Moving to ff need advice about lenses

Eloniel

As i said in the title in want to want move from the 550d (european name for t2i or t3i) to a ff body future 6dmk2, 5dmk4 or used 5dmk3 within one year. Currently i have three lenses a 11-16 2.8 tokina made for apsc but usable at 16mm on a ff body. A 24-105L from canon and the new 50mm 1.4 Art from sigma. I mostly take picture at party and portrait during shooting. The 50mm is equivalent to 85mm and will be usefull for street/group portrait and environnemental portrait on a ff sensor but not for american portrait, and torso portrait. So three focal seem good on ff a 85mm 1.2 or 1.4, 135mm 2.0 and 70 200 2.8.
Honestly i can't afford a 2000€ Lens so the 70-200 L is Usm II and the 85mm 1.2 II are out of my range. So the competitor are the future sigma 85mm 1.4 Art the canon 85mm 1.2 mkI (i have found several used for less than 1000€) the canon 135 L 2.0, the canon 70-200 2.8 L usm is mkI or the 70-200 2.8 L usm non is. Sigma 70-200 don't seem to reach the quality of the canon's lenses.
Which combinaison is better for you 85mm +135mm 85+70-200 or the 70-200 + 135 (but this combinaison seem pointless) with each lenses used or new, please precise witch version of the lenses i specifized above. The 85+ 70-200 is more expensive so maybe i should take a 6dmk2 instead of a 5dmk4.


Ps: i'm french so this post can contain serious grammar issues, sorry.

Pps: i think this thread isn't at the good place, if someone can move it.

jmphotocraft

Don't forget about the Canon 85/1.8 or 100/2.0. Both are "secret" L lenses, for much less money. 85mm and 135mm are both portrait focal lengths, so I would choose one or the other, but not both. The Canon 135L has quick autofocus, the 85L has notoriously slow autofocus. Unless you are shooting night sports or theater/stage, the 70-200 f/4L IS is a tremendous value. It's even sharper than the original 70-200 f/2.8. Your existing 24-105L and 50/1.4 will be great on full frame.

David_S85

You need something longer than 105 I think, especially on a full frame body. I second the suggestion for a 70-200 f/4 L IS. Maybe a second-hand version? It really is one of the most useful lenses I've ever purchased. If you can swing it somehow, go for it.

Eloniel

The 2.8 aperture could help to separate the subject from the background and i will go into an engineering school (5 years in france not 3 like in the US) so maybe i will shoot at some sport event lead by student sport association. In may i have shoot a dancing gala and the f4 aperture was really a disavantage. If fear that the 85mm and the 50mm focal is too close for me, i could shoot one step closer the model with little distorsion at the 50mm to avoid buy a 85mm, but 135mm isn't too long inside ? What worth a use 70-200 2.8 non is and the tamron 70-200 2.8 USD vi ? The difference is visible for an amateur ?

David_S85

The non-IS 70-200 is a very high quality optic, but the IS makes it very usable in the dimmer light and gains you a few stops of freedom. I can't remember when I had my 70-200 set at f/4. I'm usually up at 5.6 to 8 most of the time. The depth of focus on a long lens is still very shallow at f/4 and the 2.8 version is near razor thin. I made the decision for the f/4 after borrowing a 2.8 and walking around with it on a 40D a few years back. I was out maybe 90 minutes. I couldn't handle the weight. Since the IQ on the 4 and 2.8 were almost identical (the most recent 2.8 is now better), I chose the 4 because it was easily half the weight. Recent Canon bodies do very well focusing with low light; ISO's of 3200-8000 can yield pretty good results. That f/2.8 vs. f/4 difference doesn't mean as much now as it did a few years back. And I doubt you'd actually really shoot at f/2.8 anyway unless you want only half of someone's face in focus.

I know of many shooters that have been happy with a non-IS version, but I think that series of that lens has been all but discontinued now. Recent Tamron lenses have been very good but I have no experience with them.

Eloniel

So for a second hand which one is better the 70-200 2.8 non is or 70-200 2.8 is mk1 ?

ziggy53

Eloniel wrote: »

So for a second hand which one is better the 70-200 2.8 non is or 70-200 2.8 is mk1 ?

For some very good reviews of those two lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Review

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Review

To see samples of their respective sharpness (mouse hover over the image to see the IS version, and move off the image to see the non-IS version):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (non-IS) and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM. I typically use the f2.8 version for weddings/events and the f4 IS version for travel. I appreciate that most Canon dSLR cameras have a high-precision center AF point at f2.8, and the f2.8 version does seem more capable at acquiring focus in low light.

For true portraits, both head-and-shoulder and head shots, I tend to use the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM, which has the best bokeh of any of my lenses. Yes, f2 is razor thin DOF, and almost impractical for many subjects, but I do use f2.2 a fair amount for human subjects and I love how the background melts away.

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM Lens Review

Eloniel

Yeah the 135 L seem incredible but it's an old lens and as this project is for the end of 2015 i wonder if sigma would'nt bring à 135 1.8 Art or canon will make a mkII. Do you use the 70-200 2.8 for portrait or this lens is too heavy ? Also the gap between 50mm and 135mm would'nt be annoying for full prime shooting on a ff body ? What the purpose of the 70-200 2.8 for portrait if i have a 50mm and a 135mm ? Skip the 85mm with a flexible lens ?

ziggy53

The Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM is here and now. It still delivers a demonstrably better bokeh than the vast majority of lenses by any manufacturer. It is one of those lenses coveted by those who own it (and who guard it against damage and theft) and by those who wish to own it.

I cannot speculate to the future of either Canon or Sigma lens offerings. They, both Canon and Sigma, will follow their own timeline for release, which probably won't coincide with your stated timetable for need. (It would be nice if they did. )

Before I had the EF 135mm f/2 L USM I had several zoom lenses in the 70-200mm(ish) range*. I did indeed use them for portraits and candids. The zoom allows for different compositions and different framing while at the same distance to the subject. Working against time that's a considerable advantage.

I have used the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (non-IS) for around 5 hours on a second body, along with an EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM on a primary body. (Private event.) I'm not a muscular person by any means, but I do what I must do to get the shot. In that situation the 70-200mm range helped cover a large, rectangular room.

*(Specifically, the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO, an older Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 (before HSM) and the two Canon 70-200mmL lenses listed above. I still own all of these lenses, but rarely use the Tokina or Sigma any longer.)

ziggy53

Eloniel wrote: »

... Also the gap between 50mm and 135mm would'nt be annoying for full prime shooting on a ff body ? What the purpose of the 70-200 2.8 for portrait if i have a 50mm and a 135mm ? Skip the 85mm with a flexible lens ?

If you work in an environment where you control everything, primes are splendid. If you must work in an environment which is more uncertain and if time is the premium factor, a zoom can save you an awful lot of time, versus primes alone.

For maximum flexibility (and assuming a FF Canon body), and if there are many unknowns (like working at a site you have never been to before), and if portraits are the goal (and potentially everything from environmental to full-length to head shots) I would bring (from my own stock):

Canon EF 17-40mm, F4L USM
Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM (an EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM would be the modern replacement)
Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM
Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM

Eloniel

That what i thougth the 85 focal length can be cover by a 70-200 or a 50mm if i shoot closer of the subject, thank. I think i will go with second hand 135mm L and second hand canon 70-200 i don't know the IS mkI but heavier or the non-is. Thank

reflection

Eloniel wrote: »

As i said in the title in want to want move from the 550d (european name for t2i or t3i) to a ff body future 6dmk2, 5dmk4 or used 5dmk3 within one year.

Why ??

I have a 5D MK II and a 7D and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone needs a FF camera. Unless you have a need to do a lot of really large prints, like A0 or larger, an APS-C camera does just fine. The lenses that you have will make the difference in the end. IMHO, it would be better to put the money into better lenses than into a FF body. If you need to impress clients, a FF body is probably needed. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that its the best way to go. The best way to go, IMHO, is a crop sensor with top quality, Full-Frame lenses. Nearly all lenses have some issues towards the edges. With a FF lens on a cropped sensor body you get the best the lens has to offer. The image footprint on the sensor is from the "sweet spot" of the lens.

A good lens will outlast almost any digital camera body. If the form factor doesn't change, a good pro lens could easily be in service in 10 years.

jmphotocraft

Except not many of the FF lenses make much sense on a crop sensor, especially wide angle primes and the wide and standard zooms (16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105).

Also FF is more forgiving on lenses because you're enlarging the image 60% less.

A 5D3 beats a 7D or 70D easily. We'll see about the 7D2, but physics is physics.

Eloniel

My 50mm 1.4 Art is the first of a group of great lenses, ideally the 24mm L or Art, the 50, a 135mm (the f2 L, a new version, or art series) and an old 70-200 2.8 (is or not that will depend on what second hand i found). I tried my uncle 5dmk2, we took picture in the same time with the same lens the 24-105L in a classical situation, not one where better Iso matter and the picture quality was really better on the 5dmk2 than on my 550d, better contrast, better colors. And i don't know but ff picture seem "deeper" i don't know if it's clear but for landscape, portrait, environnemental portrait and Street, ff picture seem less flat than aps-c, obviously aperture matter also. Am i the only one to see this specificity of ff sensor ? It would be interesting to see this kind of medium-format image to see if this phenomenon is amplified. The visor (i'm not sure if it's the good word, where you look to shoot) of xD serie just outlast xxxD and xxD series, it's a world between these two visor, i feel cramped with my visor except when i put my 11-16 2.8 from tokina, it's not just about the focal that are wider with ff but also it's the size of this visor. I don't want to impress client since i'm not a pro, i have time to buy great lens, but since i want to exploit my lens to their best and for reason explain before i want to move to ff.

jmphotocraft

Eloniel wrote:

Am i the only one to see this specificity of ff sensor ?

No, that is a common observation, and a common reason for people to want to go to FF.

The visor (i'm not sure if it's the good word, where you look to shoot)

Viewfinder. Another commonly desired feature of FF.

nak

Another thing to note is that the 135 f/2.0L weighs half what the 70-200 f/2.8L IS weighs. Not only do you get the finest bokeh out there with the 135, and the f-stop difference, you get a lens that handles better. Once I was taking a break and had a glass in my left hand, the 5d mark II with 135 in my right. I saw a "shoot it right now before it's gone" moment and shot it one handed and actually got it. I don't recommend this method, but I'm not sure that it is even possible with the big zoom.

If I painted pictures, the 135mm f/2.0L would be my favorite paintbrush. In general, I do my best work with it.

pathfinder

The Canon 135 f2.0 L and the 70-200mm f4 IS L are both great pieces of glass, and a lot more fun to lug around all day than the much heavier EOS 70-200 f2.8 IS L

But the unsung hero for portraits is the 85 f1.8 for FF bodies - for the price it is a great lens, and I say that and I own the 85 1.2 L version as well.

chrisjohnson

You guys have finally convinced me to get the 135 f2.0. I have been dreaming of it for years and life is short.

To the OP, Eloniel, I draw your attention to the 35mm f2 IS USM. I use this 80% of the time because it works great with my 6D, is light-weight and unobtrusive, and very usable (fast to focus, sharp, in almost all lighting, good colour). Portraits work well via cropping in post. For party situations it is perfect and also good for video. For ultimate art you probably want something with a higher spec, but for highly enthusiastic people like me it works a treat.

PS. Not sure what you expect from a 6D mk2 or whatever, but the current generations do very well. I would have to scratch my head to think what I might want to wait for.

PSS. Ordered. Should be here tomorrow lunchtime! Wish me luck....

Brett1000

chrisjohnson wrote: »

You guys have finally convinced me to get the 135 f2.0. I have been dreaming of it for years and life is short.


PSS. Ordered. Should be here tomorrow lunchtime! Wish me luck....

from what I've seen the 135 f2 is a great lens
(the 200 f2 is also great)

divamum

The 135 F2 has pixie dust ground into the glass, I swear it does. I admit that these days I'm using my 70-200 2.8 II more, but that is more to do with circumstances than desire or "art". And boy, oh boy, do my aching shoulders and wrists prefer the 135.... SO much lighter. Like, not even a comparison.

I don't see the 70-200 F4 non-IS mentioned, and it is another great contender. SO light, easy to hold, and ridiculously sharp. Yes, it's f4, so if you need the extra light it won't do (which is how I wound up forced to trade up to the 2.8), but it is a KILLER lens.

The 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are both excellent, economical, reliable lenses for that focal length. I'd say I preferred the 100f2 by a whisker (it's just a tad sharper wide open), but if you have the 135 it's a redundant focal length, so go with whichever one suits your needs; you won't be disappointed by either. Very light, fast, and sharp.

What do you mean by "American portrait"? On full frame, I find most of the headshots I take are 70-90mm. If I'm outside, I go to the longer end, so 90-150. For a more environmental shot to include some surroundings, I usually jump to my 35mm Sigma Art (mainly because I happen to like it lol). The Sigma is another GREAT lens - I've been very very happy with mine.