What prime lens

rookies

rookies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Ok

I feel prime lens take smashing images. So thinking selling my 17-40 L and my 50mm 1.4 as need extra reach for portraits

What lens for portrait instead of the 50mm and what lens for landscape?
 
Martylaa said:
Isn't the 85mm the one everyone raves?
Click to expand...

Yup. I've got an 85mm F1.2L II and its without doubt one of the best lenses out there. I dont use mine for portraits (yet), but for detail shots and situations where I want to really throw the background out of focus it is very hard to beat.

Alternatively there is the much cheaper 1.8 version which I believe is pretty good. I've never used one so I cant really comment. Once you try the 1.2 version there is no going back :naughty:
 
Martylaa said:
Isn't the 85mm the one everyone raves?
Click to expand...

The Sigma seems to be getting rave reviews with some saying it's better than the Canon 85mm f1.2L.

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I was thinking of getting one as I've been impressed by the Siggy 50mm f1.4 but on reflection I think that 85mm will be too long for me on my APS-C Canon.

As for landscape, it really depends upon how you like to shoot. If you're thinking of a wide lens (and wide is what many people seem to mean when they say "landscape") and you want a prime then a 20mm is probably going to be on the list of possible choices. I have a Siggy 20mm f1.8 that I think is excellent and sharp. I'm not a great fan of non macro primes that are slower than f2.8 as you might as well have a zoom (IMVHO) so might as well go for a f1.8.
 
Last edited:
Hi thanks for replies guys

I though siggy are slow at auto focus compares to canons?
 
Just a little note of caution regarding the 17-40. I have never put an L prime on my camera but have tried the 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and 35 f2.

In terms of sharpness, colours and just sheer impact my 17-40L is the stand out tops. This includes all the "normal(?)" things we do such as mounting on a tripod and taking same shots with different lenses then going into 100% and 200% views on the PC. I just can't beat the 17-40. Like I say, I would like to look at L primes some time but this will take some serious finance at a point in the future before I even dare tempt myself.
 
PCPhil said:
Just a little note of caution regarding the 17-40. I have never put an L prime on my camera but have tried the 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and 35 f2.

In terms of sharpness, colours and just sheer impact my 17-40L is the stand out tops. This includes all the "normal(?)" things we do such as mounting on a tripod and taking same shots with different lenses then going into 100% and 200% views on the PC. I just can't beat the 17-40. Like I say, I would like to look at L primes some time but this will take some serious finance at a point in the future before I even dare tempt myself.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this info :)

Maybe I should keep the 17-40 and just sort out a nice portrait lens. I though about a canon 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro I read it good for portraits and macro.

Or a 135mm L lens

I found 50mm very good if the little one keeps still as I like close up portraits too
 
rookies said:
Thank you for this info :)

Maybe I should keep the 17-40 and just sort out a nice portrait lens. I though about a canon 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro I read it good for portraits and macro.

Or a 135mm L lens

too
Click to expand...

Or 70-200!!:clap: 2.8:thumbs:
 
I can't see if you are on FF or cropped.

My suggestion if you want a similar lens to the 50mm f1.4 but with a bit longer reach for portraits would be the 85mm f1.8.
 
What camera are you using. Crop or FF?

If you've got the 17-40 and 70-200 a prime to plug that gap would be my solution.
The 50mm 1.4 is a nice lens.

Or if you're willing to try something different my fav lens is the zeiss 50mm f2. Not cheap bit it's a joy to use, with the added bonus of 2:1 macro.
 
Last edited:
At the moment I have a 40d but plan go FF one day so like be prepared for that so won't need pay twice.

I do like do some macro too that why am looking at the 100mm macro IS L as I believe it good at portraits and macro with short focus distance. With my 70 - 200 need at least 1.5m distance a d with little one not keeping still can be tricky. The 50mm is lovely lens I love it but need that extra reach.
 
The problem is that if you are finding 50mm to short on a cropped sensor if you get an 85mm lens then go full frame you will find it too short.

By all accounts the 100mm f2.8L is a cracking lens, it will be my next purchase.
 
i use the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 & 135 f/2 for portraits where i can. really depends on what i am shooting etc
With a FF and crop cameras i have they equate to different focal lengths but all very nice to use on both depending on the situation.
 
Is the 135 a L lens is it good? As might be a option depends on focal length
 
rookies said:
Hi thanks for replies guys

I though siggy are slow at auto focus compares to canons?
Click to expand...

I suppose it really depends on what lenses you're comparing. For example I have a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and it has a HSM motor which is lightening fast and quiet compared to my Canon 50mm f2.5 and the Siggy also allows full time manual adjustment too.
 
Fantastic images so bottom one a 100% crop? But ££££££ lens though can't really afford that but what a cracking lens. What camera and setting as soo sharp
 
Yep, but you get what you pay for.. It is a 100% crop of the other image yes, just rotated a touch. It was a 5D mkI camera. I have considered buying the new sigma purely for the focus speed! But I would miss f1.2 as although very difficult to get spot on, it is quite addictive when you do..
 
Which sigma u though of and how much better is it?
 
Canon 85 1.8 is not as lush as the 1.2 but is a great lens. 100 Macro, 135 2.0 and 200 2.8
are also great for portraits depending on your requirements
 
I have both the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, they are both as excellent as each other.

85/1.2 wins on bokeh. Lens resolution and Speed (amount of light)

85/1.8 wins on focus speed & weight (the 1.2 weight more than the 24-70)

It's why i got both, depending on the situation i swap between them.
 
Your 70-200 f/4 is already excellent portrait lens. I'd mostly use it at the longer end. 85/1.8 is the cheapest possible addition that can greatly expand your options. I also recommend 100mm macro if you like to 'get in close' or just want to do macro. Both are great if you want faster than f/4. 135mm is probably a decent lens, but I had rather bad luck finding a good copy that works with my bodies. 135mm makes more sense on FF, as anything like 85mm becomes slightly short. In any case your mileage may vary with any of these lenses.
 
daugirdas said:
Your 70-200 f/4 is already excellent portrait lens. I'd mostly use it at the longer end. 85/1.8 is the cheapest possible addition that can greatly expand your options. I also recommend 100mm macro if you like to 'get in close' or just want to do macro. Both are great if you want faster than f/4. 135mm is probably a decent lens, but I had rather bad luck finding a good copy that works with my bodies. 135mm makes more sense on FF, as anything like 85mm becomes slightly short. In any case your mileage may vary with any of these lenses.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have both the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, they are both as excellent as each other.

85/1.2 wins on bokeh. Lens resolution and Speed (amount of light)

85/1.8 wins on focus speed & weight (the 1.2 weight more than the 24-70)

It's why i got both, depending on the situation i swap between them.
Click to expand...
I meant to ask you about them when I saw you at the wedding a couple of weekends ago, but you were far too busy. I love the bokeh on the f/1.2 but was kinda interested in checking out the 1.8 as well.
 
I dont know what the fuss is about with the 85mm 1.2 (quite expensive).....IMO the 135mm F/2L USM is as good as mine 200mm F/2L IS USM in term of sharpness and bokeh

sample pix (not good pixs for sharpness demo but awesome bokeh)
pic1.jpg

pic2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting I get the 135 L as that a good price lens I was looking at the macro 100mm l due to having IS. is it necessary to have IS?
 
Andrew whats your budget and do you see yourself using it more in available light or with flash
 
I don't want spend alot of money if not needed. I like natural light to be honest rather than flash I do have a speedlight flash but don't like the results from flash photography unless am
Doing it wrong
 
The shots from the 85 are amazing, I had a thread from another forum saved with pages and pages of shots from that lens.

The 100% crop.. wow.
 
With regards to the excellent pics posted by Onform, yes they are sharp but it is not necessary to spend £1500+ on a lens in order to get sharp photos. I have many lenses for my Pentax that are sharp and cost a fraction of the price. My 50mm 1.4 is as sharp as the examples posted previously but is only a £300 lens. I also have a 60 year old Carl Zeiss 58mm manual lens that is also just as sharp and that was a mere £160.

Below is a 100% crop from an unedited image and yes of course it is nowhere near as lovely a photo as Onform's but it's unprocessed and demonstrates that you don't have to spend a fortune on a lens to get a clear rendition.

5708266169_7433d6e533_b.jpg


5708266083_0dc5540191_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top