I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.
I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
1. Canon 85 F1.8
2. Canon 100 F2
3. Tokina 100 F2.8 Macro
4. Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II
I'm mainly shooting and making money with business portraits. I'm not into macro photography. I'm mainly considering the first 3 because of the cots and I guess that the image quality of primes is a lot better. I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.
What lens would you recommend. How is the image quality of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II compared to the Canon 100 F2? What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?
I like portraiture... I presume you have all the lighting you can ask for... so based on that...
none of the above. Maybe the 85 f/1.8 since I have owned it... and I have owned a 100L macro, both of which I used for portraiture... but in comparison to the 135L and the 85L mkii, both leave something to be desired. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii... but that stays in the bag for portraiture... though it can do the job.
I liked the 85 f/1.8... it was plenty sharp wide open... a little bit of color abberation that is fixable in post...
I've had this discussion before... but if you are shooting a stationary object/person, isn't it safer to shoot at f/8 with peripheral lighting, rather than risk shooting wide open and having the left eye out of focus (but the right being in focus).
100/135... on a crop... you just might have to be too far from your subject... I'd lean towards the 85 as a stop gap measure... then maybe re-evaluate after you make the jump to full frame.