buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

[CR Backup Admin]

Axilrod, it's possible that it was a bad copy, I didn't bother trying to get samples from another copy, but now that I have the 100mm L, I don't think I'll bother finding out because I'm more than happy with it. I also have the 85mm 1.2 L and the 35mm f/1.4 L, both fantastic lenses (although I hate the size of the 85mm, I'm planning to get the f/1.8 version for carrying around) The other thing that slighlty annoys me with the 85mm f/1.2 is the slow AF, lack of IS and pronounced CA at f/1.2, but I guess I'm just being greedy now :-)

35 L is by far my favorite lens - I can't say enough about it. FOV with a FF camera is really fun, and it actually changed the style of my photography, because I find myself rarely using long lenses now.

50L is on the list for sure, but I think I want the 45mm 2.8 TS first :-)

If your 135mm l is not sharp wide open, it probably has something wrong.  I have two 35mm l's and two 135mmL's temporarily, and all are wonderful and sharp wide open.  I take more images with my 135mmL at f/2 each year than with all of my other lenses combined, but the 35mmL may change that.

[7enderbender]

Hi guys,

I am just about to purchase the 5DII, as currently I use a 550d but I want to move into the professional arena and move into full frame with better ISO handling. Waiting for the III doesnt seem like an option now that there are delays so I'm going to go for it and get the II.

Lens wise I have the 50 1.4 which I love but sometimes the length comes up short in clubs when I just cant get any nearer the bands for instance. I also take photos of interiors in restaurants/bars but I need something a little wider to capture some of these small rooms.

Budget wise I'm trying to work out whether it is worth just going for the L lens and biting the bullet with regards to cost as these will take me through many years, but I just dont know for sure which ones are best for what I need! Would the 34mm 1.4 be wide enough in say a 20-30ft room where I want to get the whole scene in? Or should I go for the 24mm? Same issue with the other end...is the difference between the 50mm to 85mm enough or should I push to 135mm? It's hard as I have no camera shops nearby which have these lenses so I'm trying to work out what is best!

Thanks in advance for any help!

Zoe

Hi Zoe,

If I understand you correctly your main focus would be live band photography - including those wide angle shots?

You already have the 50 1.4 which is excellent for that. Depending on budget I would maybe start with adding either the longer focal range or the wide angle range first. I'm really a prime person but I'm going to mention the 24-70 2.8L and the 16-35 2.8L zooms - which in my book are the only zooms worth owning, especially given your purpose. So you could do one of those and then add the 135L or even the 200 2.8L. I personally don't see any good reasons to own the very expensive 70-200 2.8L

And anything IS will not help you with what you're trying to achieve.

The 35L is certainly a great lens but I also find it to be the most boring focal range there is. The 24L would cover what you are describing but it's very much a one-trick-pony and it's a lot of money for that in my opinion.

[MK5GTI]

Sigma are producing superb primes at the moment which are in many ways better than the canon offerings.
........
I do hope sigma release a 35mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2 as I will likely buy them if they are as good as the canon offerings. Canon's versions are both excellent so the only 'niche' sigma could go for is the lower price.
....................

I am hoping for the same thing, i don't want to pay for the expensive L since Sigma prime is giving me fantastic result, but when sigma release these two lens, it will also serve the Nikon and Sony side too, which the Zeiss 135 is obviously more $$ (F1..  so how low sigma wants to list the 135, i don't know.

but yeah, they should have complete the 3 primes, they have the 85 now, just need 35 (or 24) and the 135

[Caps18]

I understand your dilemma....  I was shooting people in a moderately lit casino with a 16-35mm and I had to increase the ISO pretty high.  I would imagine a dark nightclub would require more than a f/2.8 (without using a flash, which will not look good.)

How soon after getting this 5D would you need to shoot?  the 50 f/1.4 would be a good test lens.  It really depends how close you want to be to the subject you are shooting.  24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.

Zoom with your feet. 

[alipaulphotography]

  24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.

Zoom with your feet. 

Do you mean 24-88mm?

[neuroanatomist]

  24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.

Zoom with your feet. 

Do you mean 24-88mm?

I suspect s/he means most P&S cameras start at 24-28mm on the wide end. 

[AdamJ]

One key thing about shooting concerts is how close to the stage you can get. If you're right there at the stage, 135mm might be long enough but if you're any distance away, you'll benefit from something longer. I used to photograph a girlfriend singing classical recitals and I couldn't stand right by the stage because of the nuisance to the audience. From a distance of, I guess, 30ft from her, I mostly used the long end of a 70-200mm f4 and shot in continuous mode to ensure a fair number of keepers. She was almost always spotlit so, while I would have liked something faster, I got by with f4.

[Chicorob]

I know someone else noted this already, but if you are focued on primes and you already have the 50 1.4, you will probably want something really wide like the 24 1.4 (or 2.8 if budget is a concern) and I personally would go for the 100 2.8L IS macro only because of its versitility.  You can shoot portraits, it is super sharp and lightweight, and with IS it will be as effectively as fast as just about anything out there in that focal range.

Have you considered just going with the 70-200 f2.8 (IS or non IS) for the longer end?  Both versions are great and would provide you more flexibility while giving up very little in terms of sharpness and contrast.  They are a little big and heavy but the 5DII combo with this lens is amazing.

[neuroanatomist]

...the 100 2.8L IS macro...with IS it will be as effectively as fast as just about anything out there in that focal range.

Yes, as long as your subjects are motionless.  4-stop IS means you can handhold the 100mm lens down to about 1/6 s...but all the people in your images will be blurry at that slow a shutter speed.  To stop subject motion (vs. photographer motion), you need a faster aperture.  Even one stop can make the difference between blurred and sharp (blurred in a motion sense, anyway - the trade off with a fast aperture is a thin DoF, so a fast tele lens and a close subject might mean that only part of the subject is in focus).

[KyleSTL]

  24-28mm is what most point & shoots do

I suspect s/he means most P&S cameras start at 24-28mm on the wide end.

The majority of P&S cameras have 30-35mm (equ) lenses.  Only recently have makers started doing 28mm or 24mm (past 2-3 years).  A quick dpreview feature search yielded only 46 fixed-lens cameras with 24mm or wider.  221 cameras are 28mm or wider, and they list 348 cameras total that are 'current'.

[iggyotis]

thanks guys for the responses this is a real help...I was also able to try out some of the lenses a few days ago and I feel I'm much closer to a decision. My findings were that I'm a prime person, not a zoom for sure. I picked up the 24-70, 24-105 for the first time and took a few test shots and yes they were great, but once I took a few test shots on the 34 1.4 or even compared to my 50 1.4 there was no comparison. I LOVE the pictures prime takes and thats enough for me to sacrifice the flexibility.

Next decision I've made is that I want to work more in portraits/weddings NOT bands music. I'm trying to make myself fit everything but I really dont want to cover this music end so why am I trying!

So I need a couple of great L series lenses that will cover me for weddings/portraits that are great in low light and will give me a good footing to begin with. So I've wittled it down for the longish end, to the 100mm 2.8 and the 135 2...

Iggyotis, honestly if you can live with 100mm, forget the 135mm f/2 and go with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS. It is not only a much better low light lens than the 135mm, but it's better all around. It's noticeably sharper than 135 at f/2.8, with way less vignetting. The IS DOES matter, because to get a sharp pic with the 135mm you need at least 1/135sec shutter, whereas with the 100mm Macro, because of the hybrid IS, you can handhold and get a sharp pic even at 1/25 sec, so you can more than make up the one stop f difference between the 2 lenses.

Secondly, the 135 does not look that good wide open, I personally wouldn't use it at f/2 - it's a tad too soft for my taste. Even when you stop it down to 2.8, the 100mm macro makes it look silly in comparison. 

Thirdly, if you happen to need to shoot something that's closer than the minimum focusing distance that the 135mm allows (I think it's a minimum of 1m or so, maybe more) you'll be happy you have the 100mm macro on, because you can shoot from a foot away, if not closer.

Last year I was trying to decide between these 2 lenses, tried both of them, analyzed test shots on a pixel level, and I hate to say it but 135mm did not live up to the hype. It looks impressive mounted on the camera, but way too limiting, and ultimately not as good.

Cheers

thanks for this sb...but yeah do I go for the 135 2 with that extra reach, or decide that the amount of time I will need that extra reach might just not be worth it but to have the 100 2.8 for detail shots like ring, invite, glasses shots at wedding and also I could use it for more general purpose as well? I wasn't able to test the 135 in store so I'm worried it will just be too long...or maybe I would enjoy being able to take candid shots from afar? Any opinions on either of these lenses?

so next decision is what wide angle to get...the 34 1.4 is wide but is it wide enough (on a FF) or would 24 1.4 be better? or do I decide that for the time being if I can only buy 2 L primes then flexibility is a good thing so the 34 would be able to be used for more things so go with this and add the 24 if needed at a later date? Would it be silly to get the 34 when I have the 50 or is that L stamp really worth having in my bag and it will be better than my 50? Again any suggestions most welcome.

[unruled]

you could also get the 85 1.8, often claimed to be the unofficial -l lens (for IQ). epic lens. epic bargain.
or if your pockets go deeper, 85 f/1.2

[CR Backup Admin]

Another suggestion, and one that I take when selecting a new prime, is to look at images I've taken with my zoom lenses.  Lightroom, and probably other software lets me see the images focal length used, the aperture, shutter speeds, etc and gives a total of photos taken at each setting. Before I decided on a 35mm L last July, I found I took more photos at 35mm than 24mm by about a 4:1 margin.

I really haven't missed not having a 24mm prime so far.

For example, on last Wednesday, the keepers from photos I shot were:

35mm L    - 135
50mm 1.4 - 6
85mm 1.8 - 0
135mm f2 - 139

On Thursday:

35mm L     - 24
50mm 1.4 - 118
85mm 1.8 - 182
135mm f2 - 58

The difference was my ability to move around more on Thursday.  Almost all of my best images, as usual, came from the 135mm f2.

[iggyotis]

The difference was my ability to move around more on Thursday.  Almost all of my best images, as usual, came from the 135mm f2.

i think im definitely leaning towards the 135f2. I was trying to weigh up whether the 70-200 2.8 IS would be more flexible for weddings, but so far when I've been able to compare shots from zooms in stores and the ones on the primes I just dont think I have the same love for zooms as I do primes! The only issue I have is that sometimes I need to take photos at catwalk shows so I think there I may just have to rent out the 70-200 as you just dont know where you're going to stand so I think I would need that flexibility.

Do you only use the 35 as your widest lens scalesusa? MY concern is that the 35 wont be wide enough but then I also think that dropping a lot of money on the 25 this early doesnt make the most sense for me when in reality it might just be used for a few shots of interiors where DOF wont be as critical to me as I'll want most of the scene in focus so paying for that low aperture might not be worth it. If you had to choose between your 85 and your 35, if you only had the 50 f1.4 and the 135 f2 which would it be?

[CR Backup Admin]

[Do you only use the 35 as your widest lens scalesusa? MY concern is that the 35 wont be wide enough but then I also think that dropping a lot of money on the 25 this early doesnt make the most sense for me when in reality it might just be used for a few shots of interiors where DOF wont be as critical to me as I'll want most of the scene in focus so paying for that low aperture might not be worth it. If you had to choose between your 85 and your 35, if you only had the 50 f1.4 and the 135 f2 which would it be?
[/quote]

I have a lot of primes and zooms.  I tend to favor the ones listed above most of the time.

Canon 15mm fisheye

Tokina 17mm f/3.5

Canon 24-105mm L

Canon 35mm L

Canon 50mm f/1.4

Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS

Canon 85mm f/1.8

Canon 100mm L

Canon 100-400mm L

Canon 135mm L

I also have a Canon 28mm f/2.8, Canon 22-55mm that I do not use, and will probably sell some day.  I've owned a lot more Canon lenses, I buy and sell them pretty often, and keep the ones that work for me.  I don't lose money, I make sure I can sell a lens for what I paid for it, or I pass it up.

I also have Canon Tc's, and extension rings, reverse lens adapter, and a lot of adapters for other lens makes to EOS.  I have lots of old film cameras from almost every manufacturer, bought for the lenses.  Even a Hasselblad that I bought used three weeks ago.

i'm retired and go to a lot of garage sales as well as having some great software that does a Craigslist search over several cities within a few hundred miles, so I find the bargains on craigslist right away.  I can spot a Craigslist scammer immediately, after  using craigslist a while, they stand out clearly.  I only buy in person.