Which tele lens

[orly_andico]

<p>Ok now that I've got my short-zoom quandary out of the way.. I want a tele-zoom or something similar to cover the longer end on my crop-sensor body (40D).</p>

<p>Here's where I need some advice. I want a long lens for isolating subjects (read: portraits). </p>

<p>Ten years ago the 70-200/4L was "all the lens" I wanted. I guess I could still go for that today. It meets my "no lens over $800" philosophy.</p>

<p>I have been using my 100/2.8 Macro as a portrait lens, I find it too long. So I have the feeling I'd be using the 70-200 at 70 most of the time... I suspect the 70-200/4L won't have enough isolating effect at the short end.</p>

<p>I don't want to get the 85/1.8 because I want something that doesn't need to be stopped down too much. And I don't want the 85/1.2 because (1) it focuses slowly; (2) it costs way more than $800.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 non-IS is a bit above my lens-cost-comfort level but I could go for it. But again, I get the feeling I'll be using it at 70 and 200 most of the time. As a result I'm thinking about the 135/2. It's right smack in the middle of the 70-200 range, and is f/2. And is "legendary" for what that's worth. It would definitely be too long for indoor portraits though.</p>

<p>If Canon had a 50-150/2.8 I'd be all over it. Sadly, Canon doesn't and I don't want to do the lens lottery with Sigma.</p>

<p>The Tamron 70-200/2.8 looks pretty cheap.. I can always relax my requirements if the lens is cheap enough... but how does the Tamron 70-200 fare in the AF department? I understand the Sigma HSM is soft wide-open, and costs much more than the Tamron.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Orlando,<br>

Please shed some light on the following thoughts:<br>

 <br>

1. You say 70mm is too long then you want to consider the 135 f/2L which, superb a lens as it is, is about twice that focal length and on your 40D will give you a field of view (FOV) of a 216mm lens!<br>

 <br>

2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want to get the 85/1.8 because I want something that doesn't need to be stopped down too much</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not entirely sure there's any sense at all in that statement. You want a "portrait lens," you shun the one that closest matches your desired focal length on the basis that you would need to stop down? Please explain your thinking here; I am at a loss. The 85/1.8 is considered one of the best tools in the shed for portraiture.<br>

 <br>

3. Finally, your "no lens over 800USD" philosophy: is that just based on your financial situation, or as a matter of principle? If the former, then that is perfectly acceptable. If the latter, I must say I find it a bit silly. There is a reason some lenses cost over 800 dollars... And sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet and get the lens, if quality and focal length dictates.<br>

 <br>

If you can shed some light on the above, that would be great.<br>

 <br>

Mark</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect the 70-200/4L won't have enough isolating effect at the short end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used to own this lens. If you are shooting the subject's face at f/4, the background will be blurred which would "isolate" the subject from the background. So, I hope that answers your question about this lens.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Mark</p>

<p>1) Yes you're right, it is kind of self-inconsistent :-) I guess I'm enamored with the 135/2L</p>

<p>2) Couple reasons: first, I have the 100mm which is fairly close to 85mm; second, the 85mm non-L needs to be closed down a bit to really sharpen it up which means you're at f/2.8 to f/4 -- which means you're in the same boat as the 70-200/4L.</p>

<p>3) It's a matter of economy and principle. Economy because of hobby-cost-control. Principle because it's a hobby, and not my sole hobby, so there have to be some limits, and that's the limit I chose for myself.</p>

<p>Peter, does your statement apply at 70mm? I have used the 70-200/4L at 200mm and yeah it isolates the background. But it's not often one can use 200mm.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Looks like f/4 at 70mm won't throw the background out enough. Think I'll just get the 70-200/4 (the 2.8 is way too heavy) and see what focal length I end up using.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like f/4 at 70mm won't throw the background out enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens will not the produce the soft bokeh you would get with faster apertures at 70mm, 85mm and 135mm</p>

<p>Here is a comparison between two of the most talked about lenses with respects to portraiture here http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-to-Head-Lens-Review-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-2L-USM-vs-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-8-USM/Bokeh-Effect.html.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>If Canon had a 50-150/2.8 I'd be all over it. Sadly, Canon doesn't and I don't want to do the lens lottery with Sigma.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tokina has an APS-C lens that covers the 50-135mm focal lengths, I believe. They have no history of lens issues like Sigma.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>second, the 85mm non-L needs to be closed down a bit to really sharpen it up which means you're at f/2.8 to f/4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh, not true. I mean, every lens gets better when stopped down a little from wide open, but Canon's primes are all very usable (pretty excellent) wide open.</p>

<p>Other telephoto lenses below 100mm are the Canon and Tamron 60mm macro (Tamron's is f/2) and Sigma's new 85mm f/1.4.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Bueh,</p>

<p>The Tokina 50-135 is also available as a Pentax SMC-DA* lens (DA* = Pentax version of L lens). And it's discontinued, and not a ring motor.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say "Canon's primes are <strong>all</strong> very usable.. wide open." The 50/1.4 to cite one example is pretty soft and low contrast until stopped down. I can see from your 50mm gallery that most of your photos are not at f/1.4 but rather at around f/2.2.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 does cross my mind, but how good/bad exactly is the micro-motor USM? I only have experience with the 50/1.8 and it does not fill me with joy (although it is a $100 lens after all).</p>

<p>As a bit of background.. I've been a Pentax user for years. I used the Pentax 50/1.4 quite extensively, it's a well-built lens but most Pentax bodies have had laggardly AF speed. I never did get to try the K-5 because it's pretty expensive! for this reason, I am trying to avoid non-ring-USM lenses because that's the main reason I changed systems, for ring USM. This is why I'm skeptical of the micro-motor 50/1.4.</p>

<p>Right now the only Canon lenses I have are the 18-55 II (non-IS) from my pre-Pentax days, the 17-40 and the 100 Macro (non L) which both have ring motors. I used to use the 50/1.8 on my old 350D and it was great for $100 but, lots of aberrations wide-open and plastic-fantastic build quality. Not too fast to AF as well.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I wouldn't be so concerned with auto focus speed, but image quality.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say "Canon's primes are <strong>all</strong> very usable.. wide open." The 50/1.4 to cite one example is pretty soft and low contrast until stopped down. I can see from your 50mm gallery that most of your photos are not at f/1.4 but rather at around f/2.2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, the EF 50mm f/1.4 is one of the two exceptions I know of (the other is the old 24/1.4L Mk.1). Nevertheless I use the 50mm at below f/2 (down to f/1.4) when I need to -- which is hardly ever the case in outdoor portraiture.</p>

<p>Pentax' FA 50mm is a very good lens -- I got the impression it's better than the Canon. But no f/1.4 prime will have fast autofocus. Sigma's new 50mm f/1.4 HSM focuses as fast as the old Canon 50/1.4, which is not exactly lightning fast either. Then again, I wouldn't use it as my main lens for sports photography. You milage may vary.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Orlando, thank you for your responses. I still disagree with your take on the 85 f/1.8. It seems, however, that you're bent on a 70-200. All of them are excellent performers, no surprises there :) But I would be hard pressed to believe that the 85 1.8 is not at the very least the equal of the 70-200 f/2.8 @85mm and f/2.8.</p>

<p>If you're trying to achieve great bokeh for your portraiture, then that lens it's right up there with the best of them, given that you can open up wider than any of the 70-200's. Indeed, I almost bought one but being a dual-format shooter who already has a 50mm lens, I shall instead be getting the 135L.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>remember that if you buy used you can always get your money back by selling if you're unsatisfied. I'd get the 70-200mm f/4L and try it out; if you don't like it sell it and get something different. I had this lens and can say its incredibly sharp and the f/4 does a fine job of isolating the subject if you know how to manipulate your camera to subject and subject to background distances.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>In my experience (comparing Pentax K20D and 40D) it is quite possible that the Pentax autofocuses more accurately. And as Bueh points out, the FA 50mm is quite highly rated, more so than the Canon 50/1.4.</p>

<p>But.. you can't count the number of shots I've missed due to the Pentax "autofocus confirmation stutter." Image quality means squat if the camera is disabling the shutter button because it's still refining the focus.</p>

<p>I notice with the 40D that it gives up trying to AF after one near/far cycle. So you can take the shot, but good luck if it's in focus or not. The K20D never stops trying to AF, which means if you can take the shot, it will most likely be very sharp.. the catch is, if you manage to take the shot in time.</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I'm not completely convinced of the 70-200/4 vs the 85/1.8 -- the 85mm seems far less prone to aberrations and coma than the 50/1.4 wide-open. And its half the price of the 70-200/4. I really don't see myself using 200mm much.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Orlando- your post is concerning Canon equipment, is it not? Why the Pentax comparison if you're using Canon equipment? Doesn't make much sense.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Brian, this was in reaction to your post that I should be more concerned with image quality and not AF speed.</p>

<p>My point is that AF speed is important, which is one reason I'm not too sold on the Canon 50/1.4.</p>

[jmorian]

<p>I don't know how long you are willing to wait, but Sigma just announced a 50-150mm f2.8 stabilized lens in February. There is not a release date for it yet. Here are the specs for it:<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/new-product-announcement-apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/new-product-announcement-apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm</a></p>

[tom_hamilton1]

<p>What about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Its around $550 USD, highly rated and has a longer reach. Its not as fast as the 70/200 but it has IS. Its great on crop camera.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>hi Tom</p>

<p>I don't think I have much use for 200mm, much less 300mm. On a crop camera even 200mm is 320mm equivalent.</p>

[ryan_kelly3]

<p>So let me get this straight, you want...<br>

1. great bokeh<br />2. awesome subject separation<br />3. extremely fast and accurate autofocus<br />4. costs less than $800<br />5. something that falls between 70-120mm(ish)<br>

You really have 3 options, 70-200 f4, 85mm 1.8 and a Sigma (gasp!) 50mm 1.4.<br>

The thing about this cruel cruel world is that you're really never going to find exactly what you want in a lens. Pick what attributes are most important for what you're doing and focus on those (as in one, maybe two). I keep hearing "outdoor portraits" in this thread and I'm wondering why you need such stellar AF speed for that type of photography. I shoot all day and night sometimes with only the 85mm 1.2L on my camera and yes the slow AF can be an issue, but you learn to work with it (which truly isn't that big of a deal anyways) because the IQ is worth the extra effort. When I have the 70-200 2.8 on, I'll do whatever it takes to get the shot at or near 200mm instead of 70mm because the look is worth it! ... plus all that running keeps me in shape :) The 35mm 1.4L is a little soft wide open, but I shoot at 1.4L probably 95% of the time and tweak the sharpness later... because you can't beat the look it provides. These are all pricey lenses and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I buy them for their strong points and happily work with their weak ones.<br>

It's okay to be picky about things when choosing a lens, but don't get too hung up on stats and charts. Go rent some lenses and find out which lens truly fits with your style of shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Ryan, thanks for the summary. Lens rentals aren't cheap around here ($100/day) that it actually makes more financial sense to buy something (used), use it for a few days or weeks, and if you don't like it, flip it for zero (or tiny, say $50) financial loss.</p>

<p>I'm not comfortable with the Sigma (AF inconsistency) so I'm trying to decide between the 70-200/4, 85/1.8, and 50/1.4 -- I think the 50/1.4 is the most familiar FL for me, but it's micro-USM. I've never had an AF 85mm (just an old Jupiter-9) so am not sure if that FL will be a good one for me. The upside of the zoom is that I can try all the FL's between 70 and 200. The downside is.. f/4.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I keep reading the OP saying something about AF inconsistency. I own just about every lens mentioned and all of them, including a Sigma 50mm f1.4, do a great job on APS-C cameras like the 40D. All of them also have the original micro-adjustment tool: Manual Focus.<br>

Try it on your portraiture.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Some people like to complain just to throw out hot air, Charles. I've also used many lenses by both Canon and Nikon and never had problems with AF "inconsistency."</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Brian, your lack of problems with AF inconsistency does not mean that others are just throwing out hot air.</p>

<p>Besides you say Canon and Nikon. I specifically stated that I would like to avoid Sigma due to documented AF errors. Again, fairly easy to search for.</p>

<p>I've had a <strong>lot</strong> of AF inconsistency issues on Pentax, you can google for it, there really are a lot of AF problems. So by shifting I want to be absolutely sure I don't encounter any such issues. So if someone reports that this or that Sigma lens has inconsistency, I would rather stay away.</p>