the 50mm f1.8 for long enough that ANYTHING would be faster than that at this point).

I think that's where I'm having a hard time.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/11/2008 05:24:57 PM · #18

Originally posted by goinskiing:

I have the 70-200 F4L. It is a great lens, for outdoor shooting/ day time sports. Mine has sat in a drawer for about 2 years now... Mind you, my 100 f2.8 macro has seen about as much action. Since I started shooting just about nothing but portraits, neither of those two lenses have made it on to my camera. In case it isn't clear - all I'm trying to say is what other people tell you about which lenses you should buy isn't worth a hill of beans, until you work out which lens you actually want to use. You could find that a 50mm f1.4 floats your boat, or you want to do all your portraits at 17mm, and then you've spent a couple of grand to get something that doesn't even approach those focal lengths. Maybe you'll get the religion that zooms are just a load of extra weight and slow glass, maybe not. Maybe a lensbaby is the perfect portrait lens for you.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:37:23.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

12/11/2008 05:30:47 PM · #19

If you do decide on the 70-200 f4L, let me know. I think I should sell mine (and it would be cheaper than a new one). I don't do wildlife or zoos often, and for street stuff I'm quite happy with my 24-105 and my 10-22. I don't do portraits so I can't offer any advice on which lens is best for that sort of thing.

12/11/2008 05:37:21 PM · #20

Originally posted by Melethia:

I'll definitely keep in touch with you if I decide to, thank you.

I guess I still see myself using the 50mm the most even after these purchases, I just can't go wrong with it. So maybe the versatility and length are what I'm looking for and I guess used secondary if I want a tighter crop.

Prof_Fate

12/11/2008 08:27:14 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by goinskiing:

2: Canon 85 F1.8 because it is hailed as "the" portrait lens and then I'll have like $150-$250 for something else

Maybe. The 1.2 is THE lens IF you have FF body. I find 85 long on a crop body. The 50 1.2 is a killer lens. Way better than the 1.4 - find someone/somplace to try both and you'll see a huge difference wide open between the two. the 1.8 is junk in comparison.

Either of those f1.2 lenses are well beyond the $500-$600 budget proposed my the OP.

Yaeh, but you can buy it once or buy it over and over again. It's a hard lesson to be taught and most learn it by experience. I have learned by experience. Had I bit the bullet and bought better lenses up front I'd probably have enough 'extra' money to buy another lens. That 'extra' money comes from the loss of selling the used lenses I upgraded from.

Also, canon often has a rebate deal around now or after the first of the year so some of these things can be more affordable. I got my 50 1.2 last january for $1050ish - about $300 less (nearly 30%) than it's regular price.

Also one can shop for used lenses. My 70-200F4 was bought used as was 2 of my 3 flashes, my 85 1.8 too.

Prof_Fate

12/11/2008 08:30:15 PM · #22

Originally posted by goinskiing:

I personally would LOVE to get the 2.8, but even the non-is is out of the proposed budget, if it were up to me I would get it in a heartbeat.

DOn't know if you can get into this post if your not a registerd user of the site (PM me if you want the seller contact info) //www.prophotohome.com/forum/trading-post/80168-fs-3-canon-l-lenses.html
70-200 2.8 for $800. Not the IS version but it's a good price and perhaps you can talk him down a bit.
He's also got a 17-40 F4 and teh one I'd like, a 400 2.8 (at $3500 which is a good price even for the non-IS version)

12/11/2008 10:33:48 PM · #23

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by goinskiing:
I personally would LOVE to get the 2.8, but even the non-is is out of the proposed budget, if it were up to me I would get it in a heartbeat.

DOn't know if you can get into this post if your not a registerd user of the site (PM me if you want the seller contact info) //www.prophotohome.com/forum/trading-post/80168-fs-3-canon-l-lenses.html
70-200 2.8 for $800. Not the IS version but it's a good price and perhaps you can talk him down a bit.
He's also got a 17-40 F4 and teh one I'd like, a 400 2.8 (at $3500 which is a good price even for the non-IS version)

Ah, I see you're looking at getting me in trouble. ;)

I have been held to a fairly strict budget though, but that's good though because if my wife didn't help me I would spend myself silly.

If I can somehow come up with a little more I'll keep my eye out. Thanks for the link Prof_Fate.

12/11/2008 10:37:40 PM · #24

The one thing nobody seems to have asked and you haven't really mentioned, is what do you find wrong specifically with the lenses you currently have? Once you know that it should be easy enough to work out what you need to address it.