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

[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

 

[Admin US West]

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?

 

[Admin US West]

[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.

 

[iggyotis]

so do you think if I go for the 50 1.4 and the 135 2 would it more beneficial for me to grab the 35 or the 85 focal range, considering weddings are something I want to move in to?

or I could try and stretch to the 35 L AND the 85 f1.8 (as this isnt as pricey as the L series) if both were quite important focal ranges?

 

[Admin US West]

so do you think if I go for the 50 1.4 and the 135 2 would it more beneficial for me to grab the 35 or the 85 focal range, considering weddings are something I want to move in to?

or I could try and stretch to the 35 L AND the 85 f1.8 (as this isnt as pricey as the L series) if both were quite important focal ranges?

Wedding photography is very competitive. Its not the equipment, but the know how that brings success. The so called "Wedding Lens", the 24-70mm L must have that nickname for a reason!

Try to work with a experienced wedding photographer, or at least, take a serious course in wedding photography to see if you really want to do it.

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/

It will be the best investment you could make, and save you thousands of dollars buying the wrong equipment.

 

[iggyotis]

thanks for the advice and yes I understand the equipment is only part of it...but I do need the right equipment for the job at the end of the day and I need to start getting some lenses to cover me not only in that 50mm range if I am to try do do more professional photography.

Weddings is only one part of what I'm interested in, portraits is another - street style is something I currently am employed to do and the 50mm is great for this but when it comes to me trying to branch out into other areas I need some more equipment. If the wedding thing doesnt work then hopefully I have a range of lenses that will cover me for other jobs and if not completely then I can slowly add more to my collection.

thanks for the link to the course as well, I'd definitely be interested in doing any courses to help me discover what it is exactly I would like to do in the photography industry... but it says Aug 25 – Aug 29, 2010 - is this just a typo and it is actually meant to be 2011 or has it finished?

 

[Admin US West]

thanks for the advice and yes I understand the equipment is only part of it...but I do need the right equipment for the job at the end of the day and I need to start getting some lenses to cover me not only in that 50mm range if I am to try do do more professional photography.

Weddings is only one part of what I'm interested in, portraits is another - street style is something I currently am employed to do and the 50mm is great for this but when it comes to me trying to branch out into other areas I need some more equipment. If the wedding thing doesnt work then hopefully I have a range of lenses that will cover me for other jobs and if not completely then I can slowly add more to my collection.

thanks for the link to the course as well, I'd definitely be interested in doing any courses to help me discover what it is exactly I would like to do in the photography industry... but it says Aug 25 – Aug 29, 2010 - is this just a typo and it is actually meant to be 2011 or has it finished?

The course has finished, it went for 5 days, and you can see some clips from it free, but must pay to see or download all five days worth.

The cost for five days of training is very low, you are seeing one of the great photographers in action, covering all the aspects.

Much of the photography part will also be what you need for portraits. Photography is about light, and technique. Don't obsess about equipment until you become aware of the whole package.

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/

 

[iggyotis]

Much of the photography part will also be what you need for portraits. Photography is about light, and technique. Don't obsess about equipment until you become aware of the whole package.

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/
[/quote]

I'm not sure its obsessing, I just really wanted some good advice from those who know, on what two lenses (prime for sure as I know I prefer this over zooms) would be useful to me for future use in low light situations. If I want to strengthen my portfolio then I need some varying photos so only having the 50mm is rather restricting at times. I have a few friend's weddings coming up and it would be great to have some extra points of view in my portfolio again, hence the need for a lens to cover the wide and long ends.

even if weddings arent what i want to get into (but I'm sure they are), two extra lenses for me cant go wrong...so its just a case of getting the "right" ones or ones that will help me progress and give me some variation.

 

[Admin US West]

You won't go wrong with any of the core primes, 24mm L 35mm L, 50mm L, 85mm L, 135mm L, 200mm f2 L, etc.

The 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm are three focal lengths which provide good coverage as long as you can move about a bit. If I could, I'd have these three mounted on three 5D MK II's.

 

[CaptainAw3some]

Sort of a related question not to the OP but to everyone giving advice: How long do you expect these lenses to stay useful? What's their shelf-life to you?

I'm looking at all of the lenses that are about to get updated, and reading reviews of newer versions of lenses that mention the shortcomings of the old versions. Say you bought a 35 today. Assuming it doesn't break or fail mechanically, how long are you expecting to use that lens until you bought a new 35 prime? A few years? The rest of the time you spend with Canon products?

I'm sure the answer will vary, but I'd like to see the different answers and perspectives.

 

[Admin US West]

EF lenses from the very first ones in the 1970's are still in use on DSLR's today. Old FD and FL lenses from the 1960's are still in use today, and are popular to adapt to micro 4/3 camera bodies as a inexpensive alternative lens.

Even older Leica lenses from the 1940's are highly sought after.

People only toss them when they're broken, and often sell them for parts.

some old lenses that do not work on todays cameras are Sigma lenses which were reverse engineered to work with Canon EOS film cameras, but they did a poor job, and when DSLR's came out, they would not work. I have four of them to remind me that any Sigma lens I buy today may not work on a new Canon DSLR. They still work on a Canon film camera. This happened recently to a Sigma for Sony lens, it wouldn't work on newer Sony DSLR cameras. So, they are still at it. Sigma did offer to upgrade it.

 

[unruled]

scalesusa, do you agree that it might be good for him to buy the 85mm 1.8 even if he gets another more expensive L ? its (relatively speaking) extremely cheap and offers very good quality imho.

 

[Admin US West]

I'm reluctant to recommend a specific lens, certainly, the 85mm f/1.8 is a excellent lens at a bargain price, but he needs to determine the focal lengths he needs.

When I add a new lens, I usually have a specific project or usage in mind. Over the years, I've added a lot of them.

For my 5D MK II and 1D MK III, I use 35mmL, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm 2.0 for low light indoor photography.

Outdoors, I tend to favor zooms, but whenever I can be sure A focal length like 35mm will work, then I take the prime. Last year, a couple of days after I got my 35mm l, I spent a day at our local county fair and used nothing but the 35. I also took a trip to a dimly lighted limestone cave up north near the Canadian border, and the 35 worked well there. When they turned the lights out, even my 5D MK II would not focus. Its really totally dark down inside when there is no light.