Ok..back to lenses, need opinions...

H

hulagirl

Member
I know we've talked about it before, but I've decided I want to purchase just one L lens and rather than try to distill what is in that other thread, I figured I'd just start a new one. ; I've given it alot of thought, looked at alot of photographs, listened to all of your advice, and I think it's really what I want to do.

I want just one for now and I want it mainly for portrait and landscape photography. ; Eventually, I'd like a good zoom lens for wildlife shots, but I think, given the cost, that is going to have to wait.

If you were going to buy just one Canon L lens, which one would it be and why? ; If you have any good photo examples also, that would be awesome.

Thank you. :)
 
"hulagirl" said:
I want just one for now and I want it mainly for portrait and landscape photography. ;
Click to expand...

I think those are two separate items that require different lenses. ; For landscapes I'd start with the 17-40L, portraits are their own bugabaloo. ; f/4 is too slow for portraits even at 105mm, technically "the" portrait lens is the 85/1.2L.

This one was taken with the 17-40L:

main.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oooooo Roger. ; That is pretty. :)

If I had to pick one over the other, I'd probably pick a great portrait lens, and continue shooting landscapes with what I've got, then. ; I'll go take a look at the 85/1.2L. ; Thanks!
 
Ok...here is what one review on Amazon said. ; What does "ultra-thin DOF images" mean?

Landscape: yep this works, and this the area other than portraiture that the 85mm f/1.2 functions well in, but only if your objective is to produce ultra-thin DOF images. Otherwise other L lenses fulfill this role with much better satisfaction. Exposures of flowers and foliage work well, along with anything that features an interesting main subject and a background suitably beatiful for being blurred into a wash of color. Once again however, the 135mm competes as a contender in the DOF catagory. All things considered, the 135mm produces better image quality while the 85mm produces a somewhat stronger DOF with a more surreal/dreamy feel to its images.

Portraiture: the main enchilada. No other lens performs portraiture as well as the 85mm f/1.2 under $4000. Female subjects will especially appreciate the dreamy DOF this lens can produce. If you do portraits or wedding work, this lens MUST be in your bag. Mark it up as a necessary business expense and start saving now. If you actually happen to have the $4000 previously mentioned, you may wish to consider the 200mm f/1.8L or the 300mm F/2.8L. They yield an equivalent DOF at their longer focal lengths and deliver superior image quality, but require much more working room and more ambient light.
 
The biggest advantage and disadvantage of the 85/1.2L is the ultra thin depth of field. ; Meaning that at f/1.2 only a small amount will be in focus at the minimum focus distance - there is practically no room for error. ; It's an expensive and heavy lens. ; Now with a crop factor camera, the 50/1.2 is cheaper and would give you similar results as it would crop to 80/1.2.

Here's one that was actually in focus:[nb]I'm not going there.[/nb]

main.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So maybe I should consider the 50/1.2 AND the 17-40L? ; That would only be a little more than the 85/1.2L.

Also, is it ridiculous to think about putting this kind of glass on an XSi?
 
I'll throw in my two cents on the 17-40. I use it and I love it. It's my primary lens, is small enough to be a good walkaround lens and the results are very nice. If you check out my flickr page all of those shots are with the 17-40 on a 30D.

Heck yes it's worth putting good glass on your XSi. :D
 
One question I have is what your plans are for going either full frame or a pro body. If you stay with either the XXXx or XXD series then the best lens for your money is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It is L grade optics in an EF-S mount and I would pit it against a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM any day of the week. The lens makes a heck of a portrait and landscape lens on the 1.6 crop bodies like your Xsi.

If you then also wanted to explore shallow depth of field, I would then add the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as your ultra depth of field lens. The 50 f/1.4 will allow you to get used to practicing with shallow depth of field all the while providing a good low light lens as well.

The 85 f/1.2 is really in a league of its own, but I love my 300 f/2.8 for portraits almost as much. I also do not pretend not to love L glass, as it truly is an addiction once you shoot with it. However, you really do not need ultra depth of field for a great portrait lens. That is unless you want to stop down past f/2.8 then the L lenses will provide the sharpest pics at these wide apertures. Almost any fast prime at F/2.8 and above is going to be sharp.

If I was forced to buy just one L lens then it would be either the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for their general walk around capabilities. However, I still believe the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the best option on the 1.6 crop bodies.

Below are a few examples from the 85 f/1.2 and the 17-55 f/2.8 respectively. ;

EF 85 F/1.2 L examples

f/1.2 @ 85 mm, 1/200, ISO 100, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v0/p1070359320-4.jpg[/expando]
f/1.8 @ 85 mm, 1/60, ISO 1000, No Flash
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v4/p245872965-3.jpg[/expando]
f/2 @ 85 mm, 1/80, ISO 1000, No Flash
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v3/p83731256-3.jpg[/expando]

EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 examples

f/2.8 @ 55 mm, 1/800, ISO 800, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p677633630-3.jpg[/expando]
f/2.8 @ 37 mm, 1/125, ISO 400, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p859219949-3.jpg[/expando]
f/4 @ 43 mm, 1/20, ISO 800, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p552113384-4.jpg[/expando]
 
Zeagle...my future plans are to win the lottery and buy your wonderful camera. :) ; I love love love your portraits. ; Absolutely beautiful, candid shots that show the best in people, always. ;

Seriously, though, my dream camera is the 5D Mark II. ; I was looking at the 50mm f/1.4. ; Is it really a marked difference from the 1.8? 17-55, hmm? ; Ok..off I go to look at that one.:)

Thank you for the wonderful examples.
 
The EF-S lenses will not work on the pro series and full frame mounts. Although, the high quality lenses almost always will retain their resell value and you could always sell the 17-55. Then put the money towards another lens when you do migrate to the full frame body.

The build of the 1.4 is better than the 1.8. It has a USM motor for focusing, better quality materials, better bokeh compared to the 1.8, and is sharper at the faster apertures up to f/2.8. Keep in mind either lens will be incredibly sharp at f/2.8 and above.

"hulagirl" said:
Seriously, though, my dream camera is the 5D Mark II. ; I was looking at the 50mm f/1.4. ; Is it really a marked difference from the 1.8? 17-55, hmm?
Click to expand...
 
if you want a jack of all trades L lens, consider the canon 24-105 f/4 L IS/USM. ; it is my main walk-around lens and most of the shots in my photo gallery are taken with it (the outdoor ones, anyway). ; nice range, SHARP!, stabilized, still pretty wide at 24mm, built like a tank! ; Recommended. ; (I have the 17-40L but it doesn't get nearly the play that the 24-105 does).

almost all of these are 24-105 f/4 L...
Old Key West
Victoria & Albert's
Osborne Lights
All-Star Movies

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO & SPECS

(ps. if you are dreaming about 5d or 1d series cameras in the future, STAY AWAY from ef-s lenses. ; they won't mount on those bodies)
 
Sorry I couldn't answer until now. The computer folks at work just wait for somebody to post to an online forum. I think so they can make examples of us...and I don't want to know what that means.

Here's the link to my flickr:

flickr.com/bemitchell
 
Thank you, Brian. ; There are some beautiful shots there. ; I especially like the lighted castle photo. ; SO pretty.

No closer to a decision, guys. ; I've only complicated it more. ; :D ; I read a good deal about the 7D today and paired with Jason's 17-55...wow. ; Seems like an awfully nice set-up.

Ah well. ; I will happily keep shooting with the XSi while I digest it all.

Oh...and Tim. ; Those galleries are just gorgeous. ; I really want to try Victoria and Albert's someday soon. ; What an elegant, special occasion that would be.
 
Hi Hulagirl!
; Just last year I was in your shoes...what to buy what to buy. I just purchased the 24-105L and it really is a great walk around lens. I used it for an outdoor photo session and the results are clear and sharp. I also use the 50mm f/1.4 and it is incredible. The 50mm 1.8 is good for the money, but there is such a difference in build and photo quality, if you have the cash go for the 1.4. Luckily for me I can write them off as business expenses and my side job/hobby pays for it. Onecall.com has phenomenal financing deals, well worth checking out.
 
Hi James! :) ; I sure enjoyed looking at your website. ; I love shots of people (especially children) in a more natural, unposed environment. ; Did you take some of those portraits with the 50mm f/1.4? ; Very nice!

Thanks alot for telling me about Onecall.com. ; Twelve months no interest and now I'm obsessing again. ; :D ; Buy now, pay later gets me every time!!!

The 24-105L comes up alot. ; I think I'm gonna look really carefully at that lens...
 
I haven't got a clue what they've got in stock for Canon at the moment, but have you ever checked out keh.com? ; KEH sells used lenses for all different brands, and their stock changes all the time based on what they've gotten in or sold. ; They use a pretty clear rating system, and they are EXTREMELY conservative with their ratings - in all my experiences, a lens they said was 'bargain' (which means not very good at all) ended up being almost perfect, with just a few scuffs on the body and perfect glass. ; If they give a lens a top 2 category rating, you can trust it.

It's worth a look there, because buying a used lens is cheaper than buying a new one, and you might find a gem there! ; The newest lenses obviously won't be there, but keep an eye on the site and you can always ask around here for the Canon experts as to whether a lens is good or not.
 
Thanks Hulagirl! A lot of those photos were taken with the 1.4, if you go into the headshots gallery the close up shots of the girl with the brown curly hair was taken with the 50mm 1.4
I don't have anything on there yet with my 24-105 as I just got it a couple of weeks ago, but the session I did this past weekend was done with only the 24-105 and they should be up there in the next week or so.
Have fun shopping and shooting!
 
Justin...I didn't know about keh! ; Thank you for the wonderful tip! ; There's a 24-104L there for $850. ; It has the lower rating you mentioned, but there are a few others for about $70.00 more with much higher ratings. ; I appreciate that you explained that. ; Gives me options for saving money, should I choose...

James, wow. ; Portraiture is definitely your strength. ; Love how you capture the eyes. ; I bookmarked your site for later viewing. ; I look forward to seeing what you do with the new lens! :)
 
They're about as trustworthy as it gets for used lenses - you'll find plenty of TMIPers who have dealt with KEH, and will back me up on that (if they happen to notice this thread!). ; I know we've shot the name around the boards in the past, and there were several of us who have dealt with them. ; They're good to know if you're desperate to unload lenses too - you won't get as much as private sale, but it's a nice backup plan and you can put the money towards another used lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top