New Lens Purchase Dilemma

[Mendolera]

Merry Christmas everyone...

So Ive sort of narrowed down my next lens choice but kinda of wanted to get some feedback on the following. If you had 1K to spend which would you choose? I do really want to do macro stuff but could probably live without true 1.1. Other primary function would be indoor shots of my son and wife. Here is options below as I figure all would be about the same cost. I tend to use the long end of my 24-105 when shooting.

100L F/2.8 IS + LR4 (Rocking LR3 right now)
135L F/2 + Set of Extension Tubes
100 F/2.8 USM + 85mm F1.8 + 40mm F.28

Thanks..

 

[nvsravank]

I would say 100 F/2.8 USM + 85mm F1.8 + 40mm F.28
I had the 100 F2.8 and moved to 100 L. The image quality has not changed much. I just dont open the macro rails that much. Handholdability has improved significantly and unless i am going below 1:2 i dont break out the tripod.
That said you will get much more significant range with a three lens setup and would suggest that over the 100L if marco is not really important for you.

The bokeh is also pretty nice on the non IS version of 100 as well.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd choose 100 f/2.8 USM + 85 f/1.8 + LR4.

The 85 and 100mm focal lengths are close enough that you wouldn't need to use both for portraits.

 

[Loswr]

Option 3. The 135L is a wonderful portrait lens, but usually too long for indoor portraits of two people (great for head shots, though).

Another option might be the Sigma 85/1.4 and a set of tubes to use with your 50/1.4 for macro/close-up.

 

[cervantes]

Hi,

I personally own the 100L and it definitely has the ability to bring your photography to a new level. It should also be quite noticeably sharper than the lenses you currently own. The 135mm will be the best choice for pictures of your son, but non-macro lenses are not optimally corrected for MFD so results with extension tubes will by far be worse than with a true macro lens.

I don't see a lot of sense in buying the 40 and 85 since your current setup covers these focal lengths already very well.
My advice would be if you want to get into macro photography get the 100L. You won't be disappointed and it will also produce great and tack-sharp results of your family.

Merry Christmas to all the CR readers!

 

[Zv]

Had a wee play around with the 100L yesterday at a camera store, seems like it would be a fun lens eh? And its great for portraits, I wish I had bought it instead of my 85 f/1.8, not feelin the 85 ever since i got it.

LR4 should round off things nicely for you too!

Merry christmas everyone!

 

[enraginangel]

The 40mm f2.8 lens is not an inspiring lens in any way. The only feature its got going for it is the STM. I would purchase a copy of LR4 over getting the 40mm pancake.

 

[Loswr]

The 40mm f2.8 lens is not an inspiring lens in any way. The only feature its got going for it is the STM. I would purchase a copy of LR4 over getting the 40mm pancake.

I actually really like the 40mm pancake. It's optically decent, more importantly, it's tiny. What was a 2-lens outing requiring a lens case on the belt, has become just tuck the 40/2.8 in a pocket - great when bringing the 70-200/2.8L IS II or 100-400, or birding with the 600/4, having a normal lens in the pocket is great.

 

[DanielW]

LR4 should round off things nicely for you too!

Merry christmas everyone!

Is LR4 so much better than LR3 so you'd take it instead of a new lens?
And what about the complaints on LR4 running so slow? Not an issue anymore?
Merry Christmas to you, too!

I would purchase a copy of LR4 over getting the 40mm pancake.

What can you do in LR4 that you couldn't do in LR3?
Cheers

 

[jdramirez]

100L F/2.8 IS + LR4 (Rocking LR3 right now)
135L F/2 + Set of Extension Tubes
100 F/2.8 USM + 85mm F1.8 + 40mm F.28

I have a 24-105 and I have the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro. I really like my 24-105, but I think it does get a touch soft at 85mm+. I think the 100mm is really sharp at 2.8 and I've taken some nice portraits and actions sports photos with it. It is my lens of choice when I can adjust my distance.

Having said that, I do a lot of portrait style photography... and I used to use the 50mm f/1.8, then upgraded to the 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm just blows both of them out of the water in regards to bokeh. I have heard the 135 is that much better, so I really do plan on getting one of them, but I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon (as I plan on getting a 5d mkiii and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS).

As for the Macro, I'm quite pleased with the results. I don't do a ton of macro photography, but I have a few shots that I really like.

As for the third option... I just can't go back to non-L glass. I know the performance is solid, but when I have a shot that I absolutely love, I want to know that it could not have been any better.

I have LR4 right now... and I guess I didn't realize there was a sufficient reason to upgrade. Actually I'm a LR novice, so it is quite possible one is substantially better than the other.

 

[jdramirez]

Do you live near PA? I'm selling a refurb 100mm F/2.8L IS macro. I normally don't solicit on here, but what the heck.

 

[elflord]

Merry Christmas everyone...

So Ive sort of narrowed down my next lens choice but kinda of wanted to get some feedback on the following. If you had 1K to spend which would you choose? I do really want to do macro stuff but could probably live without true 1.1. Other primary function would be indoor shots of my son and wife. Here is options below as I figure all would be about the same cost. I tend to use the long end of my 24-105 when shooting.

100L F/2.8 IS + LR4 (Rocking LR3 right now)
135L F/2 + Set of Extension Tubes
100 F/2.8 USM + 85mm F1.8 + 40mm F.28

Thanks..

One of the nice things about the 135L is that it focuses quite close -- mfd is about the same as the Canon and Sigma 85mm lenses (about 33 inches or so). So it's a good choice for getting really tight head shots.

85mm is a more useful indoor focal length, but neither Canon nor Sigmas offerings focus very close for the focal length. Even so, I have both the Sigma 85mm and the Canon 135L, and the Sigma is my goto indoor portrait lens.

Of your options I'd pick (2) (or as neuro suggests get the SIgma 85mm). The reason is simple -- if your priority is shooting portraits, put your dollars into portrait lenses (not macro lenses or street shooters lenses). Compromise on what you are willing to yield on (macro) and don't compromise on what is most important to you (portrait shooting)

 

[Zv]

SLR lounge compared LR3 to 4 if you look on their website youll find it, I will try to get the link too. It has a few extra features like white balance brush, moire reduction, new sliders for whites and shadows. So you have more control over your processing. I am thinking of upgrading, it would make life a bit easier. I saw a deal for $79, should snap that up soon!

 

[CharlieB]

So Ive sort of narrowed down my next lens choice
100L F/2.8 IS + LR4 (Rocking LR3 right now)
135L F/2 + Set of Extension Tubes
100 F/2.8 USM + 85mm F1.8 + 40mm F.28

Personally, I'd get just the 100/2.8 USM macro

Forget the 85mm... its so close to the 100, its redundant.

If you feel like you need longer after that... the 200/2.8

My thoughts tho, go with something more normal, and much faster. Something in the 50/1.4 or 35/2.0 (or even 1.4) range

 

[Halfrack]

Upgrade your 70-200, grab the smallest extension tube and LR4. If you have enough left over, snag a macro focus rail.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

of the three, I'd buy the 135. This is a fantastic lens that produces spectacular results. But for a
portrait lens, I'd stretch a little and buy the Zeiss 85mm f1.4. Unless you're using that 5DIII as a
point and shoot, the lack of autofocus in a portrait session should be no big deal and the results
will blow you away. It's 2/3 the cost of the Canon 85 1.2 and is a wonderful performer.