35L or 16-35L or keep saving for 85L?
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
I have a 5DII. I have a 17-40L I could sell if I got the 16-35L. I couldn't sell it if I got the 35 or 85 (need it for real estate job).
I would use the new lens mostly for pictures of my kids. I have lots of portrait style pics of them. I want to take more pictures of them that tell more of a story by including more background. However I do love taking portraits, and I also do a few Senior Portraits each year.
Other lenses I have: 24-70L, 70-200/4LIS, 100-400L.
I gather that the 85L is head and shoulders better than, well, anything else, but is the 35L that much better than the 16-35L or 24-70L at 35mm?
Your thoughts would be welcome!
I would use the new lens mostly for pictures of my kids. I have lots of portrait style pics of them. I want to take more pictures of them that tell more of a story by including more background. However I do love taking portraits, and I also do a few Senior Portraits each year.
Other lenses I have: 24-70L, 70-200/4LIS, 100-400L.
I gather that the 85L is head and shoulders better than, well, anything else, but is the 35L that much better than the 16-35L or 24-70L at 35mm?
Your thoughts would be welcome!
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Comments
If you want to include more background you will most likely stop down to at least f2.8 or f4.0. At
these aperatures the differences between these lenses begin to diminish. The other way to get more
background into your images by using a wider lens. A 50 or a 35 could be ideal. Yes a 35mm f1.4
is better than a 16-35mm, especialy at f1.4
you shoot real estate). I head that many real estate photogs use a Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (with MF)
on a Canon camera because of it qualities compared to the Canon wide zooms.
If I was you, I'd probably want to checkout or buy a 85mm 1.8 (because it's lighter and smaller than
a 70-200) AND the 35mm 1.4 (because it is wide and fast)
― Edward Weston
Lenses like 85 or 135mm are brilliant but more optimised for a blurred background - you need more depth of field.
Don't know the tradeoffs on the real-estate lenses. The aspect ratio is so close as to be irrelevant and the published product is low-res unless you are selling mansions to millionaires. I would be taking the low-cost option - even a kit zoom. Depends where you live and whether you need to take photos in lousy lighting on a regular basis. People here in Holland (mostly lousy lighting) take real estate photos with a P&S.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yeah, if the 17-40mm f/4L works for your real estate stuff and that's all you need it for, then I don't see the point of buying a 16-35mm or any other wide-angles.
I have the EF 50mm f/1.4 and I think it's a great lens. It's not really sharper than the ultra-cheap 50mm f/1.8 (which is incredibly sharp, especially considering the price), but the eight-blade iris avoids the annoying pentagonal bokeh of the f/1.8 lens, and it focuses a lot faster and more quietly.
Your comments in this thread give me the impression that you aren't really getting the whole idea of primes. With a 50mm prime, if it seems too long, you take a few steps forward; if it seems too short, a few steps back. If you're expecting to shoot without changing position, then you're expecting the lens to zoom. That you weren't impressed with the 50mm f/1.4's AF also makes me wonder if you are used to dealing with wide apertures. At less than f/2.8, you don't "focus and recompose" because the focus plane shifts when you do that, and at wide apertures DOF is shallow enough that your subject is likely to end up out of focus.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Umm, it sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it. Sorry pal, but if you're going to talk down to me, you better be damn sure not to make mistakes.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
*shrug* If you think a minor misstatement like that invalidates everything else I said, then it's a waste of my time to explain anything to you.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
You won't be disappointed with them, but, you should really buy the gear that supports your shooting. So if the 17-40L is working for you, stick with it. See what Awais does with it and what he creates is awesome.
www.tednghiem.com
craig, sorry I snapped at you but I found your post to be condescending. You don't know enough about me to say those things. I understand primes, I also shoot a Pentax K1000 with 3 manual focus primes. Before the days of "L" zooms, it was common knowledge that primes were the ultimate for IQ. Now with modern zoom technology, the gap appears to have shrunk. I had a 135L once, but had to sell it to fund my 5DII purchase. I wish I could have kept it, but I wasn't exactly heartbroken to see it go because I have the 70-200/4LIS, which is very nearly as sharp. (However now that I have been renting a 300/2.8 to shoot little league, I am spoiled by its utter obliteration of the background, which the 70-200/4 cannot do as well.) So now I want to try a wider L prime to see if it blows away my 24-70L at 35mm.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
In my experience, there is nothing particularly special about the 35/1.4 when shooting at f/5.6. At f/4 its noticably sharper than zooms but only in large prints. Where the lens really shines is at f/2.8 and wider. In terms of blurred backgrounds, the 35L is very smooth and creamy but, no matter what you do, there is a limit to how blurry a background can get at 35mm.