Canon Primes

amg2833 · June 7, 2009

I'm looking at buying a new lens this summer. I currently have my eyes on portrait-length primes offered by Canon: 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and 100mm 2.

I have done a few portrait shoots, but I'm not sure how much this will continue I would mostly use these lenses for the artistic effect from their depth of field, candid street portraits, indoor sports, and, because I'm in the Live Music Capital, concert shots.

I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the focal lengths. I feel like I would get the most use out of the 50mm 1.4, but am worried it wouldn't do the job for indoor sports or concerts.

I currently own a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5, although I'm certain I'll sell the Canon lens before long.

It may be possible to acquire the 85mm or 100mm and the 50mm 1.8. Also, if anyone advices any third-party lenses nearing these focal lengths, be sure to let me know.

I've also been tempted by the 60mm 2.8 macro and the 100mm macro (although the 100mm is a bit over my price range), in case anyone wants to weigh in on that instead.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the help!

Jekyll & Hyde · June 7, 2009

amg2833 wrote:

I have done a few portrait shoots, but I'm not sure how much this will continue I would mostly use these lenses for the artistic effect from their depth of field, candid street portraits, indoor sports, and, because I'm in the Live Music Capital, concert shots.

J: Sounds like you could use a couple of focal lengths. But if I were to choose only one for now, it would be the 85 f1.8.

H: You might also do well with its sibling, the 100 f2, if the focal length is more appropriate.

Best of luck,
J&H

amg2833 · June 7, 2009

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Sounds like you could use a couple of focal lengths. But if I were to choose only one for now, it would be the 85 f1.8.

H: You might also do well with its sibling, the 100 f2, if the focal length is more appropriate.

Best of luck,
J&H

Well, do you think a I should go for the 85 1.8/50 1.8 combo or the 100 2/50 1.8 combo?

ziggy53 · June 8, 2009

The Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM and EF 100mm, f2 USM are more alike than different. Either one is very competent. I do think that I would like the 85mm lens more, but only slightly more.

The EF 50mm, f1.8 I cannot honestly recommend for the XT camera. The AF is too often inaccurate and the viewfinder of the XT/350D makes it hard to know when it is inaccurate. There is no way that the lens is suitable for sports.

The EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is much more accurate and very speedy as well.

In the end I wound up getting the Canon 50mm, f1.4 and a Tamron 90mm, f2.8 macro. It's a pretty good combination and would work nicely for many portrait situations.

Indoors, especially on the crop camera, you might need an even wider lens for a 3/4 or full length portrait, but your Tamron standard zoom might suffice.

amg2833 · June 8, 2009

Ziggy, you're always very helpful.

What's the logic to take the Tamron 90mm Macro over the Canon 100mm Macro? Is it just price?

ziggy53 · June 8, 2009

amg2833 wrote:

Ziggy, you're always very helpful.

What's the logic to take the Tamron 90mm Macro over the Canon 100mm Macro? Is it just price?

Pretty much for me, yes, the price was a major determinant. The Canon EF 100mm, f2.8 USM Macro is wonderful and might be a marginal sports lens also (better than the Tamron for sure). Many folks do use the Canon 100mm macro as a portrait lens for head shots and head-and-shoulders.

amg2833 · June 8, 2009

Thanks for the help, Ziggy.

I can understand how the autofocus of the XT coupled with the 50mm 1.8 could be quite a frustrated endevor in low light indoor sports conditions. In good light conditions, do you think this would still be a problem?

I'm still debating, and those two lenses are a bit out of my price range at the moment. I'll weigh my options a bit longer, but it sounds to me you got a winning combination. Any range that the 85mm would give you can easily be made up with sneaker zoom. If for some reason my budget picks up, I would take a route similar to your own.

ChatKat · June 8, 2009

I have these lenses and on a crop factor camera the 100 2.8 is slower focusing than the 85. I think that it's a wonderful lens for situations where you have good light control like studio or daylight. If I had to pick between these two, the 85 would be my choice and it's less money. All that said, if I could only shoot with one focal length with a prime it'd be a 50.

rainbow · June 8, 2009

The 85mm f/1.8 will work for both portraits and indoor sports. I would choose this over the 100mm f/2 to leave the gap for the superb 135mm f/2, which is my favorite indoor sports lens on both my 40D and 5D (it may not be on your list now, but it should be in the pipeline sometime). Both should also be good for concerts.

Another reason to go for the 85mm is that if you want to go for macro later on, the Tamron 90mm or Canon 100mm f/2.8 would not duplicate that focal length for you (I do not use my 100mm f/2.8 for sports).

jogle · June 8, 2009

I'd go for the 50mm if you shoot at conversational distances in low light, it's a great lens.

I've got the 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and 100mm macro. I use the first three a lot for shooting events and parties in very low light. The 85mm has a magical quality, though for concerts you'd want something longer unless you have onstage access. If you can get close or want to shoot more environmental and crowd shots then just mid shots, get the 50mm. It's a classical focal length that really makes you zoom with your feet

If you like short depth of field type stuff then it's very useful at 1.4.

The 100 macro I don't really use in low light (I've got the 70-200 2.8 with IS if I need something longer) but it is a beautiful lens thats unbelievably sharp. If I'm needing to make big prints It's the only lens I'll use.

Manfr3d · June 8, 2009

On a crop camera the 85mm is just fabulous. The 100mm is a bit long.
I would recommend the 85mm first and instead of a 50 a 35mm/2.0.

In the end it all comes down to which focal length you prefer. All of
these lenses are very good.

ziggy53 · June 8, 2009

amg2833 wrote:

Thanks for the help, Ziggy.

I can understand how the autofocus of the XT coupled with the 50mm 1.8 could be quite a frustrated endevor in low light indoor sports conditions. In good light conditions, do you think this would still be a problem?

...

Unfortunately, the focus motor on the Canon 50mm, f1.8 is not well dampened. On my copy of the lens it consistently misses focus unless I stop down to f5.6 and that severely limits opportunities for the lens. Since many others have noted the problem I consider it a design flaw of the lens.

The EF 50mm, f1.4 is very good in both focus speed and focus accuracy. I have had very reliable results even shooting wide open where the DOF is extremely thin.

boulderNardo · June 8, 2009

rainbow wrote:

The 85mm f/1.8 will work for both portraits and indoor sports. I would choose this over the 100mm f/2 to leave the gap for the superb 135mm f/2

I'd do the opposite

The increase in IQ from the 100/2 to the 135/2 is marginal (imho), the increase in price is threefold.

I shoot my Canon 100/2 wide open at f/2 all the time, it's tack sharp. $300 well spent, $600 well saved ...

Then add the 50/1.4 for 3/4 to full-body portraits, and maybe the 200/2.8II for all kinds of outdoors portraits.

Skip the 85/1.8 as, like skippy says, it is so similar to the 100/2!

Enjoy!

ChatKat · June 8, 2009

I have the 135 L and the 100 2.8 and I think there is a huge diffference in the two lenses for IQ but maybe we have a different style. The 100 is a much slower lens for focus. The 135 shines at weddings and portraits.

boulderNardo wrote:

I'd do the opposite

The increase in IQ from the 100/2 to the 135/2 is marginal (imho), the increase in price is threefold.

I shoot my Canon 100/2 wide open at f/2 all the time, it's tack sharp. $300 well spent, $600 well saved ...

Then add the 50/1.4 for 3/4 to full-body portraits, and maybe the 200/2.8II for all kinds of outdoors portraits.

Skip the 85/1.8 as, like skippy says, it is so similar to the 100/2!

Enjoy!

Toshido · June 8, 2009

I can whole heartedly recommend the 50 f/1.4 for portrait and concert type shots. Assuming you can get close to the stage. If not the environmental indoor nightclub shots that it can produce are incredible.

Here is a sample gallery from a Drag Queen contest showing some around the table portrait shots, environmentla/crowd shots and performers. now the stage shots were done with me kneeling right at the edge of the stage though.
Flash was used on these as well though. 430ex at -2 FEC. I wanted to preserve ambient light and mood.

http://tag-photos.smugmug.com/gallery/8363473_m9r5G#P-1-24

amg2833 · June 8, 2009

Wow. The responses have been overwhelming. Thanks for the help everyone.

I've decided to decide between the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8, pretty much solely because I am very interested in macro photography and will own the Canon 100mm or Tamron 90mm Macro one day.

Out of the two lenses, I'm leaning towards the 50mm more, but I'm worried about losing too much telephoto capability (I would sell my extremely underused 28-105 upon buying a prime) and duplicating the long end of my Tamron 17-50.

JohnBiggs · June 9, 2009

amg2833 wrote:

Wow. The responses have been overwhelming. Thanks for the help everyone.

I've decided to decide between the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8, pretty much solely because I am very interested in macro photography and will own the Canon 100mm or Tamron 90mm Macro one day.

Out of the two lenses, I'm leaning towards the 50mm more, but I'm worried about losing too much telephoto capability (I would sell my extremely underused 28-105 upon buying a prime) and duplicating the long end of my Tamron 17-50.

with how cheap you can get the 50 1.8, I'd go with the 85 1.8 and plan for the 50 1.8. At least you would have more range covered.

On a crop the 50 1.8 is better for typical portraits, the 85 will need more room. But you are talking about sporting and concerts. The 85 is a better choice.

amg2833 · June 9, 2009

That was my original plan, but the autofocus combo of the XT and 50mm 1.8 does worry me. I guess its cheap, so I could purchase one and sell if it doesn't fit my needs.

divamum · June 9, 2009

amg2833 wrote:

That was my original plan, but the autofocus combo of the XT and 50mm 1.8 does worry me. I guess its cheap, so I could purchase one and sell if it doesn't fit my needs.

I have a Tamron 17-50, 50 1.8, and 85 1.8, which I use with my xsi, but I used to have an XT.

I used my 50mm on my XT and yes, it's sometimes a pain, but it does get PHENOMENAL results if you're willing to live with its occasional foibles. I can't say I'd recommend it for fast action although that said, it did a great job for me when I had to take theater shots practically in the freaking DARK, and I was amazed at how well it behaved. It does better from a bit of a distance than at its minimum focusing distance.

ALL THAT SAID... since I got the Tammy, I barely use it - in fact, I think that theater shoot is the ONLY time I've used it in the last few months (I knew I'd need the extra aperture). My Tamron rivals it for sharpness and it's helpful to have the zoom. I want to trade up to a 50 1.4 at some point, but $ aren't available so I'm keeping the 1.8 for the moment.

I also have the 85 1.8 which I like a lot. It's ever so slightly long for portraits (although I do use it and am happy with it, it encourages me to shoot a little too tight which is a tendency I have anyway) but it's a beautiful lens stopped down a little bit and with enough space that you can frame the way you want. It's a much faster and more reliable focuser than the 50mm 1.8 and it's one of those lenses that gives you some "sparkle" in the light - very nice results (don't know how to express that in technical terms, or even if there IS a technical term, but I've noticed that some lenses - seemingly not focal length or light connected - give you more glowy, sparkling results than others which result in a flatter look. Kind of like the difference between film and videotape...)

With your lineup, I"d have thought get the 85 1.8 and live with the Tammy's 50mm for a while, or if you really want the prime then get a used 50mm 1.8 and see what you think. That's a whole lot of glass for under $500!

Now if I just had the money to add a 135 f2 (and maybe a 24-70L 2.8) I'd feel like I had all the lenses I wanted.... (well for a while, at least

)

amg2833 · June 9, 2009

Divamum, you've just given some of the most helpful advice I've had. You're seem to be in the position I plan on ending up in (considering you have the same Tamron I do). I think you've pushed me over to the 85mm.

Thanks for the help everyone! :ivar

roentarre · June 10, 2009

You can try a couple of focal lengths prime

Check out 24L, 50L 85L and 135L gallery in my site

http://www.roentarre.com/GallerybyLens.aspx

Canon Primes

Comments