Another Lense Question

LiquidOps

ok... so i've had my Canon 30D for maybe 2 weeks now

bought it with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (great lense so far)

well... you know what they say... it's only the beginning... so... the question...

what's next on my list?

My main use for this camera is going to be doing portraits. Out door, natural lighting kind of stuff. Headshots, Models, Family, engagements, and later down the road... weddings...

so... here's the considerations...

Canon 85 f/1.8

Canon 50 f/1.4

or save for a while and go with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8

Thanks for all your help ahead of time

Steven

gus

I dont know if the 50 f/1.4 is worth the extra money over the 50 f/1.8. The 1.8 is very sharp & maybe you could look at that saving put towards something else Just a suggestion.

DavidTO

gus wrote:

I dont know if the 50 f/1.4 is worth the extra money over the 50 f/1.8. The 1.8 is very sharp & maybe you could look at that saving put towards something else Just a suggestion.

I do. The build is much better, and the bokeh is much sweeter. The 1.4 is worth it. The 1.8 is a nice stop-gap, if that's all you can afford, but the 1.4 isn't that much, really (compared to so many other lenses).

gus

DavidTO wrote:

I do. The build is much better, and the bokeh is much sweeter. The 1.4 is worth it. The 1.8 is a nice stop-gap, if that's all you can afford, but the 1.4 isn't that much, really (compared to so many other lenses).

Dont tell me what my opinion should be.

Manfr3d

LiquidOps wrote:

so... here's the considerations...

Canon 85 f/1.8

Canon 50 f/1.4

Considering that you already own a 28-75 lens,
i'd go with the 85mm. Its a near to perfect portrait
lens, which you will like for your portrait work alot,
also you'll not have to decide all the time between
the zoom and the 50mm. :

Here is a review of the 85mm (and 100/2, 135/2)
with sample (portrait) shots:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

And another favorable one here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_18/index.htm

good luck deciding

ziggy53

gus wrote:

Dont tell me what my opinion should be.

Gus,

I don't think David was correcting your opinion, just voicing his own opinion, thus "I do." instead of "You should.".

(Unless you were kidding. In that case, I get it.:D )

ziggy53

ziggy53

Manfr3d wrote:

Considering that you already own a 28-75 lens,
i'd go with the 85mm. Its a near to perfect portrait
lens, which you will like for your portrait work alot,
also you'll not have to decide all the time between
the zoom and the 50mm. :

Here is a review of the 85mm (and 100/2, 135/2)
with sample (portrait) shots:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

And another favorable one here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_18/index.htm

good luck deciding

For 1 or 2 shot portraits, I think you will appreciate the qualities of the 85 in either the f1.8 or f1.2 variety. (Almost a 7x difference in cost.) The f1.8 is on my list.

For group stuff, and a surprising amount of other opportunities, I also suggest something in a fast, wide zoom. I wound up with the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8, and I'm very pleased with it.

Eventually, you will probably want something with the range of the 70-200mm, f2.8, but with your usage indications, it can wait.

ziggy53

DavidTO

gus wrote:

Dont tell me what my opinion should be.

Troublemaker.

cmason

Hmm, given that you only have the one lens, I am not sure I would recommend that you purchase a lens that is only 10mm more than your current coverage.

Yes I know, it is brighter and a prime, and that is very valuable, but I would worry that it would spend lots of time in your bag. You can get the extra 10mm with your feet and your existing lens. Same for the 50mm, though the 1.8 is so cheap you likely won't care if it sits in your bag.

I would suggest the 70-200, even the f4L is a great lens. It will give you more options, and actually works quite well as a portrait lens on the short side. Not as good as a prime of course, but it gives you more options for more kinds of shots.

wxwax

If you have the money and the muscles, I'd suggest the 70-200 2.8 IS. The zoom gives you lots of flexibility, and the quality is absolutely top drawer. It's an outstanding lens for all the uses you describe, and lots more besides.

It is the logical extension of your current focal range. If you're only going to have two lenses, it makes sense to cover as much focal ground as you can, and the great thing about the 70-200 f2.8 IS is that you don't sacrifice any quality in the process.

arroyoshark

ziggy53 wrote:

Gus,

I don't think David was correcting your opinion, just voicing his own opinion, thus "I do." instead of "You should.".

(Unless you were kidding. In that case, I get it.:D )

ziggy53

Dunno....saying "I do" at the precisely wrong moment may seriously limit future photo equipment purchase opportunity.

DavidTO

arroyoshark wrote:

Dunno....saying "I do" at the precisely wrong moment may seriously limit future photo equipment purchase opportunity.

Heheh. I've owned both. I much prefer the 1.4.

Seefutlung

All depends on degree of sharpness you need/require for your portraits. I hear that even zoom are too sharp for portraits and need some softening to flatter the subjects. So I'd get the 70-200 2.8 as that will provide you with greater shooting capability than a prime. As a portrait lens the 70-200 may be a bit intimitating though.

70-200 sample