Lensical Advice. - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/19/2009 01:02:25 PM · #1

Need a bit of Advice on getting a new lens or lenses.

Right now i mostly take pictures of People or Buildings.

Portrait example
Building example

So basicly i like my architecture shots wide and my portraits shallow.

My camera is Canon 40D
My lenses are:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon
Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

The Sigma pretty much covers all my architectural work.
I very rarely use the 28-135mm and find im only using it for slightly wider or full bodyish portraits.

Would you recomend changing this for maybe a Canon EF 35mm f/2.0?

My 50mm is the lens i use for 95% of my portraits but isnt really useful for anything but headshots.

Is the jump from F/1.8 to 1.4 or even 1.2 worth the extra money?

Thanks JayA

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/19/2009 01:32:59 PM · #2

The 50/1.4 might be worth a look. The biggest advantage it has over the 1.8 is much better bokeh. Of course, if you are a fan of *really* shallow DoF portraits, the extra 1 stop of aperture is nice. It's not a slam dunk recommendation, though. The construction quality is good, but not stellar. The front element (actually the front of the lens body) does extend slightly during focusing, and you have to be careful to not put pressure on it during focusing.
The 35/2 might be a good choice for a "50mm substitute." It's an economical choice, and a very good performer by all accounts (I don't have direct experience).
Another option for you, although at a higher cost than even the 35/2 and 50/1.4 combination, would be a 24-xx zoom. In particular, the 24-70/2.8 provides a combination of great optical quality and enough aperture for all but the narrowest DoF portrait work. It is a big honking hunk of glass though, and may not suit your particular portrait style (very narrow DoF)

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/19/2009 04:29:48 PM · #3

A 24-70 2.8 will serve you very well, and you might also want to look at an 85mm 1.4 or 1.2 --absolutely superb for the type of headshot portraits you mentioned. I wouldn't spend money to go from 50 1.8 to 50 1.4, but on something other than 50mm instead.

TrollMan

Fujifilm X-T4

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4

12/19/2009 04:38:39 PM · #4

Like you I also take pictures of buildings - many times per week and used to use the 10-22 before I had a full frame camera. For portraits I also used to like the 50mm but would not recommend it since I think it tend to be a little short and distorts a little when taking shoulders up pics. Instead I use a 135 f2.0 lens a lot but again on a FF camera so it might be a little long for you.

If I were you I would definitely look at the 85mm 1.8 like

chromeydome also suggested. Not very expensive and yet extremely sharp and excellent bokeh. I don't have one myself but have used one many times and love it. It will be my next purchase.

ETA: typo

Message edited by author 2009-12-20 02:25:16.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/19/2009 08:25:13 PM · #5

the 50mm 1.4 has faster focusing, is as sharp as the 1.8 and isn't built (as much) like crap. It's a better lens in every regard, except for the price.

Are you looking for something like a mid-range zoom? Or another portrait lens?

Here's my suggestions for both:

Budget:

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

Canon 85mm f/ 1.8 <- awesome lens

Expensive:

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L

Canon 135mm f/2 L

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L <- another awesome lens

ETA: btw, there is no 85mm f/1.4 with auto focus for the Canon system.

Message edited by author 2009-12-19 20:26:14.

12/19/2009 08:30:01 PM · #6

I have three lens that I use for portraits. 85F1.8, 70-200F2.8(my favorite, but might be long on a 1.6 crop body) and the 135F2. All three are spectacular for portraits.

Matt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/20/2009 01:19:04 PM · #7

I have had the Canon 85mm f/ 1.8 before but i found it too narrow on my sensor.
So i think im best sticking with 50 and 35? and when i upgrade to full frame 85 and 50?

Will a zoom lens give the same quality as a prime?

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

12/20/2009 01:29:03 PM · #8

Originally posted by MattO:

I have three lens that I use for portraits. 85F1.8, 70-200F2.8(my favorite, but might be long on a 1.6 crop body) and the 135F2. All three are spectacular for portraits.

Matt

I second this but I do have a 50 1.4 as well and all four are my portrait lenses, just depends on the setting and situation on which I'll use but I get outstanding results from all. The 50 1.4 is worth the extra money over the fantastic plastic, better build, better focus, better bokeh, better sharpness and the extra stop makes it all the worth while.

A zoom will never match the quality of a prime and they usually cost more as well. I love my zooms but I see a noticeable difference in sharpness, especially wide open, from the zooms and primes. Not to mention you will get a faster lens on most primes over zooms that fall in their focal range.

12/20/2009 01:34:08 PM · #9

Okay im pretty sure i want to stick with primes.

Does a 35mm and 50mm on my crop sensor seem reasonable? And up to 50mm and 85mm when i upgrade to full frame?

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/20/2009 05:28:55 PM · #10

reasonable for what? They'll give you a 50mm and 85mm equivalent, but I would be hesitant about buying something I knew I wasn't going to keep and would just take a loss on once I had a new body. But then again, I don't buy anything unless I plan on using it for 2 years or more.

Primes are a good way to go with regards to size and weight but the 35mm f/2 isn't the sharpest thing I've seen and has the same horrible bokeh as the 50mm 1.8

//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx

but that's your call. I wouldn't buy it and would just use a 50mm 1.4 and take a few steps back instead.

This is totally subjective but the 85mm 1.8 is really worth another look. I went around the world with just that and a 40d and never thought twice about it. Plus, on full frame that lens is absolutely superb. I'm just a bit against buying something you know you wont use in the end, it's a waste of money.

photodude

12/20/2009 05:32:27 PM · #11

The 35 f/2 lens is tack sharp - sharper at 35mm than my 16-35 L

Message edited by author 2009-12-20 17:34:54.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/20/2009 05:37:04 PM · #12

Maybe in the center but in the corners? Can you link to any examples?

I find it hard to fathom the 35mm being as sharp as an L zoom at the corners wide open, especially when no reviews seem to corroborate this.

But maybe you lucked out, or everyone else didn't :)

12/20/2009 05:45:15 PM · #13

Hmm i may reconsider on the 35mm but think ill stick with upgrading my 50mm.

Is it REALLY worth saving for the 1.2L or shall i just go get the 1.4 now haha

photodude

12/20/2009 05:50:48 PM · #14

Read here - multiple owners not 1 reviewer. fredimiranda - 35 f/2 reviews Also, as an xxD shooter, the corners don't matter because you don't get them.

12/20/2009 06:47:03 PM · #15

Originally posted by JayA:

Hmm i may reconsider on the 35mm but think ill stick with upgrading my 50mm.

Is it REALLY worth saving for the 1.2L or shall i just go get the 1.4 now haha

With the focus issues with the 50 1.2L, I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole for stuff I was getting paid for.

Matt

12/20/2009 06:49:45 PM · #16

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by JayA:
Hmm i may reconsider on the 35mm but think ill stick with upgrading my 50mm.

Is it REALLY worth saving for the 1.2L or shall i just go get the 1.4 now haha

With the focus issues with the 50 1.2L, I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole for stuff I was getting paid for.

Matt

Focus issues?

TrollMan

Fujifilm X-T4

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4

12/20/2009 06:59:01 PM · #17

Have you looked at the Zeiss lenses? Manual focus though.

My favourite place for lens reviews: Fred Miranda Reviews

12/20/2009 07:02:39 PM · #18

Theres a 50mm F1.0 !!!

12/20/2009 07:25:48 PM · #19

Originally posted by JayA:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by JayA:
Hmm i may reconsider on the 35mm but think ill stick with upgrading my 50mm.

Is it REALLY worth saving for the 1.2L or shall i just go get the 1.4 now haha

With the focus issues with the 50 1.2L, I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole for stuff I was getting paid for.

Matt

Focus issues?

Google Canon 50MM F1.2 back focus issue, or focus shift, or anything related to it.

Matt

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

12/20/2009 07:49:42 PM · #20

The 35mm f/2.0 is very sharp and it's fast. It's also a little noisy and maybe some people don't think it's very cool. I've actually purchased the 24-70 f/2.8L twice now because I convinced myself I needed an L zoom and then ended up selling both on eBay because my 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.4 were both sharper, faster and lighter. I've since moved to a 5D MKII and cannot find a lens combination that matches my old 35, 50 and 85 primes for shooting people.

12/20/2009 07:53:25 PM · #21

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I've owned the 35F2 twice, and while it was sharp it was also dog slow focusing, and sounded like a wasp the whole time very annoying in a quiet ceremony setting.

Matt

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

12/20/2009 08:03:55 PM · #22

Originally posted by MattO:

I've owned the 35F2 twice, and while it was sharp it was also dog slow focusing, and sounded like a wasp the whole time very annoying in a quiet ceremony setting.

Matt

I couldn't agree more about the noise. I could never use this lens during wedding ceremony. I did use it for a lot of portrait work where my my actions were more deliberate and the slower focusing wasn't an issue. The 24-70 just didn't have the same look, so I put up with the quirks of the 35 f/2. It's not an ideal lens, but I think we would both agree that to say it's not sharp isn't accurate.

I really wish canon would update this lens with USM!

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

12/20/2009 08:32:45 PM · #23

I've also owned the 35/2 twice (and the 85/1.8 twice for that matter). I wonder sometimes if I just had bad luck with the lens because I wasn't too much a fan either time (even though I love the length). My 50/1.4 was much much sharper (as was my 24-70/2.8 when I owned that brick).

I hate canon's choices under 50mm ... either old, outdated designs, or too expensive L's and a huge gap of nothing in between. I've owned, and then sold all of the following:

canon 20mm 2.8
canon 28mm 2.8 (liked this one a lot actually, kind of want it back)
canon 35mm 2.0

People have a love/hate relationship with the 28/1.8 ... but I'm thinking about giving it a try.

I the moment, I borrow my wife's 17-55mm 2.8 IS (one of the best lenses I've ever used) ... but I do want a short prime.