Canon lens for portraits and landscapes???

M

Martylaa

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Is there any good Canon lens what people use for there landscape and portrait shots????
 
I'm thinking the 17-55mm f2.8 may be the lens to go for, it seems to be the one The digital picture is saying to go for....
 
I dont shoot portraits much, but when I do I usually use either my 90mm f2.8 macro lens - which also works really well for head and shoulders portraits, or a nifty 50
 
Martylaa said:
I'm thinking the 17-55mm f2.8 may be the lens to go for, it seems to be the one The digital picture is saying to go for....
Click to expand...

It's a very good lens and will be suitable for both landscape and portraits. Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 is another option but you may find it's not wide enough for landscape shots on a crop body camera. It does give you more reach though on the zoom end, but maximum aperture is f/4. Choices, choices! :)
 
Quite an open question.

One of the 70-200s isn't a bad call, tasty for portraits and not all landscapes need to be wide angle.

Or the 18-200 will do everything you want but i'm not sure it can really be called a good canon lens.

I think *most* people would chose separate lenses for this task, maybe a 17-40L and 85/1.8 for example.

OP - Maybe if you explain in a bit more detail what you currently have and where you are finding limitations with your gear?
 
So would the Canon 15-85mm f3.5 be a good purchase, should be ok for landscape and portraits too???
 
A lot of the people that are suggesting 24-> are using them on full frame or APS-H sensor cameras. You are far better sticking with an EF-S lens on your APS-C camera. Choice between 17-55 and 15-85 (which is a cracking lens by the way) really should be dictated by your need for faster apertures....
 
arad85 said:
. You are far better sticking with an EF-S lens on your APS-C camera. Choice between 17-55 and 15-85 ...
Click to expand...

except that a collection of EF-S lenses then limits you to crop bodies in the future - for example i nearly bought a s/h 1Dmk2 til i realise that if i did i'd also have a gap in my lens range between 20mm and 100mm (currently covered by the 18-200)
 
superalex said:
I can't recommend the canon 100mm f2.0 enough for portraits, truly stunning lens
Click to expand...

Agreed!

EDIT - Actually I have the F2.8 IS USM - is there an F2.0?
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
except that a collection of EF-S lenses then limits you to crop bodies in the future - for example i nearly bought a s/h 1Dmk2 til i realise that if i did i'd also have a gap in my lens range between 20mm and 100mm (currently covered by the 18-200)
Click to expand...
Or sell on at the time and buy something EF sized then ;) The problem is limiting yourself to an EF only system lens on a crop is that you have breaks right in the middle of the range (24 and 40 are the crossovers), and nothing excellent wider than 17mm without paying serious money. I know when I was only using the kit lens, 70+% of my shots were either hard at the wide end or hard at the zoomed end....
 
arad85 said:
Or sell on at the time and buy something EF sized then ;) The problem is limiting yourself to an EF only system lens on a crop is that you have breaks right in the middle of the range (24 and 40 are the crossovers), and nothing excellent wider than 17mm without paying serious money. I know when I was only using the kit lens, 70+% of my shots were either hard at the wide end or hard at the zoomed end....
Click to expand...

yerbut in my case i cant sell because i'd be running one crop and one less crop - I use the sigma 10-20 which is an EF fit lens for wider.

I'd say that theres not a lot of point in sticking only to one or the other - just to buy whatever suits you best for each situation - but all else being equal EF is more versatile.
 
EF is more versatile only in that they'll fit an APS-C camera whereas you can't use a EF-S, DC or DiII on a full frame camera but from an APS-C users point of view EF lenses may very well be bigger, heavier and possibly more expensive because they're designed to give a bigger image and that could take more heavy and expensive gubbins and they're probably going to be of a less convenient zoom range because they were designed for full frame cameras... plus some of them were designed eons ago (relatively) whereas the small sensor lenses may be of a more modern design with USM/HSM and IS and better coatings and other modern cool stuff.

I think that anyone insisting on EF lenses on an APS-C is hobbling themselves but I suppose it's a case of each to their own and there are exceptions... for example I bought a Sigma 12-24mm but in my case it was because I think it's a much better lens than the Canon 10-22mm, but I do lose 2mm at the wide end.
 
Shorter lenses (less than 50mm) tend to be less flattering for portraits closer than 3/4 length, something around 85mm or longer will give a better result for head and shoulders shots.

But "landscapes" and "portraits" are very wide definitions, each covers a multitude of styles that might be suited by very different lens choices. The kit lens focal length range tends to cover the middle ground and be most things to most people, when it's time to move on from their you'll know roughly which way you want to go for your next lens(es).
 
big soft moose said:
yerbut in my case i cant sell because i'd be running one crop and one less crop - I use the sigma 10-20 which is an EF fit lens for wider.

I'd say that theres not a lot of point in sticking only to one or the other - just to buy whatever suits you best for each situation - but all else being equal EF is more versatile.
Click to expand...
I run both FF and crop and the only area where I'll use L glass on the crop is with the 70-200. You can't beat a 15-85 for GP walking around. I also have a 17-40 and 24-105 and those would constantly be being changed if they were used on the crop.
 
Alastair said:
Shorter lenses (less than 50mm) tend to be less flattering for portraits closer than 3/4 length, something around 85mm or longer will give a better result for head and shoulders shots.

But "landscapes" and "portraits" are very wide definitions, each covers a multitude of styles that might be suited by very different lens choices. The kit lens focal length range tends to cover the middle ground and be most things to most people, when it's time to move on from their you'll know roughly which way you want to go for your next lens(es).
Click to expand...
Thanks Alastair, so the 15-85 would be good to go for then yes? Because of the 15mm for the landscapes and the 85mm for portraits?
 
Martylaa said:
Thanks Alastair, so the 15-85 would be good to go for then yes? Because of the 15mm for the landscapes and the 85mm for portraits?
Click to expand...

Never used it, but the range of lengths sounds reasonable.

I've never really defined a lens by purpose, I've used focal lengths from 10mm to 300mm to shoot landscapes. It depends on the scene and the landscape in front of you. Round here it's big, flat open country and using a wide lens captures an empty frame of nothing much whereas the same lens in the Highlands suits the mountainous terrain and valleys perfectly.

The best way to find a lens that suits you? have a search on Flickr, find the pictures that you would like to take of the scenes you want to take them of, and check the exif for the focal length. Sometimes you'll be surprised what focal length was used to get the result.

By the way.. only you can justify the purchase decision.. everyone else will tell you what worked for them, but YMMV.
 
nano said:
Quite an open question.

One of the 70-200s isn't a bad call, tasty for portraits and not all landscapes need to be wide angle.

I think *most* people would chose separate lenses for this task, maybe a 17-40L and 85/1.8 for example.

OP - Maybe if you explain in a bit more detail what you currently have and where you are finding limitations with your gear?
Click to expand...

Good call - I will only expand a little on this, a longer lens for portraits provides opportunity for that really shallow DOF you will struggle to get from a shorter lens. This will help with sharp eyes and blurred back grounds or even sharp eyes and blurred nose and ears for example. 70-200 2.8 is a great lens and used a lot in portrait work.

A standard or telephoto lens could be used for landscapes as well but images will not provide the viewer the sensation of being brought in to the scene like you can get from a wider lens. 17-40 is good for this on the low budgets side as L glass goes.

If I had to compromise it would be around 50mm but I think I would always be want less or more.

It's an F4 so portraits would need to be well lit but the 24-105 is a cracker and no/low barreling.
 
I use 17-55 2.8 IS on my crop camera (50d) and shoot portraits and landscape with it when I only want to carry one lens.

The reality is though that I am the most indecisive person you will ever meet so I actually carry my 10-22 and my 70-200 f4 with me too most of the time :) I tend to use the 17-55 for situations when I have low light or where I won't have time to change lenses. However, if I have the time, space and light to use the 70-200 I do prefer to use that for portraits. If I have the time to change lenses I do enjoy using my 10-22 more for landscapes and other wide angle shots. It's about compromise at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top