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

[privatebydesign]

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.

Forget about the 70-300. Distortion is just crazy.

It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.

 

[bornshooter]

Love my 70-200mk2 it's a workhorse,i plan on getting the 85 1.2 next month though for special portraits here is a shot from yesterday taken with the 70-200

Fiona by Lseriesglass, on Flickr

 

[skoobey]

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).

I shoot a lot of vertical and horizontal lines in the backdrop, and it does show, and makes the whole image look cheap (like columns, doors, windows, striped floors and walls). It's fine when there is only floor/wall line.

It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

Also, I often don't shoot directly, but at an angle, and then distortion really messes things up, especially when you have chess pattern, like I did last season.

So, I'll stick with the 100L macro and get another lens to join it later (presumably 200L 2.8 non-is or the 70-200).

Obviously it is better than 100mm USM macro.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

The 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro is a great lens and will serve many of your purposes for macro and portrait photography. But since you seem really averse to lens distortion you should also consider the 90mm TSE f2.8 because you can remove almost all of the distortion by adjusting the horizontal and vertical focal planes.

 

[SwampYankee]

I wrestled with this a while back. The 135L or the 100L Macro. I ended up getting the 100L macro and I'm glad I did. Besides portraits is just a whole bunch of fun. The macro part is just great, flowers, cats eyes, dripping facets. always something to take a picure of and great for portraits too. 135L is a bit sharper but thats like ccomparing the sharpness of 2 brands of razor blades. Weather sealing, macro and 4 stops of IS made it a no brainer. quick note, the 4 stops is more like 2 stops on really small macro shots. Get a good mono pod and lean into those bees on the flowers

 

[bornshooter]

just get the 100 L you do not like it then return it.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

Dude, with an asinine comment like that you are just demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding. IT IS THE LENS THAT IS CREATING THE DISTORTION, the software IS REMOVING IT!

If you want models, balls, dragons, whatever, in the corner of your shot with no distortion you HAVE to use lens corrections.

I presumed nothing other than that you had a basic understanding of what you were talking about, I shan't make that mistake again.

 

[skoobey]

The 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro is a great lens and will serve many of your purposes for macro and portrait photography. But since you seem really averse to lens distortion you should also consider the 90mm TSE f2.8 because you can remove almost all of the distortion by adjusting the horizontal and vertical focal planes.

I love tilt shift, but it is impractical for me at this time (no AF, and I don't like those news of knobs falling off), but I was planing on renting it here and there. Already played with it and I love that lens.

 

[skoobey]

It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

Dude, with an asinine comment like that you are just demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding. IT IS THE LENS THAT IS CREATING THE DISTORTION, the software IS REMOVING IT!

If you want models, balls, dragons, whatever, in the corner of your shot with no distortion you HAVE to use lens corrections.

I presumed nothing other than that you had a basic understanding of what you were talking about, I shan't make that mistake again.

Would you give it up? I am asking for help becasue I want to avoid liquifying every single image I ever shot. Fixing it, and never shooting it wrong doesn't compare, does it? It is "easy" to fix globally, but then you have a much softer image to work with... and I don't want that.

 

[bornshooter]

It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

Dude, with an asinine comment like that you are just demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding. IT IS THE LENS THAT IS CREATING THE DISTORTION, the software IS REMOVING IT!

If you want models, balls, dragons, whatever, in the corner of your shot with no distortion you HAVE to use lens corrections.

I presumed nothing other than that you had a basic understanding of what you were talking about, I shan't make that mistake again.

Would you give it up? I am asking for help becasue I want to avoid liquifying every single image I ever shot. Fixing it, and never shooting it wrong doesn't compare, does it? It is "easy" to fix globally, but then you have a much softer image to work with... and I don't want that.

post some un-edited model photos to show us the problem

 

[Lichtgestalt]

lindsay adler uses medicore sigma lenses.

http://www.lindsayadlerphotography.com/

todays lenses are normaly not a problem for fashion shootings.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

you must be an extrem demanding professionell... can we see your portfolio?

post some un-edited model photos to show us the problem

yeah i am too very curious to see what he is complaining about.

 

[pdirestajr]

If you aren't using a level and a tripod while you are shooting your grid patterns and models in the corners of the frame, won't you always get that infamous "distortion"?

And if you are on a tripod, which you should be based on your serious issues with lab-test level distortion, then a tilt shift with no AF should do the trick.

Why do you hate distortion so much? I think it helps images since it is a 2D representation of the 3D world, and gives the viewer more information.

I say embrace "distortion", and stop photographing brick walls and reading test charts and reviews.

You should also throw that 24-105 in the garbage. That lens has never taken a good image.

 

[deleteme]

Distortion may drive you crazy but I have no problems with it as LR corrects for it automatically.

I use the 100 macro in the studio along with the 85 1.8. Both are razor sharp for portrait /fashion.
I also use the 70-200 2.8L v1 and it is also super sharp.

The zoom has tremendous versatility (and weight) and has only a slight disadvantage in ultimate sharpness compared to the primes. The contrast is lower especially wide open. but a little bump in post solves the problem.

The most cost-effective mix IMO would be the 70-200 2.9LII and a Sigma 50.
This would not overlap FL. If you need the macro get the 100L as it also works well as a portrait lens.

The 135 f2 is supposed to be legendarily sharp but if you are not using it wide open all the time you are carrying a lot of weight and expense without any real benefit.

You say you want to get MF setup? If you are having trouble affording the Canon lenses you are going to be in tears trying to buy MF gear unless it is used film equipment and then you will be in tears finding processing and scanning to fit your budget and meet your quality demands.

 

[skoobey]

lindsay adler uses medicore sigma lenses.

http://www.lindsayadlerphotography.com/

todays lenses are normaly not a problem for fashion shootings.

How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

you must be an extrem demanding professionell... can we see your portfolio?

post some un-edited model photos to show us the problem

yeah i am too very curious to see what he is complaining about.

All I can post is a test shoot, but okay... What I am complaining about is the amount of work I need to do yearly just to correct the lens distortion. And, sure, I can fix it here and there, but all the time... I don't think so. These tests show exactly how much distortion affect's the image, and I know they're not the prettiest images, I didn't choose them for the model(s?), but for the vertical lines.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/33s9nd

I'm asking here is the 100L better than 100 non l enough to be my go-to lens, without me being sorry for not getting the non l version and a longer lens(70-200 or 200mm L)? ;D I know that some people don't care about distortion, an that some people shoot wide open, and that many don't care about macro, but I'm asking you for help in my situation.


I'd rather charge my credit card 10000 bucks and go for MF, being that it'll take me a couple of months to repay it, then spend 2500 cash on a 35mm. That's why I'm so skeptical about spending money on 35mm, I don't want it to end up being money sitting on a shelf. I only buy what I need, isn't that logical? At this time, I feel I'm missing basic things on 35mm, so rather than spending ever more money and have two kits that I'm not satisfied with, I'd rather invest in the necessary lenses for 35, as I will need that 35 when I go MF (they're not excluding each other).

 

[RVB]

The is almost no distortion with the 85mm 1.2 Lmk2 ,just some -EV in the corners,so any idea of "deforming the corners" or "Liquifying" the image is nonsense,Lens profiles do almost nothing to the image except correct the Vignetting..

 

[PureShot]

The best lenses range for fashion, is 70-200mm
24-105L make a good job, just add sharpness in PS
85mm and 85L mm produce sharp and perfect boken
100L mm macro is very nice , tamron 90mm work well too
135L mm make a perfect result
70-200L give you a better range hi IQ, good boken
www.pureshotstudio.com

 

[Alrik89]

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

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

You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too? lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?
[/quote]

I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

Same issue with the 70-200m: do you like the flexibility of a zoom lens?
-> Yes! --> 70-200mm 2.8 II
-> No! --> Fixed focal length lens like the macro lenses mentioned above.

 

[verysimplejason]

A 100mm macro L or non L should be alright. If you've got money to burn, then go for L. Couple it with a 50mm and I think it's enough. That's what I'm using though I went for the cheaper route, a 50mm F1.8II and a 100mm F2.8 USM non-L macro. Have fun!

 

[Plato the Wise]

Get the 70-200 2.8L and one of the non-L macros or extension tubes if your strapped for cash.

70-200 2.8L is big, but it is great for portraits.

 

[skoobey]

After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..

My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
Now macro is mostly for studio so... I don't know... in the end I might just go crazy and get 70-200l and 100l macro, and the heck with it. ;D

I must say I love the is on my 24-105, and it useful even in the studio.