What 2nd lens for a designer

[alfaromeo84]

Helo,

i just upgraded my gear to a 5dmk III with a 24-105...i used to have a pentax k20d since 2008..
I am a graphic designer and work mostly with posters, logos, catalogues, advertising, and ofcourse photographs i need for my work (product, scene, urban, portrait...) Im on a tight budget since i paid 3699 euros for my new canon kit.
Im looking for a very sharp versatile lens that would give me the best results in an allaround kind of way, the 24-105 is sweet but not enough as i really miss extra crispynes and bokeh for art shots. I would like to have a secnod lens in my kit and not spend any money for at least a year or two.

I am definetly thinking about buying a prime, these are my choices:

- Canon 135L 2.0 ( to expensive)
- Canon 85 1.8
- Sigma 35 1.4
- Sigma 85 1.4 (mixed feelings)
- Canon 35L 1.4 ( to expensive)
-Canon 100L macro 2.8
- Canon 40 2.8 pancake

Or maybe the budget L lenses the 17-40L or 70-200 f4

Please help im a bit lost

thank you

 

[Loswr]

Depends on your focal length need, which should always be a major factor in choosing a prime. Start by setting the 24-105mm to 35 vs. 85 vs. 100 and see which fits your style best.

 

[dr croubie]

How much would you want to spend?
The 135 f/2L is a sweet lens, but for the same price you can get the 40mm pancake *And* the 85/1.8 (or the 100/2.0) for the same price if not cheaper.
And it depends what you want to shoot. For not-so-wide landscapes and groups it looks like the new Sigma 35/1.4 is the winner. The 40mm pancake is just so versatile for everything. The 85/1.8 is a looser-cropped portrait lens, but bokeh isn't as good as the 135L, which is a lot tighter/farther portrait lens.
The 100/2.8L Macro is also sweet, both for portraits and macro, very versatile but again expensive.
No mention of 50mm? I'll agree Canon's offerings aren't the best in this length for the price, thought about the Sigma?

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

You will make great use of a macro lens as a designer, not just for product photography but for extracting patterns that you can use as photoshop brushes or referencing detailed shots as part of a logo structure. The 100mm 2.8 non L macro should help you greatly in this regard for both price and utility, and your 24-105 should be able to cover the rest of your needs

 

[señor Steve]

For a designer, the 100 macro is a great choice. It will give you many creative options. If you can live without the stabilized one, the price is halved.

 

[meli]

If i were you i would be happier if i could return the 5d3 and get a 6d with the new 24-70/2.8

 

[paul13walnut5]

A macro lens may well be the best option for having the least distortion, if thats important to you for capture or copystand etc.

It's very difficult to buy a poor macro, I have the Sigma 70mm DG which was the best reviewed available at the time I was buying. Very nice bokeh and doubles as a nice bright short tele. AF is reasonable if the limiter switch is deployed for normal use.

I have the 100mm f2.0 USM but use it on a 7D, not really a comparable set up in terms of perspective application etc..

Can tell you it is very sharp on my camera and makes a good AF system great.

 

[alfaromeo84]

If i were you i would be happier if i could return the 5d3 and get a 6d with the new 24-70/2.8

True i believe that would have been a nice combo but i wasnt convinced by the 6d, the feel, Af...
but the new 24-70 lens is indeed a fantastic lens but crazy expensive, and i believe i could get same or even better pictures with a nice prime and still use my 24-105 for everithing else.

 

[CharlieB]

Crispy, all round, inexpensive.

50mm f1.8

Stopped to f/2.5 or so... its very crisp, and only gets better to about f/8

You give up just a little after that, but not much.

I'm wondering if your 24-105 is well calibrated to your body. My 24-105 is almost scary sharp on the 5D2 - for a zoom that is. Shoot it about f/5.6 or so... to about f/11, and you got some pretty good stuff.

 

[RLPhoto]

100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

 

[bdunbar79]

100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

You have 3 lenses listed sir.

 

[alfaromeo84]

Crispy, all round, inexpensive.

50mm f1.8

Stopped to f/2.5 or so... its very crisp, and only gets better to about f/8

You give up just a little after that, but not much.

I'm wondering if your 24-105 is well calibrated to your body. My 24-105 is almost scary sharp on the 5D2 - for a zoom that is. Shoot it about f/5.6 or so... to about f/11, and you got some pretty good stuff.

the nifty fifty will definatly be bought as its cheap and quite good My 24-105 is ok sharp from f5-f8 but not enough for me, maybe i should use the microadjust function in the 5dmkIII? I did however read that even some profesionals do some of their portrait and allaround work with this lens, and was suprised by this fact!? I do have the money to buy any lens acctualy but would rather not spend the extra because im am still not a pro but a designer first and photographer second ( i started with photo.) because outsourcing costed too much. Thanks everybody, for your proffesional advice. I checked my older pics and realized my most used distances were from 30-80mm. so in this case im seriously thinking about buying the 35 f2 + 85 1.8 or the new and sigy 35 1.4? Also I would like to apologize for my english, as its a bit rusty im from Slovenia/Europe

 

[Pixelsign]

i'm a designer too and i would go for the 100mm L

 

[RLPhoto]

100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

You have 3 lenses listed sir.

Not quite. It was a choice of the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 which are both fantastic.

 

[alfaromeo84]

Just tried my friends canon 100 f2 and 135L f2 and made a comparison on a 50 inch hd lcd....i think the 135L is marginally better, only in contrast & colors..but still the 100 f2 blew me away with its detail..and for the price hmmm Still thinking about the 100 f2.8 macro but decided its a bit to big and i really want at least an f2 lens...
Because of a tight budget im now deciding between the 100 f2 vs 85 1.8

I also did some testing with my 24-105L outside today, and actually found out that it is acceptably sharp for a zoom this kind! But its interesting that all the sharpest pictures were made between 60-70mm f 5.6-8.0

 

[alfaromeo84]

100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

Thanks for the advice RLPhoto I totaly forgot about the 100 f2! I tested it and loved it

 

[DBCdp]

The 50 1.4 tends to be sharpest at around 5.6 as is the 24-105. But, the 50 in my experience is not as contrasty, so the images don't have the pop you might be used to.

The 100 2.8 Macro is a great buy, the 100 2.8L IS Macro is that much better for hand held work. For me, I'd say the Hybrid IS would more than make up for the 1 stop speed advantage of the 100 2.

That being said, and your poll asking for a choice of 2 specific lenses with a shift on the second, I'd have to recommend the 50 1.4, so that's my choice in your poll.

Reviewers are finding the new Sigma 35 1.4 DG HSM to be very impressive though, so you might have to revise your scope on things!

 

[bdunbar79]

The 50 1.4 tends to be sharpest at around 5.6 as is the 24-105. But, the 50 in my experience is not as contrasty, so the images don't have the pop you might be used to.

The 100 2.8 Macro is a great buy, the 100 2.8L IS Macro is that much better for hand held work. For me, I'd say the Hybrid IS would more than make up for the 1 stop speed advantage of the 100 2.

That being said, and your poll asking for a choice of 2 specific lenses with a shift on the second, I'd have to recommend the 50 1.4, so that's my choice in your poll.

Reviewers are finding the new Sigma 35 1.4 DG HSM to be very impressive though, so you might have to revise your scope on things!

Good recap of everything. I would like to express why I own the 100 f/2. For me, it has little to do with IS, and just for the fact that it offers me an entire extra stop of light vs. an f/2.8 lens. This feature comes in really handy for indoor sports. I've recently been to some nasty gyms, and this really helps. I know this is a narrow case, but consider what I did here:

I was forced to shoot at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 6400 in a gym. Most of my shots were 90-120mm from where I was standing (using the 70-200L f/2.8 II IS zoom lens). I got tired of it, because at super high ISO and proper exposure, the faces of the players lose detail. So I put on the 100 f/2 lens. I lost flexibility, but just went up a few rows in the stands and stood up shooting across at the players. I don't like this lens wide open, but at f/2.2 it seems great. So I then adjusted to f/2.2, 1/500, ISO 4000. And that lower of an ISO made a big difference. The AF was very fast as well.

Just a case where the 100 f/2 came in very handy .

Portraits? The 85 f/1.8 does the same thing I described. I'd go for that, as the IQ and low-light performance of the two are very similar. The 85 f/1.8 is pretty darn sharp at f/2.2 and narrower!

 

[alfaromeo84]

well i guess its not decided yet My friend that is a pro photographer told me to buy the new sigma 35 1.4 as its very good and is new technology! I like image samples from all of them that are in my poll right now, not sure about the macro but it would be usefull for some macro food or product work? At the end i wouldnt want to spend more than 1000 eur/usd

 

[alfaromeo84]

happy new year to all of you! Thank you for the help