canon ef wide zoom and portrait lense

[sami_lahtinen]

I am about to buy from the B&H New York store the following two lenses:

 

Canon ef 17-40 f4

Canon ef 80 mm f1.8 USM

 

They cost together a bit under USD 1000

 

My queston is: is there better combination for under USD 1000 for

portrait and landscape photos?

 

I have EOS 400D body

[PuppyDigs]

You might wanta consider the EF 50 1.4 USM as a portrait lens. The EF 85 1.8 USM is a better

optic--AF rips and MF ring is smoother--but too long for indoor portraits on a cropped

body. Might be okay outside.

[jo7hs2]

Sami,

 

I'm with Puppy Face. Unless you already have the 50/1.4, or even the dirt-cheap 50/1.8, you should probably consider one of those lenses first. On your 1.6x crop 400D, the 85/1.8 will have the field of view of a ~135mm lens, which *may* be too long for you. You might also consider getting the 85/1.8 along with the $70 50/1.8, then you'd have the best of both worlds.

 

The 17-40 F4L, however, is a good choice, and I'd stick to it.

[sami_lahtinen]

I am just in process of selling my 50mm f1.4 USM - its too wide for portrait

[jo7hs2]

Sami,

 

Oh, well that answers that question. Do you plan on getting a 50/1.8 at some point, or do you have no need for a 50mm?

[costas_polinakis]

17-40 is also a very good portrait lens.<div></div>

[kfuse]

17-40 f4 is as good as any other L glasses covers this range (if you can get good sample). 85mmF1.8 is reputable glass, but I like 100mmF2 better. 50mmF1.4 is OK(again, if you can get good sample), there are many bad ones shows kind of foggy dreamy image at F1.4(I didn't realize until I used my friend's F1.4). If you need 50mm prime and want to save some buck, try 50mmF1.8II(around $70). It looks cheap, but works just as good as f1.4 version.

 

Another choice in this price range would be EF28-70mmF2.8L(not 24-70). You might be able to find good used one on eBay.

 

You can goto PBase camera search to find tons of images taken with those lenses you are looking for.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras

[mars c]

85mm is great for outdoor portrait and could also be used indoor if the area is not tight , but 50mm is usually much better for indoors.

 

I think the cheap 50mm 1.8 will suffice if you cant yet afford the 1.4. But I would surely get the 85mm with the 50mm , cause you will lack focal range if you only get the 50mm, the 50mm is too close to the 17-40mm in range.

[alan_myers]

You know, since you already have it, I'd be inclined to keep the 50/1.4 and use it alongside the two other lenses (also good choices for your purposes). I use a 50/1.4 a lot for portrait work on 1.6X crop camera bodies (also the 85/1.8, and even 28/1.8). There are times when only a larger aperture lens will do! I plan to add a 135/2 eventually, but that will become more critical if/when I go back to full frame D-SLR.

[andre_reinders]

Another option for wide is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, or if you are willing to stray from the Canon brand, there are other options.

 

I have a Tokina 12-24mm on its way from BH right now. I liked the $500 USD price tag better, and it has had rave reviews, especially for the price.

 

Sigma, and I believe Tamron also make lenses in that range as well. I had always been thinking that the 17-40mm would be a fantastic lens to own. I have a 20D and an Elan 7N, so it would be extra wide on film and 27-64mm FOV on the 20D. I now find myself looking to have something a little longer, to get into the wide portrait length (for me is 80mm) and maybe something a little faster. I am used to my 28-105mm f3.5-f4.5 lens for film, and the 17-40 just doesn't match up. There is there is nothing full frame in the 17-50 f2.8 range...so I am leaning to EF-S lenses....anyway....

 

....if you want the wide zoom for landscapes, maybe the 17mm won't be wide enough?...if for an all around lens, maybe it won't be long enough?

 

Just another thing to think of...

[dves]

17-55 F2.8 IS shoot lowlight 1/10 sec portraits sharper than the 50mm better holdability fast autofocus covers wide and portrait will need ext flash as well, the beauty of this lens is not having to change it and it's lowlight portraits are magic, problems with lens are it is expensive, very heavy, external flash needed.

I shoot landscape and fashion and am stoked with it so far the low light work is amazing and candle light shots are possible handheld now.

Landscape shots are sharp from F4 across glass, unreal! canon doesn't make sharper glass other than 135 F2

[buck_rogers1]

I used just your combo plus a 35 f/2 for two months through SE Asia--emphasizing the breathtaking landscape and the character of such beautiful people. I never felt lacking. The 85 gave the perfect distance from the subject when interacting with strangers. <p>Since you mention your 50 is too wide for your liking I think you've nailed a good combo--otherwise I would be really interested to use a 17-55 IS. I haven't heard much since its introduction but it sounds nice.