Baby Photos and the search for a portrait lens...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
jdramirez

jdramirez

May 31, 2011
2,940
1
21,766
49
#1
As can be seen by my signature... I have no problem going through lenses. Well... low and behold nine months after being on a turkey high, a baby is coming forth. You should see what roast beef makes me do!

I had a 100mm f/2.8L is macro that I just sold... and inretrospect... maybe I should have kept it for some close ups of the eye and eyelashes... and I liked the lens quite a bit as a portrait lens. It was super sharp wide open at f/2.8 and I'm a little sad to see it go.

My plan was to replace the 100mm f/2.8L with a 135mm f/2L... which would be a touch long for indoor photography... and maybe a touch long to get a new born to notice me... but I also have a 9 year old that it would complement well. Then... after I save a few more sheckles, I was going to upgrade to a 85mm f/1.2L.

And then this morning, I see a good deal on a 85mm f/1.8 for $300 and I jumped on it for $275. So now I have a decent portrait lens which isn't crazy long on my full frame 5D mkiii. Rather than spending 800 to 900 on the 135mm, I now have an extra $1200 ish left to spend (after selling a 24-105 and a fisheye lens).

So should I keep the 85mm and maybe sell two 24-105's and upgrade to a 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii? Is the 85mm f/1.2L REALLY just that much more amazing that I should continue with my plan of upgrading to that but just skip over the 135mm step?

And while I normally don't suggest people offering suggestions from left field (e.g. I'm talking about a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii and someone suggests a 18-200mm), but in this case, if there is a better portrait option that is good wide open, I'm willing to listen.

I wanted something in the 50mm range, but the f/1.2L is soft wide open, I had the f/1.4 and really liked it, but evidently not enough to keep it, and I really didn't like that it wasn't sharp until around f/2.8 or so. But I'm rambling.
 
#3
bholliman said:
The 24-70 2.8 II is a fantastic lens! In my opinion, its worth selling other lenses to obtain. I can't comment on the 85L, but I've owned an 85 1.8 and really liked it. I'll probably require at some point. The 85L isn't on my short list as I'm concerned with its slow AF.
Click to expand...

I guess if I'm going to blow $2000 on something, it might as well as well be the king of the mid range zooms. Or is it the wide angle zooms... ehhh...

AS for the AF being too slow with the 85L... I'm not too concerned because babies don't move too quickly.
 
Upvote 0
#7
I'm a little lost as to the lenses you have and what's for sale and what's not but I have most of the lenses you're talking about, and for any indoor, available light situation where the subject isn't coming at me or moving away from me, i'll use the 85L and when I don't, I usually wish I did. It is my #1 goto lens for people, and I only stray from it when faster AF is needed. When light and distance are available, the 135L takes almost as good a picture with faster AF. The 24-80Lii is good when I can control the lighting. The 85 1.8 is a handy fast AF but it doesn't get used much having the 85L and 135L. I actually use the 50L a lot to take shots around the house, but I wouldn't feel like I could ever trust it to make a shot I'd sell to anyone. Oh, and i just shot a buddy-of-mine's newborn the other day, and she was mesmerized by the front element and it got me some cool shots...
 

Attachments

  • 4V7A5265.jpg
    4V7A5265.jpg
    3.3 MB · Views: 536
Upvote 0
#9
mifho said:
I'm a little lost as to the lenses you have and what's for sale and what's not but I have most of the lenses you're talking about, and for any indoor, available light situation where the subject isn't coming at me or moving away from me, i'll use the 85L and when I don't, I usually wish I did. It is my #1 goto lens for people, and I only stray from it when faster AF is needed. When light and distance are available, the 135L takes almost as good a picture with faster AF. The 24-80Lii is good when I can control the lighting. The 85 1.8 is a handy fast AF but it doesn't get used much having the 85L and 135L. I actually use the 50L a lot to take shots around the house, but I wouldn't feel like I could ever trust it to make a shot I'd sell to anyone. Oh, and i just shot a buddy-of-mine's newborn the other day, and she was mesmerized by the front element and it got me some cool shots...
Click to expand...

My signature maps my progression. So where you see an arrow, ->, I sold the previous lens and bought the next lens... But right now all I have is a 24-105, an 8mm fisheye, the newly acquired 85mm f/1.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii.

I used to balk at spending thousands of dollars for lenses... and then I miraculously stopped having those hangups. So I might get the 85L, because from all reports, it is better in every way (except for speed of AF), than the f1.8. But the 1.8 will do until I find enough change in the couch cushions.

I took some practice photos with a doll... and I think they came out well enough...
 

Attachments

  • _96A2708.jpg
    _96A2708.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 503
Upvote 0
#11
jdramirez said:
I guess if I'm going to blow $2000 on something, it might as well as well be the king of the mid range zooms. Or is it the wide angle zooms... ehhh...

AS for the AF being too slow with the 85L... I'm not too concerned because babies don't move too quickly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they don't stay immobile long... :). By the time they are 6-7 months old they can move around pretty good.

We have a 14-month-old boy and he is all over the place! When he spots me with a camera he normally heads straight towards me, so my best photo opportunities are catching him concentrating on something so he doesn't notice me right away. When he was an infant I primarily used my primes (35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0) to shoot him in natural light, but I find the primes harder to use now that he is walking. My 24-70 and 70-200 are my most used kid lenses now.
 
Upvote 0
#14
I too would stick with the 85 1.8, UNLESS you plan on upgrading to the 85 1.2L in the future, in which case I would just do it now. The 85L is everything it should be in a mid-tele prime. It is straight-up amazing (in my humble opinion), and though it gets dogged on for its slow AF, not everything you hear is true. I will say that it IS super slow if going from 3.5' to infinity, however, if it's doing minor adjustments, (6.25'-6.5') then it's really not an issue what-so-ever. I bought mine at a 9+ used from Adorama for $1,650 and I would very much recommend that route if you don't mind used.

I hope this helps,
-Tabor
 
Upvote 0
#15
while i absolutely adore my 85 II for portraits, i end up using the 100L more often than not for baby pictures because of the really long MFD on the 85
 
Upvote 0
#16
BL said:
while i absolutely adore my 85 II for portraits, i end up using the 100L more often than not for baby pictures because of the really long MFD on the 85
Click to expand...

I noticed that yesterday when I was messing with the doll. Outside of my 8mm and the 24-105... I won't be able to get all that close... but I guess that is what happens when you sell a lens that didn't really have to sell.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ozarker
OMG, all possible lens choices are too good!
Replies
3
Views
938
Buylongterm
B
Canon Rumors
The Follow-up to the RF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM Could See More of the World
Replies
49
Views
3K
john1970
J
Richard-CN
Canon Teases Us with a Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L
Replies
32
Views
3K
Eric84
E
Richard-CN
Canon RF 14mm F/1.4 – Is it the Astrophography Dream Lens for RF?
Replies
97
Views
7K
RDGood
RDGood
Richard-CN
Canon Announces the Canon RF 7-14mm f/2.8-3.5 Fisheye Zoom lens
Replies
12
Views
1K
TexPhoto
TexPhoto
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu