Help an old dog out-*another* Lens question

Mongrel

Ok, it's January 19 and I have 12 days left to take advantage of the Canon lens rebates.

I thought I had it narrowed down to:

50mm f/1.4 (Why?-to replace my f/1.8 in hopes of better AF speed and that extra stop of light. I shoot a lot of indoor BB.)

100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (Well, I've heard this is a very sharp lens, and I've *always* wanted a good macro. Also may be useful for sports and portraits).

135 f/2.0L (If you have to ask . This one has been on my list a *long* time-well six months at least. I enjoy taking headshot portraits, and like the idea of a long f/2.0 lens).

But, I'm getting hung up over the Canon 35mm f/1.4L! No question as to the quality of the lens, by all accounts it's a sweetheart.

AND then there's the 16-35 f/2.8L, which offers versatility but may not be as nice as the 35L and certainly isn't as fast. Is the 16-35 capable of similar quality at 35mm as the 35mm f/1.4 (at f/2.8)?

(:wxwax thanks to Andy for those last two curve balls!)

Now, if you want to help me out you should probably go here first:

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/18053.html

This will give you an idea of what I like to shoot.

Also, here is a list of the lenses I have so that you can see where the above picks would fit in.

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 18-55 'kit lens'
Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 Di
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM
Sigma 100-300 f/4.0 EX HSM
Sigma 1.4x EX APO Tele Converter

I know this is kinda involved, but I tried to make it as easy as possible. Many thanks in advance to *any and all* advice!

Michiel de Brieder

Hi Anthony,

I'm not a big-shot in DSLR world, but here's my 2 cents anyway I can definitely understand the 50mm it is AWESOME, I really preferred the bokeh of the f/1.4 vs the f/1.8 but it *is* subjective.
The 100mm is also on my list of wannahaves So I think those will 'fit' in your backpack
Now for the 135mm I hear it's an awesome lens, but you are going to use it for close headshots. I was wondering, why isn't your 70-200 not enough for that? I have the 70-200 f/4 L and I think it's a great lens for headshots! As far as I know the quality is quite close.....
I'd ditch the 135 for either the 35 or the 16-35. For me the zoom would be fast enough (even though I love low-light shooting, the 20D, as you will gave noticed, is an excellent high ISO performer and I have quite steady hands)..... BUT, I do not own the 35 or the 16-35, so I have no way to compare them from experience. I'm a happy camper with the 17-40
Good luck deciding, let us know what you're going to pick up!

pathfinder

Mongrel wrote:

Ok, it's January 19 and I have 12 days left to take advantage of the Canon lens rebates.

I thought I had it narrowed down to:

50mm f/1.4 (Why?-to replace my f/1.8 in hopes of better AF speed and that extra stop of light. I shoot a lot of indoor BB.)

100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (Well, I've heard this is a very sharp lens, and I've *always* wanted a good macro. Also may be useful for sports and portraits).

135 f/2.0L (If you have to ask . This one has been on my list a *long* time-well six months at least. I enjoy taking headshot portraits, and like the idea of a long f/2.0 lens).

But, I'm getting hung up over the Canon 35mm f/1.4L! No question as to the quality of the lens, by all accounts it's a sweetheart.

AND then there's the 16-35 f/2.8L, which offers versatility but may not be as nice as the 35L and certainly isn't as fast. Is the 16-35 capable of similar quality at 35mm as the 35mm f/1.4 (at f/2.8)?

( thanks to Andy for those last two curve balls!)

Now, if you want to help me out you should probably go here first:

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/18053.html

This will give you an idea of what I like to shoot.

Also, here is a list of the lenses I have so that you can see where the above picks would fit in.

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 18-55 'kit lens'
Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 Di
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM
Sigma 100-300 f/4.0 EX HSM
Sigma 1.4x EX APO Tele Converter

I know this is kinda involved, but I tried to make it as easy as possible. Many thanks in advance to *any and all* advice!

Looks like you're pretty well covered from 17-300mm.

You could look at the Canon 100 f2.8 macro as a portrait lens that offers outstanding sharpness. Too much for portraits some say..

You could buy the 580EX flash and a 550EX for a pair of flashes and some umbrellas and stands.

Or you could buy a really nice tripod from Reis or Gitzo but no lens rebate kicker.

The 50mm 1.4 is always a good choice. Will work real nice on a full frame camera in the future also. The 135 F2.0 is a real cool lens, but really only 1 stop faster than your 70-200 so.....not that much bang for your buck here.

gus

There can only be one ending :cry :cry :cry :cry Why did i ever get involved with you people ?

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

There can only be one ending :cry :cry :cry :cry Why did i ever get involved with you people ?

Is that the 500mm or the 600mm 'gus?

You already starting to buy lenses ??? White goes nicely witt her dress tho! Matches her shoes!!

cmr164

Mongrel wrote:

Ok, it's January 19 and I have 12 days left to take advantage of the Canon lens rebates.

I thought I had it narrowed down to:

50mm f/1.4 (Why?-to replace my f/1.8 in hopes of better AF speed and that extra stop of light. I shoot a lot of indoor BB.)

100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (Well, I've heard this is a very sharp lens, and I've *always* wanted a good macro. Also may be useful for sports and portraits).

135 f/2.0L (If you have to ask . This one has been on my list a *long* time-well six months at least. I enjoy taking headshot portraits, and like the idea of a long f/2.0 lens).

But, I'm getting hung up over the Canon 35mm f/1.4L! No question as to the quality of the lens, by all accounts it's a sweetheart.

AND then there's the 16-35 f/2.8L, which offers versatility but may not be as nice as the 35L and certainly isn't as fast. Is the 16-35 capable of similar quality at 35mm as the 35mm f/1.4 (at f/2.8)?
...
Also, here is a list of the lenses I have so that you can see where the above picks would fit in.

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 18-55 'kit lens'
Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 Di
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM
Sigma 100-300 f/4.0 EX HSM
Sigma 1.4x EX APO Tele Converter

I know this is kinda involved, but I tried to make it as easy as possible. Many thanks in advance to *any and all* advice!

What I found was that after I had a pro dslr that all the Canon glass that I had before drifted out for sale and I ended up with all L glass. Seems like that has happened to others here.

The Canon 16-35L is a good lens but you have the range covered and covered again so I would go with a plan to move to all primes in that area. And will add to your long term confusion by mentioning the EF14mm f/2.8L USM which is *not* a fisheye.

luckyrwe

I am in the same boat! I have the 70-200L IS and want to get 2 more lenses to take advantage of the rebate. However, I cannot spend the bucks I did on the last lens, so I want to keep it low.

I have the 24-70L, 70-200L IS and 400/5.6L. I figured I won't go back after using L lenses! Maybe someone else can buy a lens with me for the extra rebate? Is that legal?

So unless I have an epiphany or win the lottery, it's gonna be tough.

wxwax

Looks like you shoot portraits and wide angle shots a lot. So I'd go for the 135 f2 and/or the 35 f1.4.

fish

pathfinder wrote:

Looks like you're pretty well covered from 17-300mm.

He definitely has a well-stocked satchel.

You could look at the Canon 100 f2.8 macro as a portrait lens that offers outstanding sharpness. Too much for portraits some say..

The 100/2.8 macro is a wonderful lens. It's one of the few non-L lenses that is right up with the L glass in terms of sharpness, color fidelity, resolution, and freedom from abberration. Not quite up to L build quality, but as good as any other non-L USM. The FL is perfect for portraits, but I'm one of the "some" who say it's too sharp for portraits. I haven't tried greasing a filter on it yet, but why bother? I've got a 70-200/2.8L IS that may be the finest portrait lens ever made. No, the 100/2.8 should be used for macros and that's really where it excels. Stop it way down and get as much a DOF as you can get and shazam. One of these days I'll probably get a ringlite for my 100. Top-mounted 580's don't cut it.

You could buy the 580EX flash and a 550EX for a pair of flashes and some umbrellas and stands.

Flashes don't count toward the 3x rebate.




and fwiw, i got the 20D, 70-200/2.8L IS, and 28-135 IS for my triple. unfortunately, i sent in the 24-70/2.8L rebate solo, as I didn't think I was going to buy any other stuff to qualify.

150 bones back on the 70-200 is niiiiice.

fish

Humungus wrote:

There can only be one ending :cry :cry :cry :cry Why did i ever get involved with you people ?

You're thinking wrong. It's a new beginning.

gus

fish wrote:

You're thinking wrong. It's a new beginning.

TURN IT UP you cranky old ...old..(i cant say it in here) She was a little cutie & look what you did...pet cemetery !

Mongrel

Well, I'm back (or is it "I'm baaaacckkk?)...
Thanks to everyone for their help and suggestions. I'll be mulling them over for a few days for sure. I have to really go through my pics and really check out the focal lenghts again.

Some interesting and great suggestions btw.

As far as using the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for portraits goes, I have on occasion tried it. I picked it up mainly to use for shooting sports. I must confess that I got it from the 'bargain' bin at KEH so it's not really a good example. I have to get off my backside and send it to Sigma for a checkup. Depending on the outcome of that, I'll either put it back into service, or sell it 'as is' (it's really not that bad) and pick up a Canon 70-200 of one stripe or the other. Main problem I'm having with the Sigma is occasionally it will focus out to infinity, pull back until it's good and blurry and just hang there. This only happens when using AI servo.

The idea behind the 135 f/2.0 is to have a dual purpose portrait and indoor sports (volleyball, wrestling, and BB) lens. The f/2.0 is just barely usable without flash, but I think I can do it.

Some of those lenses I listed will be going out the door soon. I have a digital rebel that I want to package up for sale to help offset the cost of the 1D I picked up recently.

well, it appears I'm babbling a bit so time to sign off for now...

Thanks again to EVERYONE for you thoughts on this!