6 posts :: Page 1 of 1
By: Likes:
  (Read 3066 times)  

I have decided that I really need a nice new lens, primarily for portriats, but kind of thinking that some versatility may be nice!  My thoughts are revolving around:

 

Canon EF85mm f1.8 - seems to be a stunning wee lens and offers massive bang for the buck!

Canon EF100 f2.8 macro  - the macro function would be handy as I don't have anything that does this at the moment!

Sigma 105mm macro/Tamron 90mm macro as alternatives.

 

Or... do I blow the budget right out the water and go for the Canon EF100mm f2.8L IS Macro!

 

I was swinging towards the latter, but don't know if it is really worth it for me... especially as I could get one of the others and perhaps a wee 50mm prime as well... and still have some change left over!  Macro would be nice, but since I have never tried it I don't know whether it is something I would hugely use, which puts me right back to the start point of the Canon 85mm which I have seen many stunning results from both on TPN and elsewhere.

 

Any thoughts/comments or just random abuse most welcome ;-)

 

 


Rob Sutherland
Alpinist Photography
Cumbria, United Kingdom

   
Regular Member
Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 102
Location: The English Lake
District
By: Likes:
   

I have no prime lenses. For portraits I mostly use my Nikon 70-200/f2.8. Canon has a similar lens. Yes it is expensive, but an article in Outdoor Photographer indicated this is the most go-to lens in all of professional photography. They call it the work horse of nature photographers, but lots of other fields of photographers use it equally - wedding, portraiture, concert, travel. It is the lens I keep on my camera most even though I also have a 17-35/f2.8 and a 28-70/f2.8 and a 300/f4.


Musician / Composer

This portrait, posted in the Telephoto Portraits weekly challenge, was taken with my 70-200 lens. You can't beat the optics, versatility and ruggedness. It weights a lot, for sure, but it comes in handy all the time.

   
Active Member
Registered: 12/03/09
Posts: 208
Location: Columbia, Maryland
By: Likes:
   

Walter- I have the Canon 70-200L, albeit the f4 version, but need something faster and... well... just "nicer" ;-)  The 2.8 would be lovely, but is just way too rich for my blood!

 

 


Rob Sutherland
Alpinist Photography
Cumbria, United Kingdom

   
Regular Member
Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 102
Location: The English Lake
District
By: Likes:
   

I know Bettie Loves her 85mm 1.8

   
Junior
Registered: 07/26/10
Posts: 16
Location: Arkansas
By: Likes:
   

Hi Rob

My budget option was the EF 1.4 50mm. I bought mine on eBay last year and have not regretted it. If you're not in a hurry you can get one for less around £225. It is ideal for portraits of people you can get real close and personal with Wink  In combination with your 5D Mk2 the image quality will be awesome and means that you can crop quite a bit, so that you don't always need to get very close for a good frame filling portrait.

If money is less of an object and you're interested in macro, I'd go for the EF 100mm 2.8 and if money is no object I'd go for L version.

Ruud

PS If you're around the west coast (nearish to Applecross) in the week starting 14 May let me know. We could meet up for a wee dram!

   
Chatty
Registered: 03/05/11
Posts: 44
Location: Manchester, UK
By: Likes:
   

I once had the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro. Extremely sharp, maybe too sharp for portraits.Handy focal length (90 full frame and 135 APS-C). Reasonably priced. Sold mine when I got a Sigma 150mm macro.


Tim Marks
www.photowanderer.com
Michigan USA

   
Newbie
Registered: 03/06/11
Posts: 6
Location: Royal Oak, Michigan
6 posts :: Page 1 of 1