aubreyp

<p>I'm actually really excited about the 35mm f2. I've used the non-USM version of that lens for a long time. It makes an awesome, lightweight travel lens with great IQ. Having USM and IS built in makes it a no-brainer.</p>

<p>One advantage of the 135 is that you can put a (1.4) focal extender on it and have a 190 f2.8 as well. I've done that a bit with mine and been pleased with the results.</p>

Canon 85 f1.8. I love this lens for portraits and street. My 135 f2 is better, but less useful all around.

<p>The lenses alone are worth almost $2K. Might be too good to be true.</p>

<p>The 85mm f1.2 is a VERY HEAVY lens, and will take some muscles to haul around all day. It's primary focus is portraits, which it excels at like almost nothing else. If you were shooting street portraits it gives a very beautiful OOF area, but you better make sure you're subject knows to hold still, because focusing at f1.2/85mm is tricky and slow on this lens. Rent it for a week and make up your own mind. The 85mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses, but the 1.2 is on my wish list as well. I don't think I'd trade one for the other, though, since the 1.8 is a great lens.</p>

<p>Speaking as the devil's advocate, it might come in handy for someone who has an iphone, but not a video-capable camera and wants to do a little video work.</p>

<p>I shoot a fair amount of situations like this, and I've found that fast lenses are MUST. I usually carry the following primes: 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8. I'm planning on replacing my 35f2 with the 24 f1.4, since that will be great for getting whole tables of people under dim light as well as landscapes. I sometimes leave my 35 or 50 and take my 135, since it's such a great portrait lens. I think the 24-105 f4 would be an okay choice, but you risk a lot of blur as people move in low light. However, the IS can help the background stay sharp, and it's got a really useful focal range for groups and portraits. If I didn't hate zooms so much, I'd probably own that one.</p>

<p>I have a MF Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror lens that I use with my *5D*. Here are some example shots:<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1720615<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1720611<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1720600<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1720595<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1720582<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1717131<br>

http://jpgmag.com/photos/1717133<br>

I would be concerned that on a crop camera, it would be too long to handhold. As it stands I have to shoot at a high ISO in bright daylight just to get a short enough exposure to prevent camera shake. It's not an easy lens to use, but it is a fun one. I think I paid about $200-300 for my copy.</p>

<p>It depends on what you're shooting, and how you shoot. It's true that only the finest lenses will allow you to exploit the full potential of the 5DII high resolution sensor, which I imagine is what you want if you're shooting intricate landscapes that you plan on printing large. If you shoot portraits or other subjects with shallow DOF, a little softness won't hurt you.<br>

As usual, Ken Rockwell has something to say about the matter:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/lenses.htm</p>

<p>Hi Keoni,</p>

<p>I love love love my 135mm f2, but this is one case where I agree with the recommendation NOT to get it. Perhaps once the kids are a little older and don't mind sitting still a little, the 135 will become a splendid choice for you.<br>

-Aubrey</p>

<p>Hey Matt,<br>

Don't give up so easily on the manual focus process. I have a few great Nikkor lenses I love to use on my 5D. The AIS 28 f2.8 ,24 f2.8 and 105 2.5. It took me a few days to get used to shooting like that, but you learn some tricks to make it go faster. You may also want a manual focus screen, though I don't have one.<br>

The Canon 35mm f2 is a fantastic lens. It's only slightly weaker than the 35mm 1.4 optically and waaaay lighter. I haven't found anything that beats the Nikkor 24mm AIS optically at the price (or within $600-$1000), so I stick with that.</p>

<p>-Aubrey</p>

<p>Hi Kevin,</p>

<p>I recommend the Canon 35 f2, the Canon 28 f1.8 and the Nikkor 28 f2.8 AI-S (you will need adapter). Of the three the Nikkor is my favorite. It's small, but actually kind of heavy due to the great build quality. The 35 f2 is pretty great and v. light.</p>

<p>If you're going to spend all day with a lens, I'm going to guess the 24L and the 35L will be a little too heavy. The 35 f2 is small, light and good quality. The 28 1.8 is just a bit heavier (and focuses quieter). I've only spent a day or two with the 35L, but I was surprised how heavy and large it was. My walk-around bag usually has the 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 (on 5D), and I can have it on all day without noticing. Shooting crop I'd pick the 28 f1.8, 35 f2 (one of my favorite lenses on a crop) and the 50 f1.4 (or 85 f1.8)</p>

<p>Hi Helen,<br>

I think some artists are very technically strong, others have a great creative vision naturally. The lucky ones have both. One thing talked about in The Artist's Way (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Artists-Way-Julia-Cameron">http://www.amazon.com/Artists-Way-Julia-Cameron</a>) is about "refilling the well" of creativity. This is often done by doing something unrelated to your art, in order to re-stock your brain with ideas. Sometimes we just get stuck in a rut of looking at the same things, doing the same kind of work, etc.<br>

Your work seems very solid technically, what you need is a passion and direction for a project. Best way to find it, for me, is to stop thinking about it. Read the Artist's Way and do the exercises. I think you'll be well rewarded for it.<br>

-Aubrey</p>

<p>Shooting weddings is hard enough *with* f2.8 + IS. I wouldn't want to do it without... Depending on how many weddings you do a year, consider renting the Canon f2.8 IS. For $60/day, it will be a small part of your expenses.</p>

<p>I'd highly recommend the 35 f2 for price/pref "normal" lens on a crop body. Also, it's a really fun lens to use. It's a little soft and vingettey at f2, but so is the 35 f1.4, just a touch less so. If I still had my crop body and had to choose one lens for it, I would pick the 35 f2. The focus is a little noisy, but other than that it's a nice lens. Esp for the $.</p>

<p>Hi Kelly,<br>

I agree with some of the other posters about it being a DOF problem. For a shot like the one you posted, I would use f5.6 or f8 to make sure both people are in focus.<br>

-Aubrey</p>

<p>The lens is affordable, and if that's your criteria, then you should get it. I really liked mine on a crop body, but on a 5D, it wasn't as nice. I really enjoy my Canon 35mm f2. I think it's a better value on the 5D than the Tam 17-35. It *is* loud though and that may be a problem for weddings. Also try the Cannon 28 1.8. It's a decent lens for the money and not as loud as the 35.</p>

<p>I've done a lot of bending pricing for friends and clients. It usually works out badly. My new philosophy: If they are close friend or family and I want to make a gift, I do it for free/cost of supplies. Otherwise, full price.<br>

Most of my clients have been my friends and family, but they understand that paying me is a sign of appreciation and respect. I've not really had a good experience bending the pricing. Either it's never enough for the cheapskate client, or I feel used and resent the work.<br>

Here's how I'd approach it: If you're invited to the wedding as a friend, leave the camera at home to enjoy the wedding and be present. If she's not inviting you to show up without the camera, she's not a friend and should be charged in full (or whatever your previous offer was) as a business transaction. Stand up for your own work, and realize that not everything you do will please everyone.</p>

<p>I've had my 5D for about 2 years. If another digital camera never came out, I wouldn't be sad.</p>

<p>Sure it doesn't do Live View, AUTO ISO, 5fps, auto sensor cleaning, ISO 256000 (or whatever), but it's an *excellent* camera. If you can spring for a few extra bucks and get a used one, I think you will be very happy.</p>

<p>You could also look into getting a 20D and a few primes. There's nothing in my mind that makes the 40D any better. Maybe the 50D is worth getting, but for my money the 5D is a better use of the money.</p>

<p>Hi Miles,<br>

Thanks for the great test! I think I'll run out and buy a 1DsMkIII now. :)<br>

Can you provide a link reference on your sharpening settings. It seems weird that files of different sizes were sharpened with the same settings. I interpret your settings for all images to be<br>

Amount: 300<br>

Radius: 0.3<br>

Threshold: 1</p>

<p>Is this correct?</p>

<p>I *think* the focusing is a factor of both the lens and the body. The 28 1.8 is a fine lens, especially on a crop body.</p>

<p>You may be overestimating how many good photos you should be getting from a session. I try for 20-30% decent, 10% good, 1% excellent. I think many photogs would agree on this ratio, but what constitutes each category will change as you learn.</p>

<p>FWIW, I LOVE my 5D (Mk I). I liked the 10D better than the Rebels b/c UI issues and feel. It's really subjective though. You can always rent a body for a few days and see if you like it better. It does take time to really know a body though, so keep that in mind if you rent or borrow.</p>

Handheld: Canon 14mm f2.8 (rent it)

Tripod: Canon 17-40 f4 or Canon 10-22

I tried a number of Zuiko lenses (50 1.4, 100 2.8, 21 3.5) They are all interesting lesnes. The 21mm had GREAT resolution, but they all ended up not being worth the trouble due to the fact that they were all VERY soft at large apertures and a bit difficult to get good focus on. You're right about the coating, and it doesn't help if you're shooting w/o a hood.

 

I much prefer the Nikkor AI-S lenses around that range. I LOVE my 28 2.8 and I really like my 24 2.8. Easier to focus, sharper, better results overall.

 

Frankly, I'm saving up for a Canon 24L so I can use my GND filters, get higher speed for indoors, and auto focus. I know it's a lot of $$, but I've never regretted an L purchase.

I recently made that decision and chose the 135L. I did this b/c I shoot indoor events and the ability to freeze action meant more to me than the low shake IS, where I would have a sharp picture of a blurry moving person. Also, the 135 is a whole lot lighter and easier to work with. I will miss the flexibility of the 70-200, but the 135 is overall more plesent to work with. Also, I have the 85 f1.8 if I need a wider lens.

 

Now - if you're ONLY concerned about outdoor portraits, get the 70-200 f4 and save yourself some cash.