Portrait lens for engagment

<p>Hi,<br>

I currently have 2 bodies - 30d and a 5d. The following lens are what I have 50 mkI, 70-200 4L, 17-40 4L, 10-22efs and a Leica R Summicron 90/2. The EFS is gonna go. So that would free me up with some cash. Already have 580ex and 550ex.<br>

I'm wondering amongst the following lenses, what would be a good addition?</p>

<p>100 2.8 macro<br>

100 f2<br>

85 1.8<br>

can't afford my dream lens 85 1.2L yet. =(<br>

Your thoughts?</p>

<p>For me, it would be the 85mm f1.8. I have that lens and it is wonderful on both cropped sensor and full frame. I handle macro and close-up (for rings, etc.) differently, by using Canon close up filter/lens, plus my Sigma 24mm f1.8 focuses pretty close.</p>

<p>None.<br />I would buy the 135/2L. - not much more than the 100/2.8 I expect? <br />Considering the Dual Format Kit and the fact you have a 50/1.8 and also a 90/2 - thus rendering the 85 and 100 a little too close to both.<br />If I <strong><em>must</em></strong> choose from the list – I would buy the 85/1.8 - and that is not beacsue the 100/2 is a bad lens - but becasue I am just passioante about 85mm on a 5D or equivalant - I just particularly like that Focal Length - 100 is a little long to be the most lens flexible for me. </p>

<p>Investment into a Macro Lens for a Wedding kit is a luxury, and if on a budget, is one of the last choices, I agree.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Nadine, are you using the close-up filter on the 85 f/1.8? </p>

<p>Alwin, you've got a 70-200 f/4, so the focal lengths at 85 and 100 are covered, albeit at a fastest aperture of f/4. Likewise, you've got a Leica 90mm (which I assume you're mounting to the Canons). I conclude, therefore, that your goal is not to expand your focal length options.</p>

<p>The Leica is a manual focus lens, so then is your goal in purchasing one of the lenses in your list to obtain an autofocus lens in that neighborhood? Other than autofocus, I don't understand how any of the three options you list would be superior to the Leica, at least for a relaxed engagement portrait shoot. (Autofocus would of course be a considerable advantage during a wedding.)</p>

<p>Perhaps you could help us understand what gap you're trying to fill in your tool kit? Right now, I don't see how any of these options would improve your kit, for the purpose (portraits) you mentioned in the thread title. </p>

<p>A fast 24mm or 35mm lens would give you more FL options. </p>

<p>I use 85 1.2 or 50 1.2, depending on the situation.</p>

<p>thanks to your responses. See this is why I really like this forum over the others which are just a meeting place for gadget gatherers and measurebaters.<br>

[ivan], I am struggling to determine if my FL is covered for portrait shoots. In this case, your assessment is correct that the 85mm is kinda covered. You too is correct that the Leica is MF which is fine for portraiture where the subjects don't move. That means this lens is also a bit of a specialist. Alas, the Leica isn't mine and I borrow it from time to time depending on occasion.<br>

Don't know if I need 24 or 35mm since my 17-40L covers that at f4 however.<br>

[William & Nadine] As you have mentioned due to my dual format combo, it seems the 85mm is covered. Thanks for the new suggestion on the 135L. I'll look into it.</p>

<p>Ian--I am using the close up filter/lens (Canon calls it a lens) on my 50mm f1.4 or my 85mm f1.8, on either my cropped sensor camera or full frame.</p>

<p>Alwin,</p>

<p>Yes, I missed the 17-40 in your list. Makes sense for that range that you're okay with your current tool.</p>

<p>So what, then, is missing for you? What aren't your 70-200mm and your occasional-access 90mm doing for you that you wish you could do? Is the 70-200 just not up to snuff as a substitute when you can't borrow the 90? Or do you really need to quit asking your friend for that lens so darn often (a sentiment with which I readily identify, by the way)? </p>

<p>What is it that you <em>want </em>out of your next lens?</p>

<p>Alwin,<br>

I would probably go w/ either an 85/1.8 or a 135/2, sticking with intent of your list. </p>

<p>OTOH, if you sold the 70-200/4, you may be able to find the 70-200/2.8 well within your budget, and that can be used with outstanding results on the 5D for portraiture. While it won't give you as effective control over the DOF that the 85/1.8 or the 135/2 will, it's much more flexible than either by themselves, and is a far more effective wedding workhorse than the 70-200/4 (IME).</p>

<p>If you want flattering, compressed perspective, the longer the better generally. Approx 135 on FF is great.</p>

<p>If you want a "street" type portrait, a 35mm FF is good.</p>

<p>If you want an exaggerated perspective, I like to use either an FE or a 10-24 on a crop.</p>

<p>Just speaking of the 70 to 200/2.8 . . . <br>

IMO any of the F/2.8 versions are a much more useful Wedding and Events lens, than either of the F/4 versions. <br>

But the USEFUL differential of DoF between the F/2.8 zooms and either the 85/1.8 or the 135/2 Primes, is practically <strong>zero</strong> for Wedding and Events work.<br>

The real benefit of the extra stop (or stop and a third of the 85) is the gain in Tv (Shutter Speed) or ISO, or both.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>from the 3 lenses you mention....any of them will do just fine......but you appear to think otherwise. What are you really asking?</p>

<p>What am I looking for?<br /> I don't know. Basically am I covered for outdoor & indoor portraiture?<br /> I think I would like to have a fast (2.8 or faster) mid-tele lens. Currently the Summicron 90/2 covers that but MF only. The 50 mkI on my 30d can cover that too, but that's on a crop.</p>

<p>Should I go 85? 100? or 135? or none....</p>

<p>Trade in the 70-200 F4 for the 2.8 - great lens and used by many portrait photgraphers.<br>

If you are outdoors you don't have to get right in the subjects face either. The 85mm 1.8 is great too I have 2 40D's.</p><div></div>

<p>I shoot Nikon, so I can't speak for glass quality from Canon. No matter...here's what glass I look for in a wedding kit:</p>

<p>Zoom lenses that cover focal lengths from 24-200mm covered on Full Frame and/or 17-200mm on crop. It seems that you already have this with your 17-40mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4.</p>

<p>Additionally I like to see a 50mm (f/1.8 or f/1.4) on Full Frame (28/30/35mm on crop) for low light/indoor shooting without a flash. Again, you have this covered.</p>

<p>For the sole purpose of portraits I've fallen in love with the 85mm f/1.4 (I don't get the choice of an 85mm f/1.2 from Nikon) and alternatively a 105/135mm f/2. All lenses I use for portraits are on Full Frame since you lose DOF control on a crop sensor camera.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>sigma 20mm or 24mm for silhouette</p>

<p>Alwin, you've answered my question -- it sounds like you have a sense that you'd like another lens, but you can't quite put your finger on what's missing yet.</p>

<p>I would never recommend that someone buy a lens if he doesn't know what gap in his kit he wants to fill. I'd say your starting point isn't buying a lens, but is in determining what things you're doing that a different lens would help you do better.</p>

<p>More than one person has suggested upgrading from the f/4 to the f/2.8 version of the 70-200. To be sure, that's a great lens, and is very useful for weddings. But your post indicated only that you are doing portraits of one kind or another. If you're not shooting weddings, or even if you are, then you may be happier with one or more of the f/1.4 or f/1.8 primes in that range.</p>

<p>If you want to continue to sort this out in this thread, I'm happy (as I suspect are others here) to bounce ideas around with you. For example, I'd like to know what you're shooting most of the time, and perhaps to have you tell us what challenges you've had -- especially if they're equipment-related.</p>

<p>I don't officially do weddings. Only family portraits and social events. This is in addition to my existing commercial photography that doesn't involve human beings.<br>

I really am not a fan totting around the 70-200 2.8 at all. Played around with one and the weight does not warrant it's quality for my type of photography over the F4L version. If anything, I would get the F4L IS version before getting the 2.8 if light is an issue.<br>

Most of my shoots are outdoors. For certain commissioned events, I bring along my 580ex II. Again, I still prefer carrying a prime. While I like the Leica 90/2, it is MF which cannot be used for events effectively. It's great for posed portraiture though.</p>

<p>Okay, so you're still not saying a ton about what you want to do but can't do with your current setup. You do mention that you can't effectively do events with the 90. Good, there's a starting point. Is that the main motivation to grab a new lens?</p>

<p>Here are a number of questions. They're not rhetorical -- try to answer them.</p>

<p>If events is your primary intended use, what kind of event work do you do? What focal length do you reasonably expect would be most important to you? Many events are low-light -- is that true of the events you shoot? Many events are in tight quarters where swinging around even the f/4 version of the 70-200 is more obtrusive than you want it to be (not to mention the fact that it's limited to f/4) -- is that true of your events?</p>

<p>Are there other uses besides events that you'd like a new tool for? What do you want to accomplish?</p>

<p>You've given an excellent reason not to upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8. If the 90 is ideal except for the manual operation, then do you think the 85 or the 100 would be in the better direction for you?</p>

<p>You have a 50. 100 is farther from 50 than is 85. Would you prefer to have the extra reach of the 100 and zoom with your feet to cover the spread? Or is the 50-85 difference really likely to be useful to you? Or would you just put the 50 on your 5D and the 85 on your 30D and spread it out that way?</p>

<p>How important is the cost? I'm not sure about Canon lenses, but the Nikon 85 f/1.8 is cheaper than the 105 f/2.8 macro.</p>

<p>Thanks Ivan et al.<br>

I think I'm gonna hold off from making any decision.</p>

<p>You could use the 50 f/1.4. Great lens for low-light shooting with the 5d, and it could double as a 80mm on your 30d. Otherwise, and probably the best bet, is to get the 85 f/1.8 for your 5d. Excellent low-light lens for capturing candids at a distance on the 5d, and it can double as a 136mm on your 30d.</p>

<p>A really great way to experiment with lenses is to rent a few and try them out. Renting is a cheap way to compare lenses and evaluate whether and how a given lens might help you. </p>

<p>The most important thing to take away from this thread is that you should know and be able to articulate (in a complete sentence) why you want a lens before you put your money down for it. It almost never hurts to wait, and I think your decision shows good self restraint. :)</p>