brian_potts

It really depends what you are interested in. If you want to knock out the background and have good bokeh, there are several choices.

<br><br>

85 f/1.2L...<br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%204-17-2005%20(ha3j5337)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

135 f/2L...<br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2010-17-2004%20(ha3j2297)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

If you are looking for nicer bokeh, and more of a telephoto compression, you can move to longer lenses...<br><br>

200 f/1.8L...

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20pulling%20hair%20back%208-21-04%20(ha3j1416)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

300 f/2.8L IS + 1.4TC...

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%20300%2028%20with%2014%20teleconverter%20test%2010-4-2003%20(6376)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

Many times people discuss the bokeh, but there isn't as much discussion around the compression effect of longer lenses. This isn't good for all shots, but it will certainly be better for many shots as well. It depends what you are trying for. The compression mixed with nice bokeh can be a very good combination. In your case (actors headshots), the 200 f/1.8L is a nice lens. This compression (and lens) are frequently used for professional model shots. You can argue that it makes the person look more flat, but in our society, this can be a positive attribute. It does cost more than you are looking at though.<br><br>

Regarding which lens, those shots could have been made with either the 200 f/2.8L or the 200 f/1.8L. If you are stopped down that much, I wouldn't be paying for or carrying a 200 f/1.8L.

I have one as well, and it is a very nice lens. Here are a couple of shots from it:

<br><br>

f/1.8...<br>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20pulling%20hair%20back%208-21-04%20(ha3j1416)_std.jpg"></img>

<br><br>

f/1.8...<br>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/ha3j7258_std.jpg"></img>

<br><br>

f/2.2...<br>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20and%20princess%2009-18-2006%20(ha3j1198)_std.jpg"></img>

<br><br>

It does a nice job of isolating your subject, and is fantastic for low light action shots like gymnastics or dance. It is both sharp, and it has nice bokeh.<br><br>

Regarding why was it discontinued, most of the speculation has been listed above. I tend to not believe the lead issue, since Canon has updated many lenses, and they didn't update the 200 f/1.8L. The 200 f/1.8L should have been updated with the 300 f/2.8L IS, 400 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS and 600 f/4L IS if they were going to do it. They brought all of these lenses out at once, and left the 200 f/1.8L behind. Within a couple of years, they discontinued the 200. I believe it was such a low seller that this only made sense from a financial perspective. If you look at the serial numbers, they go from 12,xxx to 17,xxx. It was introduced in 1988 as an EF lens, and it was discontinued in 2003 if I remember correctly. You can see they didn't sell that many.

Geoff, perspective is everything. Someone who is looking at purchasing a 70-300 IS would think the 100-400 is in the stratosphere, and someone buying a point and shoot would think the 70-300 IS is up in the stratosphere.

 

Barrie's question was fairly simple "Which IS lens one do you think is the best from your own working experience and love "emotionally"?" He didn't put a price range on it or any other qualifications.

 

With this said, I do like the 100-400 as well.

It depends upon how you look at it. I believe the 300 f/2.8L IS is my best lens with IS although the 500 f/4L IS is a close second. My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is my favorite zoom with IS.

It is a fantastic lens, and one of the sharper ones in Canon's line-up. IMO, it is fairly easy to use. After using mine for a while, I wanted all of my lenses to be T&S! :)

 

Even though it is manual focus, the autofocus confirmation indicator in your viewfinder will still light up when you have achieved proper autofocus. This is only accurate without Tilt or Shift. You will need to touch up focus after applying either Tilt or Shift. This is easy enough to do though.

 

Regarding is it easy to use and understand, I believe that it is. With this said, it is worth reading up on it before getting it. It really isn't complicated, but it helps to have some basic understandings before using it.

 

I often will throw this lens in the bag just for fun in addition to the times that it is truly useful.

First, I am assuming that Studio means studio lighting. If this is the case, why are you looking at these lenses. At best, it is a waste. At worst, you are losing sharpness.

 

In recent tests, the 50 f/1.2L has shown that it isn't as sharp as the 50 f/1.4 stopped down to f/8 (typical shooting with studio strobes). So why would you pay over $1,000 extra for this? These lenses are about speed. The studio (typically) is about controlled lighting (and lots of it). I own quite a few very fast primes including the 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, 200 f/1.8L, and a number of others. I love natural light photography. With this said, I would never buy these if it was strictly for studio type photography. They are absolutely wonderful natural light lenses.

 

In the studio, I actually prefer a zoom lens. I am typically stopped down to f/8 - f/11 (typically). When you are stopped down, an inferior zoom lens becomes almost indistinguishable from a high end prime. You do gain the advantage of flexibility with the zoom though.

 

If I am incorrect, and you frequently use natural light, I would go for lenses that excel at this. I really would look at your style of shooting before making any decision.

I always have lenses attached to each of my bodies, and many times I keep fairly heavy lenses on them. I do typically try to support both the lens and the body seperately in either the bag or outside of the bag though. Last week, I kept a 200 f/1.8L on my body for almost the entire week. I have never had a problem, and this is going over quite a few years.

I agree with the posts above. One other thing to remember is that different lenses take different amounts of power to keep IS moving. I can tell that my 300 f/2.8L IS and 500 f/4L IS take quite a bit more than the 28-135! I don't worry about it with any of the lenses. If it is a smaller lens, I can't even imagine worrying about it.

photozone's tests are always based on a 1.6 crop camera which doesn't tell you very much IMO. It is just one point of data.

I shoot a fair amount of portraiture, and I own the 85 f/1.2L along with a number of other fairly nice lenses already. I had considered purchasing the 50 f/1.0L, but I had a hard time justifying the money. A little while ago, William Castleman presented a comparison of the 50 f/1.0L and 85 f/1.2L bokeh. This was something that I had really looked forward to. After I saw the comparison, I concluded that the 50 f/1.0L wouldn't buy me anything. The focal length would be nice for a fast lens if it had more going for it, but it is fairly well reported to not to be very sharp especially closer to wide open which is where you would want to really use it. The bokeh was one of the main things that could have sold me on the lens, but after I saw the comparison I no longer had an interest.<br><br>

 

If you are interested, <a href="http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/bokeh/bokeh85.htm">you can look at the comparison here.</a><br><br>

 

If you are looking for a more full review, <a href="http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/">you can see it here.</a><br><br>

 

I keep hoping that Canon will introduce a new 50 like a 50 f/1.2L that would be a modern version of their old FD 50 f/1.2L. Ideally, I would like it fairly sharp at or near wide open with better autofocus than any of the EF 50s.

It is good that Canon acknowledges and fixes their lenses when they have problems, and above all else this is important. I have seen a number of tests that show that this is real at least for some of the 70-300s. There are obviously other tests which show that it is fine which probably says something about sample-to-sample variation.

 

Canon does appear to be having more of these problems in recent years though...maybe I am just keeping up to much? Regardless, it seems that it would be best to test them a bit more before releasing them.

 

In the past year, they have recalled the 24-105 for flare, and soon they will be doing the 70-300. A few years ago, people had the red ring from their 24-70 popping off...luckily, I bought mine late. There appear to be quite a few people saying that the later versions of the 400 DO are sharper than the original version...who knows if this one is real though...I wouldn't be surprised if they tweaked the production.

 

I was formerly a fairly early adopter of a number of things. At this point, it seems that it is best to let the product settle down for a year or so before buying. I guess you could make this argument for anything. Canon does seem to be having more of these problems than some of the competition at the moment though. They should think about this since it can tarnish their reputation. I would imagine that this will be a very large recall. Unlike the 24-105, the 70-300 is sold to many consumers, so I would imagine the number of affected lenses is much greater.

I agree. I would get <a href="http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/">PTLens here.</a> It is simple to use, works great, and it is free!

There are very, very, very few honest photography stores. I am not sure what it is about photography equipment, but it seems to bring more scams than anything else that I am aware of.<br><br>

 

As general good advice, B&H and Adorama will suit you well. You can also look at places like Canoga and 17th Street Photo.<br><br>

 

Most places are very bad. Take a look at these <a href="http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/#1">photo stores before ordering.</a> It is scary how a magazine ad or on-line store can look. The pictures of the actual store fronts is more telling.

I agree with some of what has been said, and disagree with probably more of it. For whatever it is worth, I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 and 300 f/2.8L IS (not the f/4 version). With this said, I totally disagree with the statement that the 70-200 + 2x is as good optically as the 100-400, and I really can't believe the statement about the focus speed being faster? This is totally the opposite of anything that I have seen. If you search, you will find tests on the Internet that would agree with my findings. I have never seen anything showing the 70-200 + 2x to be comparable to the 100-400. With this said, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is probably my favorite zoom, and I believe it is absolutely fantastic. I just don't like to overinflate what it is truly capable of doing. It does work fairly well with the 1.4TC, but you now have a max focal length of 280mm.

 

Regarding whether to go with the 300 f/4L IS or the 100-400, this is really a decision on what is important to you. The 300 f/4L IS is optically superior to the zoom, but that shouldn't come as a surprise. The problem that I think that you will have with wildlife is enough focal length. I finally ended up with a 500 f/4L IS, and I will use it with TCs. The 300 will leave you wanting more FL, so you will end up using TCs to compensate. This is where I would make your decision between the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 within this size & price range. The 400 prime is optically better, and it is lighter. The prime will work better with TCs as well. The zoom is flexible, and it is a decent performer (actually fairly good). With this said, the zoom won't match the prime for sharpness/contrast. If you think that you will really be doing wildlife, I don't think you will find that you need a shorter FL very often, so the prime might be the best.

 

I love the 100-400 for the quick flexibility for things like air shows or even quick trips to the zoo. They all have their advantages.

 

Regarding the 24-105, it is supposed to be a decent performer although I haven't personally used one. The concern that I would have is that you would have a fairly slow kit. Most people end up shooting in lower light situations frequently. If you do get this, I would look at adding a fast prime or two. You can even pick up the 50 f/1.8 for under $100 which will help quite a bit.

 

Good luck with your decision.

If you are looking for children's photography, I agree with the suggestion of the 85 f/1.8 above. You can frequently find them used which can often be in the $2xx range. It really is a nice lens, and I would much prefer to own it over many others including a number of more expensive lenses.

600 f/4L IS

I agree. If you are looking at $200, the Vivitar is actually a very good deal for what you get. I am by no means a fan of the newer Vivitar lenses, but their macro is fairly nice for the money. Canon beats it on almost every account, but the Vivitar puts in very good performance though.

I agree with the 50 as well. I would pick the 50 f/1.4 if possible.

 

The lens that "fills" the gap the best if you have to have every mm covered and stay with your f/4 lineup would be the 24-105 f/4L IS. I would have a very hard time not being faster than f/4 though. I think the 50 will allow you to do things that you just can't do with your other two lenses and helps cover the spread if you feel you need to do this.

I agree. The 85 f/1.2L is my favorite portrait lens, and I am primarily a portrait shooter. It is simply fantastic. The 135 f/2L is very nice if you can deal with the longer focal length. You can obviously keep on going and going. I even like the TS-E 90, 200 f/1.8L and 35 f/1.4L for portraits too depending upon what I am going for. With this said, as a generic answer the 85 f/1.2L is the ultimate general purpose (if there is such a thing) portrait lens. You won't regret it.

It is a very, very nice lens. You can certainly use it in many situations including the street or studio. I personally think it is a waste for most studio work, since it would be fairly unusual to use the lens at faster apertures in the studio.

 

The only weakness would be the speed of the autofocus. It is not up to the speed of the 85 f/1.8...neither the original or the Mark II version of the 85 f/1.2L. With this said, I have shot gymnastics with the original 85 f/1.2L with far more luck than I even expected. It isn't as bad as some make it out to be for focus speed.

The mark II is supposed to be the optical equal of the mark I. The mark I is a fantastic lens!

Once you get accustomed to it, you won't want to go back. It is more responsive than the shutter releases on the lower end bodies. Give it some time...you will see for yourself.

I can't properly compare the Canon to the Nikon. I haven't really noticed a problem at all with flare and the 500 f/4L IS. It is a nice lens. For a lens this long though, I personally feel that the IS helps quite a bit. Also, the 500 will retain autofocus on the 20D with a 1.4TC and it will retain autofocus with a 2xTC on the 1 Series or EOS 3. It is nice to have the option of a 1000 f/8 with IS that can autofocus. It is a wonderful lens.

Every camera which was released after the 10D handles ISO 800 fairly well.

The 300 f/2.8L IS is a better lens optically than the 120-300, but I realize this isn't everything. There are a few other things to consider about the Sigma:

 

- The Sigma isn't a true 300. It is closer to a 270 if I remember correctly. The Canon will get you extra length.

- The Sigma has had many people reporting problems with front/back focusing issues. Early on, Sigma put out a second version with a new chip to help with this, but it is still a problem for many. One person went through 7 lenses, and couldn't get any to work for him. He got the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS, and it worked without a problem on the first copy.

- I am still not sure that Sigma is over their compatibility problems. I say this owning 2 Sigma lenses. Who knows...maybe they are, but maybe not.

 

With this said, the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS is one of the best lenses out there regardless of focal length or brand. I went through a similar decision a while ago. I own the 300 f/2.8L IS.