What lens to buy?

[korie_nordstrom]

I have a Canon 30D with the factory kit lens, 17-55mm, f/3.5-5.6. In the next

couple of years I plan to be putting together a portfolio and then open shop

focusing on: outdoor family, children and senior portraits and doing indoor

maternity and baby photos. For the indoor portraits I plan to use window light

and a single softbox. I would like to buy one lens that will do the job of all

and was considering the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Is USM but with that price tag I

want to be sure that it will support all my needs. I am also concerned that it

may be too big for the indoor portraits with not a lot of working space. Would

I be better off with a shorter telephoto and a prime? Thanks so much for the

help.<div></div>

[catchlight]

For your stated purposes I'm not sure why you would need an IS lens. You could save hundreds by getting the non-IS version of the 70-200mm.

 

Unless you have a big studio, you might find the focal length range of that lens awkwardly long for indoor work with a 1.6X crop camera.

 

The relatively cheap Canon EF 50mm f1.4 might work well in tandem with the zoom, as would the very cheap 50mm f1.8.

[patflynn]

I agree that with the 1.6 crop factor on the 30D, you may be too tight for indoor work with the 70-200. It is a wonderful lens and if you could use it as the primary lens for your outdoor work, then I can't imagine you regretting its purchase. But in that case you probably would do well to also get the 50/1.4 for the indoor work. If that level of outlay isn't possible then maybe the 24-105 is a better single option.

[jobo1]

Why buy one lens only? With that budget, you could get a decent indoor lens or two, plus a non IS 70-200/2.8 (the Sigma version of this lens is also well regarded).

[aleskoubik]

With the crop factor of 30D the 70-200 becomes 112-320. I find 70-200 on 5D FF to be only good for close ups. I would probably take Johannes idea and buy two fixed lenses. You will find that 50mm F1.4 is as sharp as 70-200 L f2.8. How about 50 1.4 and 85 1.8? That will give you 80 and 136. If you need longer then I would consider 100mm 2.8 macro.

[synnacdesign]

I concur with what these gentlemen above are stating. Sounds like the type of photography that you are planning on doing can for the most part be done with a tripod, giving you the cost saving option of getting non IF lenses.

 

good luck

[korie_nordstrom]

I am planning on doing candids also, (like interations between family members that are not posed) so I thought that the IS would be needed....do you still think I could go with the non IS?

[aleskoubik]

Korie,

 

IS does nothing to moving object. It is only good for a camera shake. You need light to archive faster time and freeze a moving object (humans). Also blurred background is important to separate your subject from your scene. Lens with large aperture will do the trick.

 

A.

[korie_nordstrom]

I forgot to mention, I am not big on using a tripod, I like to move around a bit to get a variety of shots.

[patflynn]

IS actually does have a mode for moving objects (reducing apparent motion in only one direction while you pan the camera). But I have found that the vast majority of the time I keep it in the anti-camera shake mode (reducing apparent motion in all directions). For that it is terrific, and it sounds like you should go for IS if the budget allows. It's true that a large aperture will help and you should get as large an aperture as you can afford. But not having a huge max aperture is a problem that is mollified tremendously with the IS feature.

[mark u]

I agree with those who say that a 70-200 is too long for indoor work with a crop camera (and it will be intimidating to subjects). I'd recommend a good set of fast primes at rather shorter focal lengths: a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.4 (or maybe f/1.8 if you want to economise) and Canon 85mm f/1.8 as a starting point. The fast apertures will allow you to blur the background while keeping the subject sharp, and will give much more pleasing results.

[korie_nordstrom]

Thank you all for your help. I think that for outdoor portraits I am going to go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L Is USM, but purchase it a little bit later and focus on my indoor work for awhile. So, which prime lens should I get? 50 mm f/1.8 (I don't see the need for the 1.4) or Canon 85mm f/1.8.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Korie,

 

Get the Canon 85mm f/1.8, if you have the indoor room.

 

Or, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8, also... it's only $80.

I use my 50mm f/1.8 for indoor restaurant scene work.

 

//Chuck

[whwhitejr]

Get the 85 f1.8 you will love it for portiats. If you don't have 20' of space then you might need the 50 1.8 for full body shots or large family groups. I just use my 24-70 f2.8 ($1100+) with good results. I need the 24mm end for large groups. Check out my website http://www.lettie-bill.com/ , Bill

[paulo_cortez]

Hi,

 

A (very) cheap alternative would be buying an adapter for Contax/Yahica lens with an AF confirm adapter (around $60 at eBay) and a Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f1.4 or f1.7 (around $100-$150) - one of the sharpest lens you'll ever find...and with a very good bokeh.

 

Other alternative: M42 adapter and a Takumar SMC 50mm f1.4 (similar prices).

 

With the 30D viewfinder, manual focus is no trouble!

 

Paulo

[wandern]

The 50mm f1.4 is a much nicer lens than the f1.8- better build, much better bokeh, and you can easily manual focus it. The f1.8 is nearly impossible to manual focus by its design and the bokeh is rather ugly in my opinion, especially for portraits.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Brian, Bad mouthing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II to the degree that you maligned it is not warranted.

 

In my opinion, the clarity of the f/1.8 lens is the same or better, wide open at f/1.8, than the f/1.4 lens is, wide open at f/1.4. So because of that, many people use the f/1.4 lens at an f/1.8 aperture to get better performance. Why pay the extra price for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 when you're probably going to use it at f/1.8?

 

And, I don't think the bokeh of the f/1.4 is any better... but maybe marginally.

 

The f/1.4 lens does have slightly better color and contrast (and I mean, slightly)... but it's not worth an extra $240.

 

And, in my opinion, the USM motor in the f/1.4 is only marginally better than the micro motor in the f/1.8 II... they both focus plenty fast enough.

 

The f/1.4 does have a much better build. But I don't abuse my lenses, so I expect the f/1.8 to last a long time. If you drop either lens, they're probably both "toast".

 

So, it is my definite opinion, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens wins the price/performance battle, hands down.

 

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 costs $320... and the Canon 50mm f1.8 II costs $80.

 

4X the cost is not justified, since you can get nearly the same performance for 1/4 the cost.

 

I don't want to mis-represent myself... I love wonderful lenses and I own a few. But, I know that I can't justify owning the Canon 50mm f/1.4 over the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II for the price difference.

 

Those are my thoughts.

 

//Chuck

[jimstrutz]

I would get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS first, or if you are on a tight budget, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. They make for a better portrait length than the 70-200 for most purposes, having a equivalent focal length of 17mm to 80-90mm. This is an especially good choice for indoor shots in a not so big studio. They also make a far better general purpose lens than the kit lens you have now. The Canon is better than the Tamron, but it costs twice as much.

 

BTW, IS doesn't help for moving subjects, but subjects don't usually move much when shooting portraits, and if you're not using a tripod, IS can often make the difference between a good shot an a blurry one. This is true even for wide lenses.

 

None of this helps with a longer lens though, and it sounds like you could use one for some of the outdoor stuff. A longer lens is great for tight head shots, and when you want to back off a bit. They are also better for candids most of the time. I just think you need to cover the primary focal lengths first with quality glass.

[t_n1]

Ditto Jim. The 70-200 is too long for indoor studio on the 30D. The 85mm doesn't solve that problem either. I think the 17-55mm IS works well for indoor studio with natural light. And ignore those who say that you don't need IS. You're shooting stationary objects with natural light indoors. Of course IS will help.

 

I personally think the Tamron 17-50mm is just as sharp as the canon 17-55mm 2.8 at anything other than wide open. But it lacks IS.

 

Since outdoor shooting is second priority, I would hold off on the 70-200 for now.

[w_t1]

Korie, since your'e a Nordstrom, why don't you just buy Canon's complete line? Sorry couldn't resist, my office is across the street from Nordie's flagship store.

 

My opinion, I love primes, going back to FD system 1979, I'd use the 50/85/135 f2 route myself. If you look through a 135 f2 you will be hooked. And don't forget about the 90mm t-shift lens for portraits.

[t_n1]

The 135mm suggestion is too long for indoor studio, at least on the 30D.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Yes, the Canon 135mm f/2.0L is too long for most indoor photography. But, it's a WONDERFUL lens for outdoor candid portrait photography.

 

You're far enough away that the subject doesn't notice or forgets that you're taking photos of them.

 

//Chuck

[eric_hansen1]

I love my 70-200 2.8 but the one thing that everyone has forgot to mention is that the 70-200 has a minimum focal length of something like 11 feet (I dont' have the lense in front of me, but I rarely use it in studio for that reason.) Just my two cents.... Great lens, but definately not the one for close up studio work.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Korie,

 

If you plan to pull some money out of your photos, I think it's worthwhile to put some money in your equipment NOW.

 

For indoor, on the 30D, I'd reccomend the 14-70 f4, for portrait I think that the 85 f1,8 is far better than the 50 f1,4 IMO. But if you "have" the 70-200 f2,8 IS, you won't need the 85 mm.

 

The dream team would be 17-40 f4 / 24-70 f2,8 and 70-200 f2,8 IS

 

Think about flash as well. The 580 EX is small, power and versatile enough to be carried out on location

[jimstrutz]

<I>"The dream team would be 17-40 f4 / 24-70 f2,8 and 70-200 f2,8 IS"</I>

<P>

I think that is a great choice for a full frame camera, and a poor choice for a 30D. The 17-40 would be on the camera most of the time, and it's only f/4. The 24-70 is a great lens, but has all the wrong focal lengths for a general purpose lens on a crop frame camera.

<P>

I'd still choose the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.