wondering if some of you with portrait experience can chime in on my dilemma. Up until now the majority of my work has been day time sporting events so I've ended up with a 7d, the 17-55 2.8, 70-200 f4 is, 28 1.8 (impulse buy I rarely use), 85 1.8 used mainly for family and kid portraits, and the nifty fifty 1.8. In any case I've been able to parlay my pictures of kids playing soccer, baseball, tennis, etc into a fairly steady family and children portrait side business. Now that side of the business has generated enough income to make a little investment in it. I'm considering a 5d mark ii and am having trouble deciding if I want the 24-105 that comes with the kit as it's such a screaming deal, or do I want a 135L, or sell the 70-200 f4is and pick up the 70-200 2.8ii is. Budget is $3000-3500. Right now I'm leaning towards the 135L as I'm a portrait bokeh addict. so far I've been able to get away with the 85 for older kids and families and the 70-200 when dealing with multiple active kids giving up bokeh on the zoom for versatility. I'm thinking I'm going to miss the 85 FOV on crop and will want the 135 to replace it on FF. Then again I am just overlapping focal lengths on the 70-200 so maybe the 2.8 version solves all the problems. Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
dilemma
- Thread starter robbymack
- Start date
- Status
Tough call. I really like the 135L on FF for portraits (I, too, started with an 85/1.8 on APS-C, then the 85L II, then when I got a 5DII, the 135L as well).
The 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great lens, does wonderfully for portraits, and 135mm f/2.8 on FF will give you the same framing and DoF as 85mm f/1.8 on APS-C. However, it's big and heavy so that may be a factor for routine use (that said, it doesn't bother me to carry it all day on a Blackrapid strap). But likewise, the 70-200/4 on FF will give you the DoF of f/2.8 on APS-C.
Are you keeping your 7D? If you'll continue shooting daytime sports, you should - the AF of the 5DII isn't really up to the task. That means you'll also still have the 17-55 as a general purpose zoom, but not have one for your 5DII.
Having said all of that, the 24-105L is a great walkaround lens for FF (better than the 17-55mm, since the FF-equivalent of that lens is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5).
My recommendation - get the 5DII+24-105 kit, use the 85/1.8 (move closer) and the 70-200/4 for your portraits, and add the 135L when budget permits.
The 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great lens, does wonderfully for portraits, and 135mm f/2.8 on FF will give you the same framing and DoF as 85mm f/1.8 on APS-C. However, it's big and heavy so that may be a factor for routine use (that said, it doesn't bother me to carry it all day on a Blackrapid strap). But likewise, the 70-200/4 on FF will give you the DoF of f/2.8 on APS-C.
Are you keeping your 7D? If you'll continue shooting daytime sports, you should - the AF of the 5DII isn't really up to the task. That means you'll also still have the 17-55 as a general purpose zoom, but not have one for your 5DII.
Having said all of that, the 24-105L is a great walkaround lens for FF (better than the 17-55mm, since the FF-equivalent of that lens is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5).
My recommendation - get the 5DII+24-105 kit, use the 85/1.8 (move closer) and the 70-200/4 for your portraits, and add the 135L when budget permits.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks for the advice. definately keeping the 7D for the reasons you stated. I passed on the 70-200 2.8 before due to weight and lack of a real need for the extra stop as it was, so I don't think my feelings on the bulk of the lens will have changed. I really think that option is out because I do love the weight and balance of the 70-200 f4.
I was sort of thinking I may not worry too much about a "normal zoom" on FF for now. Generally when I take the 17-55 out on the 7d it's all for personal consumption and enjoyment anyway, so I really don't care if I'm shooting FF or crop or care at all about ultimate image quality.
My thinking was on portrait shoots to just keep the 7d and 17-55 in the bag and close by if I need to go relatively wide for a shot. Granted I give up some of the FF goodness, but if it means not getting the shot otherwise it's not a bad solution. Decisions, decisions...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
That is a tough call. Since you will not have a normal zoom range due to losing the 17-55, you will need to get one, and the 24-105 is a deal. You will never lose on it.
I'd buy the 24-105mmL with the body, and pickup the 135mmL later. I have and use both, but the 24-105 is my walk around everyday lens.
If you are in the USA, you can buy the 5D MK II with 24-105mmL plus the 135mm L and with the $150 instant rebate, the total comes to $3638, well within your budget. Don't forget a flash, the 5D does not have built in flash, so you need something to control remote flash units.
Upvote
0
robbymack said:
Get the kit (it's value for money and the 24-105 is more than decent). By all means DO NOT sell your 70-200 f/4L IS. Add the 135mm f/2.0L when you can. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is very heavy and impractical.
Upvote
0
robbymack said:
I wondered if I'd care about FF vs. crop after adding the 5DII to the 7D. It turned out after getting the 5DII, my 7D was relegated only to those times when I was focal length limited (birds/wildlife with the 100-400mm). For everything in the wide to short tele range, the 5DII delivers much better IQ, especially if you need higher ISO (indoors).
If you're ever considering the 24-105mm, the best time to buy is in the kit.
Upvote
0
I would go for 5D II body ONLY and save the $800plus for L prime(s) or new 24-70 mrk II.
I had 24-105L before and sold it. This is NOT the lens you want for indoor even on FF - unless you plan to shoot with external flash. 24-105L does well for outdoor - but you already have 17-55 f2.8 IS & 7D.
I went through this dilemma last year - from crop to FF. I rented and tested a lot of lenses. At the end, I decided to go with L lenses with min f2.8 and up. Yes....they are little pricy, but well worth it.
PS. Once you shoot with FF, it's hard to go back to crop.
I had 24-105L before and sold it. This is NOT the lens you want for indoor even on FF - unless you plan to shoot with external flash. 24-105L does well for outdoor - but you already have 17-55 f2.8 IS & 7D.
I went through this dilemma last year - from crop to FF. I rented and tested a lot of lenses. At the end, I decided to go with L lenses with min f2.8 and up. Yes....they are little pricy, but well worth it.
PS. Once you shoot with FF, it's hard to go back to crop.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
The 135L is the second best portrait lens in canons line up with the 85L tied for the same place. I prefer the extra compression over the 85L, but the 85L gives a more dreamy look in its rendering. The 85L is also 1000$ more.
The only better portrait lens I've ever tried is the 200 f/2L but thats 7000$.
The 70-200 makes a good third place IMO, It doesnt have that extra stop of light and you'll need more room to reach 200mm to get equal seperation from the 135L.
I cannot recommend the 135L highly enough, Its tack sharp wide open and affordable. ;D
The only better portrait lens I've ever tried is the 200 f/2L but thats 7000$.
The 70-200 makes a good third place IMO, It doesnt have that extra stop of light and you'll need more room to reach 200mm to get equal seperation from the 135L.
I cannot recommend the 135L highly enough, Its tack sharp wide open and affordable. ;D
Upvote
0
- Status