Good lens for 5D Mark II

<p>Hi<br>

I'm planning to get the 5D Mark II and will mostly be shooting architecture and interiors. Also a little bit of portraits , but not as much.<br>

What's a good lens for me? <br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>in my opinion the 35 1.4L<br>

i haven't used it personally, but I've used the focal length on my zooms<br>

the fast aperture will be good for interiors and i think 35mm will be wide enough<br>

u should try a 24 prime too to see if you want a little wider shot<br>

what i did for wide angle was get the 16-35 f2.8 (amazing lens)<br>

i don't recommend using wide angle focal length for portraits<br>

what I did was get the 24-105 before I got my primes then i upgraded it to the 24-70<br>

i suggest the 24-70 for an all around 1-lens kit</p>

<p>Vale,<br>

I'm an architect and do a lot of architectural photography. 24mm is the <strong>minimum</strong> that you should use for architecture and interiors, and a good and affordable solution is the 17-40mm/f4.0 zoom. If you could afford more, one of the tilt & shift lenses (24mm TSE or 17mm TSE) is optimal and what professional photographers would use. <br>

For portraiture, the 24-70/f2.8 that Will recommended above is frequently recommended by pros. Besides the Canon 24-70 zoom, the Tamron 28-75 is considered a very good less expensive option. The 85mm/1.8 and 100mm/2.0 primes are considered optimal for head shots. I also like the 50mm primes (any Canon 50 is very good, even the f1.8) and some photographers stand farther back and use the 135mm/f2.0 or one of the 70-200mm zooms. The primes are usually considered most highly and you have to ascertain if you like standing closer or farther back, and if you intend head shots or full body shots.</p>

<p>What Jerry said about architectural shooting. Cut your teeth on a 17~40 before committing to a TS lens. A good tripod/head with accurate bubble levels is also a must, and you may find a Type D screen helpful.</p>

<p>For portraiture on FF the classic focal length for head-and-shoulders shots is 135mm, and every time I use my 135/2 for this purpose I am reminded why. 85mm to 100mm is ideal for upper-body shots. Unless you belong to the one-eyelash-in-focus school of portraiture, a good choice would be the 70~200/4L. The IS version is optically better as well as being better for general-purpose use becasue of the IS.</p>

17F4 and 24F3.5 tilt shift lenses are the way to go for architecture. You should be aware that both will mainly need to be

shot from a tripod and that they are manual focus with an in focus indicator. Failing that either a good zoom (17-40 f4 or

16-35 F2.8 II) or wide prime like the 24 mm.

 

For portrait the 85 F1.8 is a great lens and very well priced considering its image quality. Other good choices include the

100F2 or one of the 100 F2.8 macro lenses. In addition the 50 F1.4 is another good buy and the 70-200 zooms all do a

good job. Again it all depends on what you are looking for in a portrait and what other flexibility you want. For example I

really like my 100 F2.8 LIS for portraits of younger people but it is too sharp for most older people as it reveals every

blemish. Similarly I like to shoot portraits at 70 mm or longer as I find the perspective is more flattering.

<p>Depending on how tight the interior, you might also want to check out the Sigma 12-24. Its greatest strength, besides offering you the widest rectilinear field of view available, is its almost freakish lack of distortion. (Note here: I'm not talking about rectilinear distortion, of which you will have plenty. I'm talking about keeping your straight lines straight.)</p>

<p>+1 for 17-40.</p>

<p>Cheap (comparing to 16-35), light, and L. Good for architecture/interiors, but you want something longer for portraiture. Then the 24-70 or 24-105. Or 50mm f1.4?</p>

<p>The 14-40as my <em>primary</em> lens choice on a recent vacation. Obviously telephoto shots suffered, but every time I put on something longer it was for brief forays, always ended up back with the 17-40, soon enough.</p>

<p>I often do architectural photography for my Interior Designer clients. The 17-40L is my go-to lens on my FF. You do not need a fast (wide max aperture) lens for this type of shooting. I use a tripod, and more often than not, my clients want to see detail, so I shoot stopped down.</p>

<p>I wouldn't jump at a Tilt-Shift lens just yet, till you get to grips with a wide zoom. I also agree, 35mm is way too narrow. You often won't have the luxury of choosing your subjects, and you will frequently find you are in a confined space and have run out of space to back up. That is when a super wide comes into its own.</p>

<p>The 17-40L can certainly be used for portraits (depending on what style of portraiture you're after). More often than not though, you likely will want something a little faster and longer. The 50 f/1.8 comes to mind as a relatively affordable and good solution. So does the 85 f/1.8. A lot depends on working distance and whether you want to do full length, uber-close up or environmental portraits.</p>

<p>What camera do you use today, with which lens?</p>

<p>Thanks, all<br>

Mark: I will be shooting environmental portraits mostly, similar to this:</p>

<p>Wouter: I use a Canon 400D and a Canon 10-22, Canon 55-250 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8<br>

Thanks<br>

<img src="../photo/15948333" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here's the sample pic</p><div></div>

<p>Vale, I am anything but a Canon expert... I trust those who recommend the 17-40. But the reason I asked your current gear: which focal length do you use now most? Narrow it down to that focal length (but for FF) and look for the lens that covers that best.<br>

Maybe that's the 17-40, maybe you're much better off with a 24-70... I can't say (your EXIF data can!). But what works for others does not necessarily have to work for you. So, I'd check for yourself in your photos which focal length suits you best, and then narrow down the search more.</p>

<p>I'm using a Sigma 12-24 with a Canon 5D mk2 with good results.<br>

Like the previous 12-24 mk 1, it needs to be stopped down to get the best results. At F8 to F11 its sharp; even at the edges at 12mm. At f 5.6 it’s a soft at the edges but sharp at the centre. Distortion at 12mm can be a distraction for near subjects; but at 15mm, barrel distortion is negligible and this is still ultra wide for FF. Used on a cropped sensor camera the distortion is cropped out so expect little or none even at 12mm.<br>

I compared the results at 24mm with my Canon 24-105 and I would say without doubt that the Sigma is just as sharp and is more usable as there is virtually no linear distortion at all.</p>

<p>Thanks, all.<br>

Along with the 17-40, how good is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for environmental portraits and full body shots?<br>

I know the lens is cheap in every way, but I don't have the money to buy another 'L' !<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>