Photography Experts, a Little Advice

[Big Easy]

The wife is looking for advice on her next lens purchase, and ya'll seem like a smart bunch, so here goes:

She is slowly making the switch from amateur to pro photographer, and shoots almost exclusively outdoors. She shoots individuals and families with active kids.

Camera body is a Canon 5d Mark II, and her current primary lens is a 50mm 1.4.

She is trying to decide between the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 2.0.

Any insight would be appreciated.

[Cobra Cory]

The higher the f stop the less light gets in. So the shutter needs to stay open longer. At long focal lengths this can mean a blurry shot in the less light conditions. But where she shoots mainly outdoors and families, I am assuming she shoots in daylight, the 2.0f should be fine plus give a bit more flexibility than the smaller lens. However if she is shooting mainly close up then the smaller lens would have crisper pictures in grayer surroundings. 1.8 f is probably a bit more costly as well as it usually cost more to produce. She will be able to shoot faster at faster shutter speeds with a 1.8f but not by much as the 2.0f is fairly close in aperture size. If you were comparing the 1.8f to a 200mm 4.5f it would be a world of difference. Check out the front glass element. The bigger element is going to let in more light.
Myself....I'd go with the smaller lens. She may need to be closer to the action, but not by much, and she could always get a tele-converter for that matter.

[Aaron Silidker]

Originally Posted by Big Easy

The wife is looking for advice on her next lens purchase, and ya'll seem like a smart bunch, so here goes:

She is slowly making the switch from amateur to pro photographer, and shoots almost exclusively outdoors. She shoots individuals and families with active kids.

Camera body is a Canon 5d Mark II, and her current primary lens is a 50mm 1.4.

She is trying to decide between the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 2.0.

Any insight would be appreciated.

If she is shooting indoors and is shooting people at events (assuming she is close), I would go as wide as possible, so I pick the 85 1.8 (both wide and fast!!!)......

For wide shots of the events, I would go even wider than that! Canon has lenses that are much shorter....

I guess knowing what type of events she is shooting and what type of shots would be key here.

[dukegrad98]

I shoot with a Canon as well. The 85/1.8 is the traditional portrait lens on a full-frame DSLR like the one your wife owns. I would recommend that over the longer 135mm lens unless she is shooting at a distance.

Separately, it is widely known that the top-shelf image sensor in that camera has good enough resolution to reveal problems with the glass or design in cheaper lenses. Lenses are more important than camera bodies in general. If your wife is going pro, or even for people that are just serious about shooting high quality photos for enlargement, I highly recommend that you look into the L-series lenses by Canon. I have a couple of those, as well as the cheaper regular EF-mount lenses. The L lens image quality blows away the standard lenses -- the difference is really remarkable: better color, sharper focus, crisper details, less aberration, etc. In my opinion, it's well worth the added price of admission.

Cheers, John

[pavieSD]

Depends on how "professional" she wants to get. A really good Canon lens will run you 1.5k and up, unless you buy used. That's for a pro line. If you want to get a good bokeh, you'll need that level of lens. If she's just doing landscape and portraits, I suggest she stick with wider angle lens with a low F stop.

Depending on budget, this is what I would recommend:

Amazon.com: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens: Electronics

Amazon.com: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens: Electronics

Although folks tend to say this isn't for portrait type photography, I do enough digital editing after the fact, that you can easily crop any wide angle shot down to what you need, for a face shot, etc. The only downside of a wide angle lens, is it's not for sports and extreme close ups. If you're already post process editing the photo on your computer, cropping is a 2 second additional step, so the wide angle aspect becomes a non-factor when I don't need it. Otherwise they are really the lens you'll use 95% of time when on vacation/holidays etc.


I haven't been in the Cannon market, for about 5 years now, since I switched to Nikon, but L series is where it's at, and there is a reason it's so expensive. Quality costs money.

Also make sure she is prepared to account for a good glass lens, in terms of weight. Good glass is heavy and changes the feel of the camera. I suggest she hit a pro camera shop with her camera, and try a few of them out in the store. On the plus side, the camera she has is already setup to feel more balanced with a professional style lens (bigger body, stronger case, etc). She'll get a feel for weight etc when she holds it in the store. I find that adding the extra battery pack to the bottom of the camera really balances out the camera when you step up to a bigger lens.

Something like this:

Amazon.com: Canon BG-E6 Battery Grip for Canon 5D Mark II Digital SLR - Retail Package: Electronics

Amazon.com: Canon BG-E6 Battery Grip for Canon 5D Mark II Digital SLR - Retail Package: Electronics

The stock cheap starter lens are all made with various amounts of plastic, so are much lighter, and not really comparable to a good piece of glass. Consequently they also tend to be a LOT less durable. I will never buy a cheap starter type lens again as I've already broken 3 in the past 10 years.

Mark

[Someday I Suppose]

Cory, keep in mind F stop not only effects exposure, but also depth of field. There is not much difference between 1.8 and 2.0 though but shooting at those wide open settings and you can really blow out and soften the background which is a nice effect in portrait shooting.

Big Easy, when your talking about outdoors are you talking about nature shots? I agree with some of the others that the longer lens isn't ideal for wide open nature photograhy.

Also I am thinking the 135 could be cool for doing a single model type shot, but if you are talking about families, then trying to get everyone in the frame becomes an issue with the longer lens.

_Scott

Originally Posted by Cobra Cory

The higher the f stop the less light gets in. So the shutter needs to stay open longer. At long focal lengths this can mean a blurry shot in the less light conditions. But where she shoots mainly outdoors and families, I am assuming she shoots in daylight, the 2.0f should be fine plus give a bit more flexibility than the smaller lens. However if she is shooting mainly close up then the smaller lens would have crisper pictures in grayer surroundings. 1.8 f is probably a bit more costly as well as it usually cost more to produce. She will be able to shoot faster at faster shutter speeds with a 1.8f but not by much as the 2.0f is fairly close in aperture size. If you were comparing the 1.8f to a 200mm 4.5f it would be a world of difference. Check out the front glass element. The bigger element is going to let in more light.
Myself....I'd go with the smaller lens. She may need to be closer to the action, but not by much, and she could always get a tele-converter for that matter.

[CraigS]

Of the two you listed I'd look at the 85. It's a little faster so that could help if she gets into near sunset or early AM shoots. Also, w/ the 21 megapixel sensor in the camera, she would be able to crop if needed to simulate a longer lens w/o little loss of quality.

[akdreamer23]

Another vote for the L-series glass. Pricey, but as stated above, the lenses are amazing.

[CobraDreaming]

Been a long time since I was into photography more than I am now but I recall this tidbit. Hope my memory isn't too faulty

If she is shooting people she would want the portrait lens focal length. The reason is lens out of that range distort features. Think fisheye lens. You want a portrait to reflect the size and shape the persons face and not be stretched, smashed rounded, etc. Hope that makes sense.

[Carography]

I did not read everyone's input completely but here's my $.02.

There is not enough of a difference between F/1.8 and 2.0 to have an influence on your decision.

For portraits 135mm is plenty long and may be awkward for some groups. But she does already have the 50mm. So, between the 2, I would go with the 85mm.

My recommendation would be a 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom. I use this lens for much of my portrait work. I use an 80-200 f/2.8 zoom for individual portraits outdoors.

I will say that I have an 85mm f/1.4 and I rarely use it. it is an awesome lens and is laser sharp. in most situation (particularly with kids) there is just no time to switch to another lens if I need to, so the zoom is nice.

[bhoov128]

lensrentals.com

try them both - and more - for cheeeeep

works like netflix, get a lens in a box, use it for a couple days, send it back pre-paid shipping.

My X is a semi-pro photographer and we have used them a bunch of times for shooting different events that we couldn't justify a $2k outlay for a lens that wouldn't be used all that frequently. No better way to evaluate for a purchase if you ask me.

[Jeff R]

Active kids makes me wanna say zoom lens. Does she have a good quality zoom? There's tons of info and reviews for these lens' at Photography on the Net (Canon Photography Forum)

[dukegrad98]

Zoom lenses are great for flexibility. Just remember that a prime lens will always beat a zoom set to the same focal length.

I use the L-series 70-200 f/2.8 for sports and occasional wildlife photography. With the APS-C crop factor on my sensor, it gets me some pretty great tight shots (and is always in the "sweet spot" of the lens) at football games, etc., but I wouldn't use it for any portrait work.

Cheers, John

[Terrorist Hunter]

Originally Posted by Carography

My recommendation would be a 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom. I use this lens for much of my portrait work.

+1. The DoD issues the same camera to some units and I had the chance to borrow this setup for Christmas last year. Hands down best photos I have ever taken, fortunately all of my kids, and so much better than anything I'd ever captured with my old Canon 35MM or even newer Nikon SLR digitals.

[Big Easy]

Thanks for the info guys. As expected, this forum knows everything.

Next topic, cave diving!

[Wayne Presley]

I use a 18-270 Tamron as a one lens fits 95% of the shots I take.