35L, 135L, what lens to complete the set?!

<p>Hi people;</p>

<p>I am looking for an awesome prime lens in a focal length between the 35L and the 135L.<br>

I know people will say: complete the holy trinity and get the 85 1.2 II !<br>

My post is about what I should get?<br>

I used the 85 1.8 before and it was amazing. To be honest I don't know why I sold it, at least no reasonable explanation is in my mind now.<br>

I know one other alternative could be the 100 F2, but since I have macro (100 mm) and since 85 sits exactly halfway between the 35 and 135 im thinking 85 is better.<br>

I am hesitant to shell $2K on the 85L to be honest. I also decided to post this question in case a weird suggestion i.e. use a nikon 85 1.4 or a sigma with the canon would be good/worth it?<br>

any suggestion is welcomed</p>

A 24.

 

 

(-:

 

 

What do you have?

 

35, 100, 135 and ?

 

What will you do with it?

 

 

If you're in crop and want to fill the 35-100 gap then the 60 macro would be good.

 

And of course… if you don't know what you need then don't buy.

 

(plus your post almost answers itself)

 

More information would be welcome.

 

M.

<blockquote>

<p>I am hesitant to shell $2K on the 85L to be honest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dont worry you are not alone! Most people are hesitant to shell that for 85L/1.2! That said the 85/1.2 L is the third "Canon King" to the Holy Trinity set you are missing and it is indeed the "most awesome prime lens" and worth every penny<em> if you can afford it </em>IMO. The 85mm focal length is right in between the 35/1.4 L and the 135/2 L prime lenses. But I hate to say this ...at the end of the day / thread you may decide to re-purchase that 85/1.8 as it is a superb lens and really about as close as you will get to the 85/1.2 L without purchasing the 85/1.2 L.<br />Other options are the 50/1.2 L still expensive but not as expensive as the 85/1.2 L. You mention that you have the Canon 100 macro... is this the old version or new version? Because the Canon 100/2.8 L macro is a fine lens especially if you are into macro.</p>

<p>What exactly are you shooting? If you tell us, we can help narrow it down for you to help you complete your set. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah forgot to say...I shoot on full frame<br>

Main thing I want is bokeh & people photos. </p>

<p>To be honest I was shocked when in my last day of university, I shot with a 5D and the 24-70 (and sometimes the 35L) whereas my colleague shot with a Nikon 7000D (APS-C) and 35mm and 85mm primes. She killed it! when we both put our photos on facebook her album was really good she did not get a zoom lens to force herself to work with primes and it payed off. I must say though the 35L pics of mine where unmatchable!</p>

<p>I want to shoot primes all the way for the ceremony fingers crossed and I can't do that unless I get an 85 and probably use that with the 35 because frankly 135 is hard to use unless open spaces or wanting head/shoulder shots only. I want to complete the set and hopefully that means a REAL & PRACTICAL set that I can depend on to cover our graduation ceremony in 2 weeks time and resist the zoom lens temptation. I want to frankly get this colleague of mine back when we upload the graduation pics on facebook in a fortnight lol</p>

<p>her album was better outdoors because she used the bokeh in most of her pics and I want to do that in the graduation ceremony</p>

<p>thanks </p>

<p>Well we certainly can't have Nikon lenses out doing us Canon folk...not in this forum!;)</p>

<p>If you want amazing bokeh and it sounds like you already made up your mind on a 85mm focal length, I would just go for the Canon 85/1.8 or 85 /1.2 L. There is a Canon Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE Planar option but that is manual focus and not as sharp as the Canon 85 lenses (you can read the review link below). But try this first, a lot of people prefer to buy and you might not like this idea... but try <em>renting </em>the Canon 85/1.2 L first. That way you get those amazing portraits with bokeh for your ceremony and it will be a lot easier on your pocketbook. You will also get a feel of how to handle a lens capable of such a shallow DOF...<em> here is a portrait tip... focus on the eyes</em>! And who knows after you show her your ceremony portrait photos taken with the Canon 85/1.2 MKII she may even switch to Canon!</p>

<p>Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE Planar for Canon EOS<br /><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>While the 85/1.2 is a truly beautiful lens, it really excels at portraiture, and at f1.2 also is capable of producing imagery that nearly looks like it was done w/ a TS. Both those tasks are best accomplished slowly and decidedly. IME, I found that the lens was almost always best utilized when 'speed' isn't a factor, and where you can take the time to prefocus, and precisely set your focus manually. <br>

The 50/1.2 is much more friendly to faster moving (or moving at all!) subjects, and is still quite capable, though I think it doesn't quite have the 'magic' of the 85/1.2. </p>

<p>If you've got your heart set on the 85mm focal range, but are hesitant about the $2k the 85/1.2 will run you, you can always go back to the 85/1.8 (I've repurchased lenses sold before...several times, no shame!), but another option now is the Sig 85/1.4 HSM which is avail for ~$1k, has considerably better IQ than the EF 85/1.8 WO and near, and is equipped w/ a FTM HSM AF that is just as fast as the 85/1.8 (puts the 85/1.2 to shame in that department)... IME (I've used it a couple of times, but never owned one) it still didn't quite have the 'magic' of the 85/1.2, but was 95% of the way there, and with an AF system that made it vastly more useable in real life situations...</p>

<p>I'm not sure of Nikon's crop factor but from your second post your competition was shooting the equivalent of ~50mm and ~135mm (someone else can give the precise numbers). Since you find her work pleasing, maybe it's the 50mm focal length that you are locking onto?</p>

<p>It sounds like she did a great job in isolating the subject from the background - were a lot of her shots tight shots (as in close subject) with far away backgrounds? Will you be able to do the same at the graduation ceremony? If not and your subjects are far away and closer to backgrounds then the bokeh you seek may be fleeting - unless you can move around alot. It sounds like she was shooting wide open (or close to it) outdoors in daylight conditions - was she using ND filters? </p>

<p>Other things to consider is that perhaps she was getting sharper photos (she achieved better focus, better PP, better subject exposure, better composition, better skin tones, better in camera Jpeg settings, etc). Is it possible that her photos are actually superior in those areas and the bokeh (albeit quite pleasing) is taking all the credit.</p>

<p>What about flash - is the upcoming ceremony indoors and is flash allowed?</p>

<p>Brad: she definitely did better subject isolation in her album overall I am not too bothered by that since using primes more will do the trick for that. Main issue is the group photo results. could it be my 5D MKI is too old?</p>

<p>Brad all these suggestions you made where great. I shoot RAW and hence I modify a lot of settings and it helps. Main thing I will find out if flash is allowed on the graduation ceremony that's a must ask thanks for pointing it out.</p>

<p>But now to make things clear I copied one group shot from my album and one from hers. I put the links here. I realized the issue is more to do with: colour, sharpness, lighting. Bear in mind I used a 430exII whereas she used no flash at all. I tried to play with white balance on PS on raw files to make it like hers but no success. WHY?<br>

Her photo: <a href="

My photo: <a href="

<p>Without knowing what has happened to the images in post-processing, it is difficult to say exactly what is going on, but her image is properly exposed while yours has all sorts of problems. It's about a stop and a half (maybe even two) under where it needs to be and is horribly over-saturated. This isn't a lens/camera problem but rather a photographer problem. </p>

<p>To be brutally honest, given the respective kits that you have described, if she was out-shooting you. it is either because your are more picky with your work than with others (I'm the same way) or that she is simply a better of a photographer than you. Throwing money at either problem is not going to help. </p>

<p>Again, to be brutally honest, she had no subject isolation advantage over you given the fact that she was using a APS-C sensor and you were using FF. </p>

 

<p>Craig so if my camera 5D is shooting underexposed it isn't really my problem. I didn't use full manual settings. I used the shutter priority and put it at 1/200 and this made the aperture be either F7.1 or F8, and the exposure meter was at neutral or 0.<br>

So given what I said is true am I right to suspect the camera's metering is not working fine?<br>

Thanks for letting me know it's underexposed I didn't know what the main problem is.</p>

<p>Craig I actually raised exposure by 0.8 (I couldn't do more) and I think it fixed everything. I know I look stupid now. But thanks this helped a lot. My photos now look amazing. thanks</p>

<p>Craig is correct here, this is NOT a lens issue. I also checked out your photos ... in the ceremony group photo you have underexposure , white balance, color balance, color correction and saturation issues. There is alot of red in your photo. According to your exif data which reveals much of the problems, you also have color temp issues why are you using 4200K on a overcast day? Expose it a bit more open your lens about a stop and half or more spot metering accordingly in the group. If it was a smaller group I would say bring out the strobes/flash but because the group is so large natural light may be best option here.</p>

<p>Dont worry about the 85/1.2 L for now in this case. You already have plenty of lenses. You are actually fine with the lenses you have. You have plenty of L lenses that will give you bokeh. You have a 100/2.8 L macro which will produce some nice bokeh (not near as as good as the 85/1.2 L but it will be fine). You also have a 135/2 L lens you said right? Thats one of the best portrait / bokeh lenses Canon makes! Work on the issues we are talking about first before taking on new lenses, you will get there!</p>

<p>As for your two shots, yours is slightly underexposed, hers is slightly overexposed, and hers is too blue. In yours the main subject needs to be higher in the frame. Your flash in daylight at that distance made no contribution. However, these shots could be made more alike with more processing in PS. White balance is not enough, you need colour balance and saturation as well as exposure adjustments.</p>

<p>These types of group shots can be made equally well with a wide variety of lenses and cameras. This is not a reason to buy an 85/1.2 L. A specialized portrait lens like this really shines with individual or couple photos at full length or head/shoulder range.</p>

<p>You are using shallow depth of field very well with your rooster and cockatoos and ducks. I think you already have a 24-70/2.8 L (thought I saw it somewhere there) so getting another portrait lens beyond the 135/2 seems a bit extreme. I would definitely get a 5D II before getting an 85/1.2 L, but the 85/1.8 may be a quick fix for what you think you are missing. You could get an original Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4 or Nikon 85/1.4 AIS for under $700 USD but they are manual focus and use stopped-down metering. You can buy mechanical adapters that will mount these on your Canon. The Zeiss is soft wideopen for appealing portraits but the sharpest lens I have ever owned by f2.8. Now that I have a 5D II I kick myself for ever selling it.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, heaps of photography to learn. will go over all of that before my graduation I promise! <br>

So Rob what K then should I use for an overcast day? and what about say early night/post sunset as well as indoors with fluorescent lights? don't you just change the Kelvin effectively with PS with any RAW file so that it's a non-issue if I shoot RAW, or is it still better to get the right Kelvin?<br>

and John you know how you said mine more red hers more blue, is this just your observation from experience etc... or do you have a software or some method of noticing this?<br>

with a RAW file properly post-processed can I overcome ALL these points you people raised up or not really? </p>

<p>regards to all</p>

<p>I would get the 85mm 1.2L. Simply because your other two lenses are so good. After buying the 35mm 1.4L I hardly ever use a 50mm. An alternative would be to sell your 135mm and get the 70-200mm2.8L IS mark II. It performs just as good as the 135mm at that focal length (according to photozone). If bokeh is the most important thing, the 85 1.2 will give you all you can dream of (i think only the 200mm 2.0L at full aperture can match it).</p>

<p>I work mainly as a candid kids photographer, so my needs might be different than yours. In the past year of so I have migrated from the 35L, 85L combo to the 35L, 135L combo. I use the 24-70 to complete the set. I find it fills in the middle range and is very versatile. </p>

<p>I love my 85 1.8. I love it for the shallow depth of field. I would buy that lens as I keep hearing that the image quality rivals the 1.2 II, especially for the price differential! Good luck.</p><div></div>

<p><img src=" alt="" />Paul I know...the 85 1.8 is a total different league ahead of say the 50 1.4 or the 50 1.8. Actually when I got the 85 1.8 last year I made comparison shots on the field nothing technical for portraits with the 17-55 F2.8 IS and the 100 Macro F2.8 Canon and it excelled, since it combined the higher aperture with all the optical quality the other 2 lenses.<br>

My 135L is better but the more useful focal length of 85mm meant that with all the tries I made with the 135L I wasn't able to get a portrait as good as this one I shot with the 85 1.8 last year! :<img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p>In case the image doesn't load here is the link: <a href=" >http://www.flickr.com/photos/eljamali/6491010173/in/photostream</a></p>

 

<p>I am not a pro but for me the best Portrait I ever made was with the 85 1.8 :) as linked above. Very tempted to get it! and so Paul I agree wholeheartedly with you </p>

<p>I have not worked with the 135L, but I hear that is an extremely nice lens as well, especially for portrait work. I may get that lens one day, but for now I am happy with my gear (70-200 f4 IS/ 50 1.8 MK I/ 85 1.8/ and 100 2.8 Macro USM). Just in case you are curious, I am shooting with the original 5D body as well. I am surprised that you got rid of your 85 1.8 as this has been one of my favorite portrait lenses with that body. By the way, the portrait I posted was shot at 2.8. I shot a number of portraits at 1.8 during this session, but you really had to be careful with the focus as the depth of field is so thin. I cannot imagine using the 85 1.2. That would be even shallower! I say save some money and get another 1.8! Good luck.</p>

<p>A shot from the same session at f1.8. I was using my speedlites with shoot through umbrellas as well. I find it is hard to beat off camera flash for portraits.</p><div></div>

<p>Paul - nice portraits! the Canon 85/1.8 is a superb near perfect lens and I give it 9.5 out 10 stars rating IMO for portrait use, I shoot with both the 85/1.8 and Canon 135/2 L lens they are both excellent. The Canon 135/2 L is better (10 star rating) but not by much, it has an advantage because it uses L glass (UD Ultra Dispersion) glass. The 135/2 L is one of Canon's BEST portrait lenses and has some of the best bokeh of any Canon lens. But the 85/1.8 is so good its right behind that lens as far as portrait photography... the 85/1.2 L being the number one Canon portrait lens. Here is an example headshot from the 135/2 L with bokeh.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>My lenses are: 17-40, 24-70, 35L, 100 macro, 135L, 70-200 F4 IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>H.JM I looked at your other thread you have posted on the same topic and as I have said and others have repeatedly said you have PLENTY OF LENSES. You do not need either the 85/1.2 L or the 85/1.8 lenses for a group shot of 50+ people. You have a 35/1.4 L! that is an excellent lens, why are you not using that lens for group portraits? if I had to do a 50+ group shoot that would be my first lens of choice and the 24-70mm L in the 50ish range. You need a wide or standard lens not a telephoto for a group that large. In answer to your color temp question overcast days is about 7000K, read your Canon 5D camera manual you can set the color temp manually, use CWB and even has a white balance preset on the LCD screen with a picture of a cloud. Its good that you shoot in RAW and thats professional photography, BUT you still need to get everything or most everything at the time of the shoot not use PS as a crutch. The sooner you get everything or most everything correct<em> (without using PS as a crutch)</em> at the time of the shoot the sooner you will be a better photographer.</p>

<p>Paul very nice photo</p>

<p>Rob thanks for super advice I actually did use the 24-70 for that lens at around 56 mm. Thanks for the advice on the K that's something to memorize and apply next shoot!<br>

chao</p>

<p>I did a baby shoot over the weekend with the 85/1.2 on a 5DMk2 and I was reminded of my main beef about this lens: it doesn't focus close enough! Really annoying. Results are spectacular, however.</p>