Lens Purchase - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/02/2004 01:40:32 PM · #1

I'm going to purchase 2 new lenses. One of them will be for portraits and one will be for macro work. I've pretty much decided on the Sigma 105mm EX Macro AutoFocus lens. For portraits, I'm trying to decide on:

Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM Auto Focus or
Canon Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM AutoFocus Lens

My only thought with the second lens is that it could be versatile enough to use on other types of subjects. I already have the Canon 75-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6 USM AutoFocus Lens and the kit lens.

I'll be getting the 50mm f/1.8 also when B&H has it available again.

Thoughts?

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 13:41:27.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

03/02/2004 01:43:26 PM · #2

Well, from a pro point of view, for portraits the 85mm is what they'd choose.. Hence you can get an F1.2 L range version..

There's a big difference between 28mm and 85mm, so it depends what you want the lens for. If it's JUST for portraits, or certain sports (which is why I'm looking at the 85mm 1.2 or 1.8's) then the 85mm will be great. If you want a LOT more versatility, then 28-135 may be better..

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 13:45:06.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/02/2004 01:46:34 PM · #3

Try the Sigma 105 for both. If it doesn't work out, then pursue a different lens for portraits.

tyrkinn

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/02/2004 01:48:56 PM · #4

Please note that the 85mm becomes a 135mm with the 1.6 field-of-view crop on the 300D (and the 10D). I'm waiting for my Canon 50mm f/1.4 (...and the 28-135mm IS) that I hope does good on portraits (It works like a 80mm with the field-of-view crop). Any points on that, what focal lenghts are most useful on portraits?

03/02/2004 01:50:10 PM · #5

Thanks Paul... I don't really need a lot of versatility... It will be mainly for portraits, I'll be shooting some sports and at some point probably will do more low light band type of work. I already have the wide angle in the kit lens... so I think my answer is becoming clearer.

Good Point John - the Sigma is an f/2.8 after all... You may have just saved me some $$$ :-)

I also would like remote operation and I know about the cable version of the remote, but is there another that works with the 300D that is wireless?

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

03/02/2004 01:51:03 PM · #6

Totally depends on your choices. If you want versatility then the 28-135 will hit the range you want. If you want creamy fades throughout the background and professional grade bokeh on your portraits then I think you couldn't make a better decision given the 1.6x magnification factor of the 300D than to select the 85mm and the 50mm. I went ahead and got the 50mm f/1.8 which is a steal but as I'm trying to work this into a portrait and wedding business I'll be looking for the faster 50mm in the future. I'm just saving up to get the 85mm f/1.2 L. I'd suggest searching Photo.net and FredMiranda.com for comments regarding this lens. I can safely say that I've only found one photog that ever sold his/her 85 f/1.2L and he said he regretted it to this day and had to purchase another since then to replace it. In deference to the 1.8 I have only read of a couple of people who bought the 1.8 and then just had to upgrade to the 1.2 so whichever you choose I think that the 85mm is the next lens to get if you're going to focus (pardon the pun) on portraiture.

In portraits you won't be looking for versatility; you'll be wanting clear, sweet glass that can produce razor sharp eyes and faded backgrounds all in the same photo.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/02/2004 01:54:38 PM · #7

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Try the Sigma 105 for both. If it doesn't work out, then pursue a different lens for portraits.

I agree, although, I hear complaints about the Sigma being slow to focus sometimes. You should try it out though and if it is too slow for you, try the Canon 100mm Macro. The focal length difference between 85 and 100 mm is not really enough to justify 2 primes if one will do the trick. The only real advantage that the 85mm 1.8 will have is the extra 1.5 stops of light.

I would not choose the 28-135 for portraits because you may not get a shallow enough DOF even wide open.

03/02/2004 01:59:58 PM · #8

Thanks Kevin and Dan, good advice! I think I've ruled out the 28-135 at this point. You are both right - I do want it razor sharp on my subjects and nice fades of the background.

John, any comments on the Sigma being a little slow to focus? Anyone else using that lens have comments on it? I know you really like your lens John.

I did have my eye on that Canon 100mm, but it's about $100 more than the Sigma

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 14:00:23.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/02/2004 02:09:35 PM · #9

Tina,

Again, go for whatever you want but here's some of my thinking on the issue.
Historically professional photographers using 35mm will select lenses that range from 75mm - 135mm with the most common being around 105mm for portraits. To that end, the 50mm on your camera or mine works for the shorter end of that spectrum. At $70 USD you can't beat the f/1.8 version of that lens. Regardless of whether you select the f/1.2 L or the f/1.8 version of the 85mm you're going to get the upper end of the historical range as the 85mm corresponds to 136mm on either of our camera bodies. Going with the 100mm gives you 160mm effectively and that might be nice for macros but I'm not sure that its far enough away from the "standard range" to really capture a portrait that is sufficiently edgy and different to justify it in my mind. On the other hand the 135mm f/2 L translates to 216mm, gives tack sharp images (arguably comparable to the 85 f/1.2 L) and gets nothing but the highest marks from anyone that owns it //www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&thecat=2. I tend to think that if you're trying to shoot something artistically different from the norm for a model then 216mm is going to really flatten out the features and give you a different view of a face.

Since I've been wrestling with some of the same purchase options I just thought I'd share what I was thinking.

Hope you enjoy whatever you get and please share what you decide on as well as the images.

Kev

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

03/02/2004 02:15:15 PM · #10

Well, according to PhotoZone, at least, the 85/1.2 is a piece of junk compared to the 1.8!

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 14:16:18.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/02/2004 02:28:42 PM · #11

Hmmm, very interesting points of view here. I really do have my eye on that 85mm f/1.8

Since I do plan on getting the 50mm f/1.8 regardless, I may hold off on the 85mm and see how that lens does.

Still pondering all this.

All this info is great. Thanks to everyone participating :-)

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/02/2004 02:30:11 PM · #12

Originally posted by tfaust:

John, any comments on the Sigma being a little slow to focus? Anyone else using that lens have comments on it? I know you really like your lens John.

I did have my eye on that Canon 100mm, but it's about $100 more than the Sigma

Yes. The Sigma AF is not as fast as the Canon. Portrait work does not require fast auto focus. You will be spending time composing your shot and setting your lighting. A portion of a second difference on auto focus speed is irrelevant. Personally, I would probably treat my portrait shots the same way I do for macro work. I use manual focus. I was not under the impression that your 'portrait' lens would be used for off-the-cuff candids and stuff like that. When I hear 'portrait', I think of posed work.

You have to be careful about advice you receive. You haven't received any BAD advice here. Everything said here has been true. You have to take into account what is relevant :)

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

03/02/2004 03:17:13 PM · #13

I don't know, I like my Canon 28-105mm.
It did a nice job for theseportraits
and this wedding.
It does a great job and is half the price of the 28-135.
I would look at the Sigma 24(28?)-70 2.8 EX. That looks like a good one to me.
I suggest you do not get the 85mm. For portraits, you don't want to be stuck to one length like that. Just get the 50mm so you have one prime for low light capabilities, and as John said, which is what I also do, use the Sigma 105macro if necessary

Of course, looking at some of those charts, nothing but the L series are good :)

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 15:32:15.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/02/2004 03:26:09 PM · #14

The 1.6x crop factor does not convert perfectly to 35mm format portrait lengths. It's not a magnification factor so much as it is a simple crop. To have a headshot of the same composition, you'll have to stand further back from a subject, yes, which will increase the DOF for that shot, given the same lens. In essence, this means less of a blur to your background with the same lens and the same composition with a digital back. For this reason, fast and/or long lenses are especially important with digital cameras as they'll help blur backgrounds. The 85 1.2 would be the perfect portrait lens for me, yes...if I could tell people where to stand. If not, go with a zoom. I find my 70-200 F4L to be an awesome portrait lens for my 10D, if the subject can tolerate the appearance of the lens. A professional zoom is unbeatable for reacting to a situation. The 2.8 version would be even better. Alas, people are quite often scared of it. My 50 1.4 is equally as impressive, if you can get up close. Wide open, for a headshot, it's possible to blur someone's ears while having their eyes in focus.

portrait with the 50 1.4

portrait with the 70-200 F4L (at 70mm)

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/02/2004 03:31:08 PM · #15

Portrait with Canon 50 mm F1.8 handheld/w flash

Candid with Canon 50 mm f1.8 handheld / w flash

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 15:32:36.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/02/2004 03:36:01 PM · #16

Candid portrait with the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS handheld (at f/4 and 145mm) (direct from camera; just resized 50% for better web viewability)

I would love to have the fast 85mm or 135mm primes...

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 15:37:03.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/02/2004 03:36:38 PM · #17

When shooting 35mm, my favorite portrait lens was my 105 f1.8 Nikkor. It was fast, had great bokeh, and was about $500 used when I bought it in 1993. For me, it was the perfect portrait lens. The equivalent for a 10D would be a 65mm lens. No one makes a fast(< f2.0) 60-75mm lens. The closest thing would be a 50mm or a 85mm. I think I'd rather err on the long side and go with the 85mm 1.8 (unless I had $$ to burn for the f1.2)

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

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

03/02/2004 03:38:04 PM · #18

Originally posted by EddyG:

Candid portrait with the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS handheld (at f/4 / 145mm)

I would love to have the fast 85mm or 135mm primes...

Allow me to drool and say, Great shot. Wish the catchlights were slightly larger but that is simply a fantastic shot for lighting, clarity and contrast.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/02/2004 04:02:21 PM · #19

Here is interesting one for portraits:Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS and is only 320 $,also you have constant A of 2.8...

jab119

03/02/2004 05:02:48 PM · #20

I like my Canon 50mm f1.4, but its pretty pricey and its a good lens, but if you dont want to drop around $350 for one, go with the Canon 50mm f1.8 for about $70 to $80, from wha I have read owners of the f.18 absolutely love it....

then again many are crazy about the Sigma 105mm Macro.... its a tough call....

James

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/02/2004 05:27:47 PM · #21

After you get the 50mm 1.8 (best lense for the $ ever )I would favor the Tamron Pitsaman mentioned.Another great lense for the price. Sharp as some L glass, with a constant 2.8. The 70-200 2.8L is an awesome lense and you can get one used for around $900 as people move to the IS version. It is a bit of a cannon and intimidates some people when you point it at them, but amazingly sharp and versitile.
For portraits the classic length is 85mm for full frame, which is about a 50mm with the 1.6 crop. You get an 85mm portrait lense and it will look like a 135mm lense to your 300d. Wait to get the 85mm till you have a full sized sensor to use with it.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/02/2004 05:40:58 PM · #22

i have the 105 mm macro and it is GREAT for portaits! (as long as only one subject in shot, otherwose DOF gets tricky) but it is a great lens, you dont need 2.

helgihelgi

Canon EOS-20D

03/02/2004 05:50:38 PM · #23

I managed to secure a 50mm f/1.8 from BH today right before it sold out. They told me there was a heavy backorder situation, and that Canon is releasing them in small quantities.