Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 3, 2010, 9:53 AM   #1
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default New lens?

Hmm, so my current setup is:

5D2
50 f1.4
24-105 f4 L
70-300 f4.5 -5.6 DO
580 EX flashgun.

I have been thinking of adding a medium-telephoto "portrait" lens as I am starting to get a bit of interest and a lot of encouragement about supplementing my income with my photography.

Realistically this means portraits and weddings, plus possibly a very occasional landscape/fine art sale.

For weddings I guess I will be working largely with my 50 f1.4 as I will be taking on assignments on the understanding that it will be a documentary-style shoot. I will of course have my other lenses where necessary.

I will also need a backup camera at some point in the not-too-distant future, but I can probably get away with using film for backup in the short term. I have two film bodies I can use, my old Canon 50E and my Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. In practice all that is necessary is that they get me through the day in the event of a failure of my 5D2.

So, looking at the choices available to me there is an interesting list, all of which bring something to the table for wedding/portrait photography:

1. 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII or 85 f1.2 L
2. 85 f1.8
3. 24-70 f2.8 L
4. 100 f2.8 IS Macro (680)
5. 135 f2 L (880)

1 - can't afford either at the moment. 1700 each!
2 - nice lens, but pretty close to the 50.
3 - nice lens, but I think I prefer the 24-105 mostly and 70 f2.8 isn't long enough really. Maybe if they bring out a new version with IS I might be tempted.

Which leaves a choice between 4 & 5.

The Macro has IS, and of course does Macro, which could very well be useful in some of my other interests, but should work very nicely as a portrait lens and can comfortably be used wide open. A superb lens by all accounts. And it's 200 cheaper.

The 135 f2 is regarded as one of the very best lenses ever made, certainly one of the sharpest. Extra working distance, and with the extra focal length AND the wider aperture it can throw the background out nearly as much as the 85 f1.2. And of course with a TC could double as a 185mm f2.8.

I might get rid of the 70-300 DO at the same time, so it might not cost me all that much to upgrade. Though just having the 70-300 might come in handy, and its chief advantage is that it is really portable, so maybe not.

Your thoughts welcome.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 3, 2010, 10:50 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Craig,

I can see a case for both. the IS is nice and having an added macro function could be nice for other uses, making it more versatile.

but the 135L is one of Canon's best and has some of the best contrast and bokeh of any lens of any manufacturer. that plus the added speed for dof control when needed would make it a better choice for your intended major purposes. for me anyway, images from this lens just have that extra something that is quite special, its those intangibles as much as anything that would lean me toward this lens, even though both would probably do fine.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2010, 1:08 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

Here are my thoughts, weddings you will have to organize your shooting to cut down lens changing till you get a second body. You need to think about low light shoots in churches where flash is not allowed. At least they let you take shoots now. Plus what you do when it rains. I would be looking at a wide to medium lens. As for portraits you are pretty much covered. Good luck and I hope this helps
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2010, 2:38 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The 24-105 will work pretty well for inside the church, with the high ISO ability of the 5D2 I'm not too worried about not being able to use flash.

I will get an ST-E2 to help with focussing in the dark though.

Actually I seem to have a very sharp copy of the 24-105, maybe f4 with IS is enough. Maybe I don't really need another lens.

As a backup digital I can get a 1000D body for 285 pounds. With a 28mm f1.8 or even the 24-105 that would work just fine as a backup camera. Also of course I have been longing for the new Fuji X100, I think for documentary work that will probably be even better, but of course it will be around 800. The heart may have to submit to the head.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Nov 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2010, 4:21 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

Hi found this article hope it helps
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/tec...-weddings.html
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2010, 7:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
deterpawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 393
Default

hello peri peri
gees hadta say that
anyway usually your the one giving advice
probably best to bite the bullet and get the 70-200mm f2.8 but maybe the mark 1 version, would cover range/IS/low light
but heavy, monopod it to save neck carrying
just my tuppence worth
good luck in your endeavors
pete
deterpawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2010, 5:21 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I keep flip-flopping.

100L, 135L.

Back and forth in my head.

Versatility & Price v Speed & bokeh.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2010, 9:30 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

If it was me I would sell the 70-300 and the 24-105 and grab up a 24-70 and 70-200.
If you are already set that you just want to go with the 135L or the 100L this concept takes several avenues to travel.

If you dont really do macro and only consider it on well maybe you might like macro but not sure then its a no brainer, the IQ of the 135L is among the best Canon has to offer and pretty much every copy is sharp with some that are just stupid sharp and even rival the 200 F2 (not quite but great results). The 100L is not even close in the IQ dept nor the bokeh dept.

If you do macro and really see it growing to more macro then go with the 100L

My .02 about IS
Its worthless for shooting people or anything that moves. Its designed to compensate for camera shake but does absolutely "0" for motion blur, only shutter speed and a fast lens can remedy that. (higher ISO of course if the body used does well with it)

Having both the 24-70 and the 24-105 the 24-70 has better IQ but comes with the price of added weight, which I dont mind. The 24-105 gets used mostly by the wife on her 50D and Ill use it every now and then for outdoor family type ventures. My most used walk around is the 24-70.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.