Canon bodies, the L series and prime vs. zoom

[geoffmoore]

the time has come for my pro digital system. I have rented the 16 megapixel many times and have been

quite impressed. Now word has come that the 22 megapixel will come out in December. Instead of buying

the 16 meg one now and being bummed that the new one comes out in a few months, I am gonna buy the

5 D for now and master the Canon systems while building my lens arsenal. Enough about that. Let's talk

lenses.

 

I am coming from a medium format world ( Hassy, Contax 645) and if you know those lenses, you know

how good they are. But on jobs I have been blown away buy the quality of the Canon digital cameras and

lenses. Ya ya. I'm on the late freight for finally buying my system.

 

Anyways, the L series and zooms. My budget allows for about two lenses if I go the L route. Let me also

say I am a prime lens guy. For now.

 

I feel like the 24-70 f/2.8L USM zoom seems to be a good all around lens. And from what I have read, it

seems to be well loved and well reviewed. Would this "superior lens" hold up to it's prime equivalents?

 

I also feel like the 85 mm f/1.8 L lens would be great to have for what I mostly shoot...people, fashion,

portraits, etc.

 

But I would love the option to go longer with a lens. And the 70-200 L caught me eye.

 

I am wondering if I should go with 70-200 or the 85 and then hold out for a longer prime. Or just go for it

and have two zooms. The 24-70 and 70-200. Remember, I am a huge fan of the primes and taking the

time to compose my shots. I am not a sports shooter or a shoot everything kind of photographer.

 

welp, there is my long winded ramble and any suggestions and feedback on these lenses would be

appreciated.

[igort]

I would stick with the 85 mm f/1.2L II and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. I rented the 85mm and it the shots turned out to be pretty spectacular and I own the 24-70. My line of lenses are as follows:

 

50mm f/1.4

24-70mm f/2.8 L

17-40mm f/4 L

70-200mm f/2.8 IS L

 

The 70-200mm f/2.8 (IMO) is a wonderful lens for portraits, you have the 70-135 (pretty good for portraits) reach, and sometimes you just need that extra f stop

 

The 24-70mm f/2.8 is just a spectacular lens, bokeh is amazing, its as sharp as a samurai sword!

 

The only non "L" lens that I have is the 50mm f/1.4. I've been using it on my niece lately. She's almost 5 months now and I took some stellar shots of her. You can read more about this lens by searching the forum. According to what I read, if you don't have the money on the 50mm "L", get this one. (IMO) I would not buy the "fantastic plastic", it's a little "too plastic" for me.

 

Although I'm not a "pro", I have been using these lenses for 3-4 months now and I'm in love. I would have bought the 85mm f/1.2 but, it was just a little too pricey. However, as they all say, once you buy an "L" you'll never want to go back.

[bryantan]

The 24-70 would be a great walk around lens on the 5D. I use it on the Rebel XT, and it is great, although I do wish for more on the wide end. From numerous reviews and experience, it is as sharp as a zoom lens will get, even wide open at both ends (though it's sharper at 70). You can compare it to its prime equivalents here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&desc=Canon-EF-24-70mm-f/2.8-L-USM-Lens-Sample-Crops

 

The 85 1.8 isn't an L, but it's a great portrait lens. The 1.2 is an L but it suffers from poorer AF speed compared to the 1.8, but if that's not important to you, and you know what you're trying to get out of the 1.2, go for it.

 

It doesn't seem that the 70-200 would be of any use to you. The prime L's that cover that focal range would suit your application better.

[colinsouthern]

At the end of the day, the EF24-70mm F1:2.8L USM and EF70-200mm F1:2.8L IS USM lenses are both known for their sharpness (the word "venerable" almost comes to mind) - but at the end of the day - by design - primes are sharper than zooms.

 

Whether or not the difference matters is always a personal thing. I'd suggest borrowing or renting them first so you can see for yourself.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[geoffmoore]

I did mean the 85 1.2L (the expensive and solid looking one). Also, I may not use a 200

length often for portraits, but ya never know. Could be good to have. Especially at the

135-150 length. But with the 70-200 option that could be good. I'm gonna check some of

these "comparison" lengths.

[rokkor fan]

Geoff,

 

The 24-70mm is a must have lens. No, it's not as sharp as an L prime but it has outstanding colour, contrast and excellent bokeh. I would never sell mine (unless they released a version with IS).

 

The 85mm f/1.2 L is incredible. I cannot tell you just how sharp this lens is wide open, and the bokeh is superb. Do yourself a favour and get the EE-S focusing screen for it - it is designed for manual focus and while very slightly darker gives a much better impression in the viewfinder of the bokeh.

 

Re. the 70-200mm. If you are a big prime fan, just give it a miss. It is heavy and is not as sharp as the prime teles. I use mine for sports only and shoot all my portraiture with the 85mm. Perhaps an alternative would be to get a used 85mm f/1.2L Version 1 (just as good, slightly slower focusing but not enough to concern you probably) and with the money you save get a 135mm f/2 L - very well regarded lens.

 

When you get some extra cash, have a look at the 35mm f/1.4 - beautiful lens. Between it, the 85mm and 135mm you can leave the 24-70mm at home for many jobs and really enjoy your primes. For fun, also consider the 45mm f/2.8 TS-E - it's great!

[geoffmoore]

good tips on getting the 85mm f/1.2L version 1 and putting the money towards the

135mmf/2L.

[jay_lang]

The 135mm f2.0 L is an excellent lens and great value. I use it alot mainly for street work. Also the 50mm f1.4 is awesome for its money. And yes, the 85mm f1.2 is the daddy of lenses. Its on my list to get next.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Remember, I am a huge fan of the primes and taking the time to compose my shots.

 

Then why do you consider buying zoom lenses?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[geoffmoore]

who say's you can't take time and compose shots with a zoom? not me. i've shot national ad

campaigns with a zoom. smartass. i'd actually like to have both options.

[yakim_peled1]

I think a little more politeness wouldn't hurt.

 

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[geoffmoore]

point taken. happy shooting backatcha.

[ken schwarz]

Another thumbs-up on the 85/1.2, but be forewarned that it is fat and heavy--a burden in the bag for a specialty lens. The 135/2 is another astonishing lens, but I found harder to hold steady with the extra magnification so I went with the 85/1.2 for the super-shallow DoF shots. The IS feature of the 70-200 works wonders; I use the lighter f/4 version and it is terrific. As far as prime vs. zoom goes, my feeling (coming from MF, too) is that without the top-notch zoom, you miss out on the biggest benefit of going with 35mm digital: more than good-enough image quality, incredible flexibility, instant feedback and effectively zero incremental costs for creative "mistakes". I found that liberating and that it improved my photography in ways that good lenses alone can't. If you don't have them, make sure you budget for Lightroom & Photoshop, too. A lot of magic happens in post-processing.

[mars c]

There is no question that the 85mm 1.2 is an excelent lens, The 135mm f2 too is also excellent.

 

But the 135 is not perfect ( nothing is, I know.) , While the bokeh it produce is very good, The lens could benefit from the use of rounded aperture blades.

 

Below is a 100% crop of the 135's bokeh at f3.5.<div></div>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Everybody seems to want zooms and you mentioned primes. You're coming from medium

format where it's mostly primes (I guess). So why not forget all those slow zooms and just get

the 35m f1.4L and the 135mm f2.0L? In my humble opinion the 85 is not long enuff for full

frame. It always feels like a long 50mm to me. The 35 and 135 are both very fast and are

excellent lenses. Well, it's a thought.

[William Michael]

>>> [. . . ] I am not a sports shooter or a shoot everything kind of photographer. <<<

 

What is your professional niche?

 

Output focussed purchases are integral to a well managed business, IMO, and such information will assist any purposeful commentary from colleagues, I think.

 

However, with limited information in this regard, and as one is purchasing as stop gap for the 22 megapixel forthcoming, it seems one might be more satisfied with the 5D and 50mm F1.2L, and time get to know the system`s basics and its proclivities.

 

The 50mm will certainly render good service no matter what genre one works within, I think.

 

WW

[james_elwing]

As far as the very wide angle lenses are concerned, zoom or prime, which ones exhibit very little linear distortion & don't cost a small fortune. With a 400D/Rebel I find myself with nothing effectively wider than 28mm & with lots of linear distortion, so fall back on Leica W/A & film. Mostly I dont eventhink I care too much about image quality, but curvy straight lines irritate me.

[roger.a]

I have the 35/1.4L, 85/1.8 (non-L), and 135/2.0L with my 5D. Don't want anything else.

 

If you can manage with just these fixed focal lengths you won't be disappointed.

 

The 85/1.8 is very good optically, and smaller, lighter and faster focusing than the 85/1.2L.

[geoffmoore]

great feedback friends.

 

when I said I am not a "shoot everything kind of photographer" I meant that I typically do

not bounce around from a 200mm perspective to a medium shot and so on with the same

subject and lens. don't get me wrong, I would love to snap a shot of Kobe Bryant in the air

or an eagle flying in the sky, some war zone photojournalism, or a ship on the horizon.

whatever it might be. I just typically

shoot portraits. but if I lose NO or unnoticeable quality with the Canon zooms, I am all

about having that option.

 

my conclusion thus far is to get busy as can be with work so I can have many options!

especially the 24-70, the 85mm1.2L , and the 70-200 L for now. they are all great

investments and

will get used for sure. and then as needed build up my primes.

[JDMvW]

Depending on specifics, your MF lenses can probably be used with adapters on the Canon, if you're not getting rid of them.

 

In my experience with more humble lenses (Zeiss Jena) on APS-sensor Canons, however, a lens that looks pretty good on 6cm may be fairly soft on the reduced format size, and I'm guessing from reports and reviews I've seen that this will be true to a lesser, but not insignificant, extent on full-frame 35mm size for more prestigious glass as well.

 

On the other hand, one MF P6 lens, a ZJ 180mm 2.8 Sonnar, is incredibly sharp even on a Canon 20D. It may be worth the price of an adapter or two to see how your existing lenses do, as well as buying new L lenses.

[trothwell]

In my opinion, while the 70-200/2.8 is good, the 135/2 is noticeably better. Much of the time, I am quite impressed with photos straight off the camera, taken with the 135, while photos with the 70-200 just look "fine". Not bad, certainly better than a cheap zoom, but the 135/2 just brings something special to the mix.

[alan_rockwood]

Do you shoot mostly hand held or from a tripod? If you shoot a lot of hand held then why not consider an image stabilized lens, maybe the 24-105mm f/4, and then augment that lens by adding one or two fast prime lenses?

[geoffmoore]

I got the 24-70 L and the 85 1.2 for now. Both incredible lenses. Look forward to getting

some great moments with these. I would like a longer lens and some prines to have in the

future, but I think I am now in the digital game. Thanks for the tips.