I'm going crazy over here! What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???

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

skoobey

Jun 12, 2013
120
0
5,781
#1
Okay, so I own 24-105, and I had plenty of help from you guys, and I realized that getting a macro is a must... but what then???

So, my ideal choice would be 85mm 1.8, a macro, 35mmL, 135mm L, 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II.

But I can't afford them all, not to mention I plan on getting a MF camera in the future, but even then I'd like to own a Canon, as it does have it's strengths.

On my 24-105 I mostly shoot at 60-70mm, 105mm, 35mm, in that order.

Do I get a 100mm USM macro and another lens? Or just 100mm L macro?

So: 100mm USM macro + 70-200mm 4L (how sharp is it? especially compared or 2.8 is II?)
or 100mm USM macro + save up for 135L
or 100mm USM macro + 85mm 1.8 (not only is 85mm 1.2 pricey, but it is also distorted, so no tnx)
or 100mm USM macro + 50mm (I had a 1.8, it gave wonderful images, but I couldn't use it professionally, and the 1.4 has horrible distortion, I can't have that)

or just the 100mm macro L

I hate distortion, it has given me so much head ache on 24-105. And I am very fond of sharpness, there is no such thing as "too sharp" for me.

What I wouldn't like is a lens that has lots of micro sharpness, but little contrast overall.

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open. ;D

Now, I know I should test these ,but I can't afford to rent them all, not to mention that it takes using a lens for a while in order to see it's strengths and flaws, so that's why I appreciate you experience so much. ;)

So, is the L 100 Macro worth it? Or shall I get a 100 USM macro and another lens? Perhaps get the USM macro and save up for 135mm? :o
 
#2
for what you want and described the 100L is perfect
it is razor sharp wide open and stopped down
the IS is awesome and will be a great help for portraits
its weather sealed too

also if you are shooting low light portraits with flash in second curtain sync and dragging the shutter
the IS will be a godsend

I dont use this lens as much as i should as i typically go to my 85 or 135 wide open

so for you i really think you cant go wrong with the 100L the extra price for the IS and weather sealing is worth it IMO
 
Upvote 0
#3
Sounds to me the 100L is the winner. Owned it for a while and really regret selling it. For what you use a lens for and the crazy sharpness you want perhaps putting all you bucks on the table for the 24-70 L v2 would be the better option.
 
Upvote 0
#4
mwh1964 said:
Sounds to me the 100L is the winner. Owned it for a while and really regret selling it. For what you use a lens for and the crazy sharpness you want perhaps putting all you bucks on the table for the 24-70 L v2 would be the better option.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.
 
Upvote 0
#7
DJD said:
skoobey said:
Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.
Click to expand...

I have to ask the obvious question, your title says "What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???" so why to you need a macro for fashion/portraits?
-djd
Click to expand...

Because I shoot a lot of beauty images. So I definitely need a macro, and if it can bridge as a portrait lens so much the better. I was wondering how much will I gain/loose by buying a macro and an 85mm, and apparently, a lot as the 100 macro L is far more useful than the non L version, judging by the comments.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Upvote 0
#9
I'd also recommend the 100L as being the lens that would fit both your macro and fashion needs.

That being said, depending on how much other work you do, you may find that a different lens + an extension tube might suit your needs better. You didn't mention whether you use a full-frame or crop sensor camera. While the 100L is a fantastic lens, it won't give you the shallow depth of field that the 85 1.8 would give you.

When I shot primarily on a 60D, I found the 24-105 to be my most useful lens (Even though I owned a 70-200 2.8 IS II). Now that I shoot mostly with a 5D3, my go to lens is the 70-200.

So, in summary, I'd say that if you ONLY need a lens for the two uses you mentioned (macro + fashion), the 100L is your best bet. If you shoot much of anything else, especially outside the studio, and you have a full frame camera, you might be better served by the tremendously more versatile 70-200 + extension tube (just the 12mm, you don't need the 20mm)
 
Upvote 0
#10
The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.

If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.

The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L.

The 24-105L should do just fine for wider stopped down work at f/8 or more. I like that lens at around 35-70mm f/8-11. Good for environmental portraits.
 
Upvote 0
#11
dmills said:
I'd also recommend the 100L as being the lens that would fit both your macro and fashion needs.

That being said, depending on how much other work you do, you may find that a different lens + an extension tube might suit your needs better. You didn't mention whether you use a full-frame or crop sensor camera. While the 100L is a fantastic lens, it won't give you the shallow depth of field that the 85 1.8 would give you.

When I shot primarily on a 60D, I found the 24-105 to be my most useful lens (Even though I owned a 70-200 2.8 IS II). Now that I shoot mostly with a 5D3, my go to lens is the 70-200.

So, in summary, I'd say that if you ONLY need a lens for the two uses you mentioned (macro + fashion), the 100L is your best bet. If you shoot much of anything else, especially outside the studio, and you have a full frame camera, you might be better served by the tremendously more versatile 70-200 + extension tube (just the 12mm, you don't need the 20mm)
Click to expand...

I don't care about DOF... anyway :) you got my dilemma right. At the same I want to shoot with no distortion, as that REALLY shows on products, and 70-200 is just weak in that regard. But it is more versatile, and so many times you just don't want to change or carry another lens. But I feel, I've got 24-105 for that.

I shoot FF, I wouldn't be considering a lens, but rather a camera, if I weren't.


Zv said:
The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.

If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.

The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L.

The 24-105L should do just fine for wider stopped down work at f/8 or more. I like that lens at around 35-70mm f/8-11. Good for environmental portraits.
Click to expand...

You know, I was considering it(200mm), but it's at a such low supply where I live, and it's a bit too narrow to be my workhorse. But thank you, definitely the next one on my list, as it is very similar to the 135l, yet giving that lovely compression for beauty and portraits (and for full body shots, it's a shame my studio is as small as it is). I guess I skipped it for it's availability issue.
 
Upvote 0
#12
skoobey said:
And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open. ;D
Click to expand...

Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS
 
Upvote 0
#13
Zv said:
The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.

If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.

The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L.
Click to expand...

I have used the 100mm L IS Macro for quite some time, before purchasing the 135mm L. I must admit that since then I have not once used the 100mm for a portrait shot, but this is mostly because I tend to shoot the 135mm wide open all the time. I also use the 85mm f1.2 L Mark II and with this lens I don't shoot at f1.2 all the time, but do stop down sometimes as my desire for depth-of-field dictates. Since you don't intend to shoot wide open, I don't think this lens is a good option for you.

If you shoot stopped down anyway the 100mm is an excellent choice and in contrast to the other options talked about in this thread the 100mm L IS Macro is indeed an excellent macro lens, especially I have found it to be ideal for macro work when not using a tripod.
 
Upvote 0
#14
AmbientLight said:
Zv said:
The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.

If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.

The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L.
Click to expand...

I have used the 100mm L IS Macro for quite some time, before purchasing the 135mm L. I must admit that since then I have not once used the 100mm for a portrait shot, but this is mostly because I tend to shoot the 135mm wide open all the time. I also use the 85mm f1.2 L Mark II and with this lens I don't shoot at f1.2 all the time, but do stop down sometimes as my desire for depth-of-field dictates. Since you don't intend to shoot wide open, I don't think this lens is a good option for you.

If you shoot stopped down anyway the 100mm is an excellent choice and in contrast to the other options talked about in this thread the 100mm L IS Macro is indeed an excellent macro lens, especially I have found it to be ideal for macro work when not using a tripod.
Click to expand...

I see your point, and I know 135 is a better portrait lens, but as I must have a macro, I'd choose 100mm, as it's not even a competition.

Also, 85 1.2 has a lot of distortion, and I think 85mm is a bit too close to 100 perspective-vise.

100mm IS L 2.8 macro, 24-105 and 200mm L is what I'll set up as my kit.

Alrik89 said:
skoobey said:
And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open. ;D
Click to expand...

Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS
Click to expand...

You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too? :D lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?
 
Upvote 0
#15
Definitelty agree the 100L is the one. Its a fantastic lens and the IS really is useful.

If you're not shooting wide open then the 135mm and 85mm lose their benefits over the 100L.

The 200mm also looks like a really nice.lens, been debating this one myself vs a 70-200 or the 70-300L.
 
Upvote 0
#16
Can I ask what you shoot exactly to be so sensitive to distortion (85L can be criticized on a lot of thing but its distortion is average at worst, generally unoticeable) andso averse to shooting wide open? just curious.

Anyway you seem set on the 100L (macro is a good reason)...as to the second one when I think portraits I think environmental portraits so 35 1.4 would be a nice idea but you don't mention it (and the 1.4 capability might be wasted).
 
Upvote 0
#18
skoobey said:
sunnyVan said:
70-200 f4 IS is sharp. Read:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1

70-200 f2.8 II IS is even sharper
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1
Click to expand...

Judging by those numbers they're quite close together, but I'd rather get a prime, as I really don't like distortion, and both suffer from it quite heavily. And I don't shoot weddings, so I'm about the effect, rather than chasing the moment.
Click to expand...


100L is great. You seem to have your mind set already so I won't try to convince you.
But I just want to say that the two zoom lenses mentioned above have minimal distortion. Telezoom is different from a normal zoom. A normal zoom like 24-105 or even 24-70 has at least moderate to massive amount of distortion. A telezoom has very little.
Anyway, get the 100L. It's a nice choice.
 
Upvote 0
#19
andersde said:
Definitelty agree the 100L is the one. Its a fantastic lens and the IS really is useful.

If you're not shooting wide open then the 135mm and 85mm lose their benefits over the 100L.

The 200mm also looks like a really nice.lens, been debating this one myself vs a 70-200 or the 70-300L.
Click to expand...

Forget about the 70-300. Distortion is just crazy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.
Replies
34
Views
2K
EricN
EricN
A
Do Canon lenses go down in price for the holidays?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Jethro
Jethro
L
RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS
Replies
6
Views
3K
Loswr
L
L
RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
18
Views
7K
Ozarker
Ozarker
D
Chances of IBIS in next R>7?
Replies
6
Views
2K
dr croubie
D
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu