Which Prime Lens to compliment the 5d Mark iii with Kit Lens?

[TC1006]

Hi All,
I am looking to take advantage of the double rebates going on with Canon Lenses and was looking for a good prime to compliment the 5D3 with the 24-105L. I am switching from a 40D with a 17-55 2.8 to the 5D3. I also have a 50 1.8 which I thought was a bit narrow on a cropped sensor body for some of the indoor shots I was doing.

I was looking at the 35L, 50L, or the 85L. Ideally i'd like to have them all, but is there one that is a better lens than the others? I've heard many people rave about the 50 1.2L.

I will mostly be shooting pics of my daughter and family. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
SMG

Edited: Changed 50 1.8 from wide to narrow.

 

[Crapking]

If you thought the 50 was too wide on the 'cropped' sensor then of the three you mentioned, I'd go with the 85 on the FF, but since you already have the 24-105, why not consider the 135/2? Expand your range a little, it is very sharp with excellent IQ and cheapest of the 4.

 

[TC1006]

Oops sorry Crapking - I meant the 50 1.8 was a bit narrow on the cropped sensor. So it seems that I'm already ruling out the 85mm.

Any thoughts on the 35 or the 50?

 

[Crapking]

I use the 35/1.4 L mostly (only) when I need the extra bokeh or extra light (courtside sports/indoors no flash) c/w the 16-35 or 24-70 zooms, though I feel images are pretty similar in quality, so it is more of a speciality use for me. AF is just a touch slow.

Likewise the 50/1.4 only gets pulled out for specific shot requirements, though I am loving the classic FOV of the 50 with the FF sensor, and I use it much more now c/w my time with the 7d. I too, am considering the 50/1.2 to complete my prime series, but with the focal length already covered by the 16-35, 24-70 (24-15 in your case) and 50 1.4 (1.8) I would have a hard time justifying it.

All things considered, the 50mm focal length is classic for many reasons/situations and will start you down the journey of lens lust - once you get an L prime, you keep finding reasons to get another

 

[drjlo]

Well, if you are willing the spend the $ and plan to shoot portraits, then there is really nothing like 85L. I have 35L and 50L also, with the former not having the magic bokeh of 85L (a lot due to short focal length) and latter not as sharp.

 

[Random Orbits]

The first thing is to determine which focal length you need. You should try framing the pictures you want with your 24-105 at 35 and 50mm and your 50 f/1.8 on your 5DIII to determine which focal length works for you. Once you determine a focal length, then you can look at what primes are available near that value.

The 35 and 50Ls are both great lenses. 50 is weathersealed, 35 is not. 50L is optimized for shooting wide open (it is not the sharpest of Canon's 50mm offerings stopped down but the difference in real situations won't make much of a difference), and there are a lot of options at 50mm (f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8) whereas there aren't many options at 35mm. If you decide that 50mm works best for you, then it is a matter of where you preference of cost versus performance lies. At 35mm, there's basically the 35L.

 

[EOBeav]

If you've got the bucks for a 50mm f/1.2 L, then go for it. However, you won't be disappointed with the f/1.4 version, and you'll have some money left over to spend on a different lens. At apertures starting at f/2.0 and smaller, the IQ difference is marginal at best. If you can't create some nice photos with one, you sure won't be able to with the other.

 

[Drizzt321]

If you like shooting at the long end of the 24-105, I'd recommend the 135L over one of the 85mm. The 85 f/1.8 is a great value, but I find I'm not shooting with it ever. If I shot a lot more in the studio maybe I would, but pretty much all my shots are outside of the studio.

I'm also wanting either the 24L or 35L, can't decide. Rented both, loved both.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Look at your crop images and the focal lenght you liked most. Multiply by 1.6. Thus, if you liked 30mm, 30* 1.6 = 48mm, so 50mm would give a similar field of view. For individual portraits, 85 to 135mm or even longer is the standard focal length, just get further back. For a group, 35-50mm works pretty well depending again on how far back you can get.

 

[TC1006]

So it seems that I need to be deciding between the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L. What do you guys think about the 50 1.4? Is the difference between the 1.2 and 1.4 that much significant to justify the additional $1100?

 

[EOBeav]

So it seems that I need to be deciding between the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L. What do you guys think about the 50 1.4? Is the difference between the 1.2 and 1.4 that much significant to justify the additional $1100?

For my money, there's not a lot of difference. If you like to shoot wide open, and have high standards when it comes to your bokeh, you might consider splurging for the 50mm f/1.2. However, at f/2.0 and smaller, the difference in IQ from both lens is negligible. You could get a nice lens for the difference in prices of the two.

 

[robbymack]

I've also debated the 50L a few times, but I never thought it was 4 times better than the 1.4 (as the cost difference should suggest), similarly I never thought the 1.4 was 3 times better than the 1.8, so I have always stuck with the cheap plastic of the 1.8. If Canon ever releases a 50 1.4 mark ii with true ring usm then maybe I'd consider the upgrade. Honestly if you are shooting the family you'll probably never be below f 2-2.8 as the depth of feild will be so shallow unless your subject is completely still you'll miss more shots than you get. I like the suggestion above of the 135L, you can buy that plus a 50 1.4 for the same price as the 50 L. For that you'll get two fantastic low light action stopping lens with great bokeh vs just one. The 50 1.4 will be great for indoors with limited working space and I have a feeling you'll love the 135L for anywhere you have more working space. If you are willing to look at non L glass, then the 28 1.8, 35 2.0, or the 85 1.8 are also good options.

 

[Dylan777]

So it seems that I need to be deciding between the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L. What do you guys think about the 50 1.4? Is the difference between the 1.2 and 1.4 that much significant to justify the additional $1100?

NO...the ONLY big difference btw 1.4 and L is the build quality. The L feel much more solid than 1.4.

I borrowed the L from a friend and compared to my 1.4.

Here is my 2cents on 50 L Vs 1.4:
1. Build quality - much more solid plus weather sealed
2. Bokeh(background blurr) - a little better
3. Color & contrast - a bit better
4. Sharpness - same
Note: On the L, you really have to work hard to get decent shots, might not be THE LENS to shoot kids running around.

At the end, I decided NOT to upgrade to L, maybe mrk II. For now...my 1.4 is doing just fine. Save your money for the new 24-70 II.

 

[TC1006]

Thank You for all the great suggestions.

Robbymac and drizzyt321- I really like the route of going with 50 1.4 and the 135L. It gives me 2 great lenses. Meanwhile, once I get the 50 1.4 I can use that on my 40D to give me a feel of what the 85mm would roughly feel like. I guess I can do that with the 50 1.8 that already have as well.

The reason I was considering the 85L was because we just did a outdoor shoot for my daughter and the photographer only used the 85L. We just got the pics back and they were razor sharp. Most of the pics were in 1.6 and 1.8 aperture value. The bokeh was really nice as well (granted I don't know how much PP she did).

 

[Drizzt321]

I've heard the 85L is really nice, but has is slow to focus. Just what I heard. The 135L on FF I think you'll really love. All you need is a bit of room to back up sometimes.

 

[robbymack]

Any way you decide you'll be happy. Never used the 85L but it has always seemed to me to be a specialty lens designed for pros working in controlled environments in studio or on location so the claimed slightly slow af etc doesn't really matter. I think you'll be happy with a collection of a few primes for low light/bokeh then you can get away buying one of the 70-200 f4 zooms because you won't need the 2.8 version.

 

[Crapking]

The 'slow' AF is way over-rated and talked about by those who don't actually shoot with it. I regularly use it with the 1dIV and 5d3 to shoot indoor volleyball and while hit rate is lower than 70-200, it is definitely usable for fast-action (if you have any sense of timing and are willing to shoot mulitple frames).
As for its' portraiture value, it is unsurpassed in sharpness, even wide open if you place your focus point properly.

As to the OP's original 'prime' question, since he has the 24-104 range covered, I'd cast my vote (again) to the 135...

 

[TC1006]

Thank You all for the suggestions again. So i think I've pretty much decided on the 50 1.4 and the 135L.

I'll keep the 85L on my dream list next to the 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 IS, 24 t/s, 35L, and 50 1.2L. LOL!!

 

[cayenne]

Thank You all for the suggestions again. So i think I've pretty much decided on the 50 1.4 and the 135L.

I'll keep the 85L on my dream list next to the 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 IS, 24 t/s, 35L, and 50 1.2L. LOL!!

To squeeze as much as I could out of my initial cash layout...I got the 5D Mark III with the kit lens, and I added on the 85mm 1.8 lens.

I'd researched the 85mm 1.8 a great deal...and bang for the buck I've read it is hard to beat. It is supposed to be lightning fast with AF...good bokeh....and some people espouse that it is almost an "L" lens that isn't one....

I'm a total noob, but I did a lot of research here and all over the web, and it seemed to be a pretty good one to start with on a somewhat limited budget, considering the outlay for the camera itself.

HTH,

cayenne

 

[elflord]

Thank You all for the suggestions again. So i think I've pretty much decided on the 50 1.4 and the 135L.

I'll keep the 85L on my dream list next to the 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 IS, 24 t/s, 35L, and 50 1.2L. LOL!!

another one worth a look is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. You can't go wrong with the other two (135L and 50 1.4 both of which I also own) either though