fredus Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Ok, I've read tons of magazines, website and of course this forum ! These are my 2 choices for my new Elan 7e (I will take mostly portrait (close portrait and street portrait) and landscapes ... I already have a 420EX) Choice 1: (Estimated price: $600) Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM Canon 50 f/1.8 USM Choice 2: (Estimated price: $780) Canon 28 f/2.8 Canon 50 f/1.8 USM Canon 85 f/1.8 USM Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM What do you think ?? any better option ?? Thanks for your help ! Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 I am not too sure about using the 100-300 for portraits because it's slow and therefor has a large DOF, but the combination of 24-85 plus the 50/1.8 (which is NOT a USM, BTW) is a good place to start. I would probably add a 100/2.0 to that if I were very much into portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pok_hon_wally_yu Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 I have your "choice 2." However, I used the zoom lens before and simply don't like it. The 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm is a traditional combo that will work fine for your purpose. The 50mm and 85mm lenses will be the main options for portraits, while all three can be used for landscapes. If you have $780 to spend and decide not to get the zoom, you may actually get the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM instead. It renders the background blur with a much more pleasant look than the 50mm f1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredus Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 I know that the 100-300 is pretty slow but I want to be able to wander in SFO streets and be able to take portrait from far away ... I don't really know if this is possible with a 85 mm .... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corey_gardner1 Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 24-85 zoom (will cover the landscapes) or a wide angle prime, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. You will find the 85 1.8 far, far more useful than the 100-300 zoom for portraits. There just isn't any comparison. For portraits you need speed and the zoom just doesn't have it. Portraits also tend to be enlarged so you want the sharpest lens you can afford (again, the 85 wins hands down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patrick Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Fred, I too have been getting close to my final decision I think the best way to go is... canon 24-85 f3.5 to 4.5 usm ($300)and the 70-200 f/4 L($600.) Its a little more expensive but from my research this is definately the way to go on a medium budget. (I currently own the 50 1.8 ($65)) If you use filters, these two lenses are both 67 mm I am by no means a professional, but I am actually going to buy these lenses. the 70-200 should be great for your portraits(youll want a filter pobably because the L series lenses will be too good) If any one thinks if wrong let us know before I purchase mine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manh_cuong Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 U should take 24 2.8, 35 2.0, 85 1.8 and 70-200 F4, personal I owned 28 2.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 180 macro and plan to buy 35 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredus Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 Correy, I know that I'm gonna need speed for my portrait but how am I going to handle street portrait from 10 to 20 meters without a 100-300 ? Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Personally, I prefer the 24 and 35 focal lengths over the 28 + 50 ones but this combo is a bit more expensive. I must say that I don't really understand your tele choice. If you want a good and not so expensive telezoom then the 70-200/4 L is probably the best choice. The 100-300/5.6 L is second best. However, a combination of 135/2.8 SF + 200/2.8 + 1.4X will give you much better quality, as expected from primes. They are also faster. Another thought is a used non-IS 70-200/2.8 L to replace the 85/1.8 + 135/2.8 SF + 200/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Chris' advice is pretty good. I own the 24-85 and 70-200 F4L, and they're an amazing combo. The 24-85 is a very good lens (although some samples seem to exhibit excessive vignetting, but that's not a problem I have had with mine), and if you stop it down to F8-F11, it is very sharp indeed, although obviously has more distortion than primes. The 70-200 is as good as zoom lenses get, and without making big enlargements, you'd be hard pressed to tell the results apart from some pretty decent primes. Of course, the 85 F1.8, 100 F2, 135 F2L and 200 F2.8L will be better, but they'd cost a great deal more. If it's a little hard to swallow the purchase of both lenses at once, think about getting the 70-200F4L and the 50 F1.8, and then save to get a 24, 28 or 35mm prime. Whilst the 85 F1.8 is a superb lens, I think you will feel less need for it if you have the 70-200. I have been considering what to do with my 24-85, since it lives with a 20mm F2.8, 70-200 F4L and 300 F4L IS. It is the weakest link, but before I can say "goodbye" to it, I need a decent replacement. I can't decide between 24 F2.8, 35 F2, 50 F1.8/1.4 combo or the new 24-70 F2.8L. If the primes were updated with USM, maybe it would be easier... However, since I can't afford either option right now, I'll use what I've got, and I'll be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Skip the 24-85, in handheld candid portraiture the slow aperture limits subject isolation and induces blur from slower shutter speeds. I have the 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 (along with 20-35/3.5-4.5, 28-135-IS and 70-200/3.8IS)and recommend these primes highly as economical but sharp primes for your intended use. I suggest you also look for a 200/2.8 to round it out, rather than the 100-300 zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corey_gardner1 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Fred, If you want a little more length then look at the 100 f/2 lens instead of the 85 1.8. Try and find a zoom (maybe go to a camera store) and put it at 100 and see if that will work for you. If it doesn't then I would move to the 80-200 f/4 everyone else has been suggesting. Just for your info here is a link that looks at the 85 and 100: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie g. Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Didn't have time to read all the replies, so I hope I am not repeating someone else's remarks. I prefer the 24mm end for lanscapes, too. That extra 4mm makes a big difference. The newer EF 50/1.8 has a plastic mount. Something to avoid. Older one is better. EF 50/1.4 or 50/2.5 Macro are even better, sharper choices (but about $150 more). Ever tried Tamron SP 24-135mm? A good competitor for your money, light wieght and has a good coverage range, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredus Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Ok guys ... Great advises, but you're blowing my budget away with the Canon 70-200 f/4 !!! :-) That's why I wanted to go with the 100-300 ... I'd like to keep my lens budget < $700 ... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patrick Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Fred, If it's a little hard to swallow the purchase of both lenses at once, think about getting the 70-200F4L and the 50 F1.8, and then save to get a 24, 28 or 35mm prime. Whilst the 85 F1.8 is a superb lens, I think you will feel less need for it if you have the 70-200. Youll be under 700 and You wont be disappointed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 "but how am I going to handle street portrait from 10 to 20 meters without a 100-300" IMHO, 30-60 feet away (sorry, I can't think in metric), is not taking portraits, but just taking anoymous snap shots. I don't have any moral objection to that, but most good portraits are taken with with full knowlege and consent of the subject, and by getting close and interacting with your subjects (not that easy to do). The 100mm F2 USM is nice since its fast, sharp, not that expensive, has 2x magnification but is about the same size as a 50mm lens (a big white L zoom is more intimidating). If you check out Jeff Spirer's work (he is a member of photo.net), most of his street portraits are shot with a WA lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horangi24 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I agree with Chris.. 70-200 f4 should be more than enough for portrait work. people say itz sharp as 70-200 f2.8 L.. and save some money for such as 20-35 for landscape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now