lens suggestion

[nachi_abrams]

I am going on vacation. Presently the only lens I have for my 350D is a 50 1.8.

Most of my photographs are comprised of my grandchildren. I would like to

choose between a Canon 135L or a Canon 100 2.8 macro or a Canon 200L. I

believe the 135 L is the most expensive. Would it be significantly sharper than

the other two lenses? Can I use a macro for portraits of the kids. Most of my

shots are candids of the kids playing outdoors. Thanks.

[david_oskarsson1]

Hi,

 

- I have the three lenses you mention and I could not tell them apart from the sharpness produced.

 

- I've done quite a lot of child portraits with the 100 macro with very nice results.

 

-For candid shots outdoors I would however suggest a 70-200, where a f/4 probably would be enough with or without IS depending on your budget. It would make a nice travel lens too (since you mentioned the coming vacation...)

/David

[bueh]

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">Would it be

significantly sharper than the other two lenses?

</blockquote><p>

No. All three lenses have excellent sharpness, even wide open.

 

<br>

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">Can I use a macro for

portraits of the kids.

</blockquote><p>

Of course. Get the <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> version for fast autofocus. Alternatively,

you could also go for the EF 100mm f/2 USM, which is a full stop faster,

smaller, less expensive but lacks macro capabilities.

[trebor_navilluso]

For travel I would think you'd want something a bit wide.

 

All those lenses you mention are a bit long for portaits on a 1.6 crop body like your 350D. That means your 50 mm is really looking like an 80 mm due to the smaller sensor croping into the middle of what the lens sees.

 

I use a 85 1.8 for close portraits. For travel, I'd suggest something in the 17-100 ish rage. 17-55, 25-105 etc..

[JDMvW]

If you want the equivalent of a "normal" 50mm or so lens on a film camera, you might look at the 35mm f/2.0 or the 28mm f/2.8. The former is a little better, but more money. These are not so cheap as the "plastic fantastic" 50mm, but they are in effect also a gift from Canon to their loyal users.

 

For a modest wide angle on the crop bodies, I'm afraid you need to get one of the zooms. The new 18-55mm IS (the new kit lens) is another bargain, has great optical quality and image stabilization to boot. If it were me, I'd get the 35mm and the kit lens as well as whatever more expensive 135mm (tho' do consider the new 55-25o IS, which is under $300 US. Mind, I am only speaking of the two kit zooms on the basis of reviews from Bob Atkins, Photozone.de, and other sources.

[nachi_abrams]

Thank you so much, everyone.

[alan_myers]

Hi Nachi,

 

A relatively lower cost, but good quality and high utility lens is the Canon 28-135 IS. It would be great trying to keep up with fast moving kiddies. These normally $400+ lens can be found for around $300 now, in top condition, because they have been bundled in one of the 40D kits that Canon has been selling. Folks who already have one, or something else covering the range, sell off the extra to reduce the cost of their new 40D camera even farther.

 

The one drawback to the 28-135 is that it isn't very wide on a crop sensor camera like yours. You might want a wider lens too (Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24 would be my top choices.)

 

100mm USM macro is also a great lens and one I use a lot. Very sharp and useful as a macro, plus it serves multi-purpose as a moderate telephoto, thanks to the USM and f2.8 aperture it's got fast enough focus. It's a little bit long for general portraiture use on crop sensor cameras like your 350D though. And, if macro isn't your thing, you might be better served with the 100/2 instead.

[g dan mitchell]

"I am going on vacation. Presently the only lens I have for my 350D is a 50 1.8. Most of my photographs are comprised

of my grandchildren. I would like to choose between a Canon 135L or a Canon 100 2.8 macro or a Canon 200L. I believe

the 135 L is the most expensive. Would it be significantly sharper than the other two lenses? Can I use a macro for

portraits of the kids. Most of my shots are candids of the kids playing outdoors. Thanks."

 

Are you going to make really big prints? If not, sharpness among these - and some "lesser" lenses - really isn't going to

be an issue at all.

 

Now if you are doing formal portrait sittings with your camera on a tripod and then producing 16" x 24" prints the situation

might be different. But if you are printing up to, say, letter size and/or posting online you will see no difference in

sharpness among these lenses at all.

 

Frankly, unless you have a very good reason for this particular set of lenses - and "sharpness" is not the reason - I'd

think about some more flexible alternatives. If I were in your shoes I'd want some wider lenses. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8

IS lens would be very good for photos of you grandkids in almost every way. The f/2.8 aperture at the 55mm focal length

would be an excellent portrait length lens.

 

Dan

[christopher hartt dallas]

Cartier-Bresson shot almost all of his work with a 50mm lens. For your 350D, that would be (approx) the field of view you get from a 35mm focal length. The 35L 1.4 is an outstanding lens.

[wes_baker1]

The 17-55 is fast becoming my favorite lens. Wide enough for interiors, long enough for portraits, yet very fast for a zoom, and a constant aperture at that. Very sharp, and that extra 3 stops of IS stability is very useful as well.

 

The only downsides are that it's expensive and heavy, but it's not completely out of the weight or cost range of the long primes you're looking at. The 17-85 would be an alternative.

 

Really, I wouldn't want to be without a much wider lens than anything you're considering.

[g dan mitchell]

"Cartier-Bresson shot almost all of his work with a 50mm lens. For your 350D, that

would be (approx) the field of view you get from a 35mm focal length. The 35L 1.4 is

an outstanding lens."

 

Cartier-Bresson wasn't doing "vacation photos of his grandchildren."

 

Suggesting the 35mm f/1.4 L is a classic example of a recommendation that is

completely deaf to the needs of the poster.

 

And, by the way, C-B didn't use lenses of the immense size of the 35mm L either...

 

Dan