Canon New Lens Strategy Part II

[joel_kantrowitz]

Thanks to everyone's input, I've decided on an Elan 7N, 17-40/4L & 70-

200/4L. Options to support low light and/or macro include 50/1.8,

50/2.5 macro, 85/1.8 & 100/2.8 macro. Any thoughts are these lens or

other approaches?

[francisco_hernandez2]

Joel, I have the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4 with a 10D. I also have

the 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 which are my favorite portrait lenses. While there is overlap in the focal lenght, these lenses are tack sharp and light. Also, I use them to photograph indoor high school gym cheerleading competitions as well where the light is mostly bad and flash is not allowed.

 

I am very happy with this combo which suits my needs.

 

Francisco

[joel_kantrowitz]

any preference between the 50 and the 85?

[bill_muth]

I have the 50mm 1.8 II and 85mm 1.8 USM. Both take excellent quality pictures. The 50mm is quite inexpensive (around $70). The 85mm has better build quality (a metal mount & more solid "feel"), a USM foucus motor (for quicker autofocus & full-time manual focusing.) Neither of these 2 are great for macro; maximum magnification is only about 1:6 (i.e. one-sixth life size.) The 50/2.5 macro is better (1:2, or 1:1 with the seperate life-size converter). The 100/2.8 macro is probably the best single-lens solution if you want good macro (up to 1:1) and general use (it is a USM lens.) Downside is it's 1+ stop slower that the 50/85 lenses, and it may be too long for general-purposs indoor use.

 

Bill

 

Bill

[rickhitt]

Joel, I think it depends on whether you want to take macro pictures or not and if so at what magnification. I have the 50 and 100 macro and they are both very nice with 50 going 1:2 and 100 1:1 with image quality great with both. 50 does not have usm motor but that does not mean much to me. I use manual focus in macro all the time. I also have the 85 and 70-200 and the 70-200 at 200 will get to 1:4 and at 200 makes some very nice sharp closeups with great bokeh. If the macro doesn't matter, the 85 is just a great lens. Although it overlaps with the 70-200 it can take portraits inside with available light that the zoom can't. I don't have any experience with 50 1.8. Rick

[everheul]

50mm f1.8 AND 85mm f1.8 'nough said!

[yakim_peled1]

My preferences? For low light: 50/1.8. For low light and portraits: 85/1.8. For macro: 100/2.8 USM. Now, what are YOUR preferences?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[michael_peters1]

<i>any preference between the 50 and the 85?</i>

<br> <br>

I have the 50/1.8mkI and the 85/1.8 USM

<br> <br>

The 85 is the one I like better because it is quieter (minor point) and has FTM - allowing me to manually adjust the AF or completely MF without needing to switch the lens from AF to MF.

<br> <br>

The 50/1.4 USM also has those advantages - but of course is much more expensive than a 50/1.8

<br> <br>

There are however shots that the 50 can do that the 85 can't simply because the 85 is longer, for a "walk about" lens when I don't to carry a bag, the 50/1.8mkI is what I use. Some prefer a 35 for that but I don't (yet) have a 35 ... well, not for canon anyway.

<br> <br>

As I'm sure you are aware, the 50/1.8 is also much smaller and that is advantageous - very advantageous - in certain situations. Camera shy people are more so when the lens is big.

[simonpg]

I use a 50 f1.4 and 100 f2.8 and both are excellent - in fact superb and represent some of Canon's best optics.

[poul]

50 1.8f is my favorite lens. it has excellent optics, it's practically disposable due to low price, so you can stop worry about it and get down and dirty with picture taking, and it is very stealth and unprofessionally looking. if i had any other lens on my camera, this photoshoot would be impossible - the gorillas at the door would simply not let me in, the only way i got to bring the camera is by convincing them that it's cheap shitty thing, not a professional rig:

http://www.polyrealism.com/photo/neubaten/neubaten.html

[patricks]

since you already decided on the 7N, 17-40 & 700-200, i'm not going to argue with that.

 

macro is one of the great features/functions of a SLR. a macro lens like the 100/2.8 USM Macro also doubles as a good portrait lens, albeit a very sharp one.

 

Figure out what you need/use the most, then buy it in that order. Too many lenses just complicates things when starting out. why not start with a body, a 50/1.8 and a 100/2.8 macro (or the excellent Tamron 90/2.8 if you want to save some money)? be there for a while and then figure out if you really need th oseWA and tele zooms...

[michael_andrew]

The Canon EF 50/1.8 MK II is a truly incredible lens for the Canon Digital Rebel. It is my main walking around lens. I also have the EF 85/1.8 and I find that on the Rebel it is too long for most applications, doesn't focus as fast or reliably and is blurry (hand-held) in low light situations. I keep coming back to the 50 mm lens which takes gorgeous portraits -- super sharp faces with great background blurr. By the way, I found the EF 28/2.8 to work well for landscapes on a trip to Zion Park, where it is impossible to find a bad scene to photograph.