Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 05 Dec 2017 (Tuesday) 19:51
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Recommend a new lens

 
James ­ Crockett
Member
James Crockett's Avatar
129 posts
Joined May 2017
Dec 05, 2017 19:51 |  #1

My current lens collection consist of a 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art, Canon 135L f2, 100mm L Macro. Photography work would be Portraits, family and team pictures. If you had to pick what Canon offers, which lens would you go with? Thanks and hope all is well.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MatthewK
Goldmember
MatthewK's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Maryland
Dec 05, 2017 20:19 |  #2

70-200 f2.8 II IS USM.


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,744 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 05, 2017 20:30 |  #3

Considering your current lens collection, I will assume you are using a full-frame body. You already have really good long(er) lenses for portrait work. For home/family/team photos I would suggest a wider zoom. If you're into big, heavy, expensive zooms, take a look at the 24-70 f/2.8L II. For less than half the money, you can get a 24-70 f/4L.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Crockett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
James Crockett's Avatar
129 posts
Joined May 2017
Post has been edited 6 days ago by James Crockett.
Dec 05, 2017 20:35 |  #4

Bassat wrote in post #18511576 (external link)
Considering your current lens collection, I will assume you are using a full-frame body. You already have really good long(er) lenses for portrait work. For home/family/team photos I would suggest a wider zoom. If you're into big, heavy, expensive zooms, take a look at the 24-70 f/2.8L II. For less than half the money, you can get a 24-70 f/4L.

Yes, I'm using full frame. 5dsr and 5dmark ii. Thanks guys. hope all is well.




LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited 6 days ago by MalVeauX.
Dec 05, 2017 20:38 |  #5

You have 35/85/135 covered basically. I don't see a reason to add anything, unless you find yourself limited on the wide end. In which case, I would add an ultrawide like the Canon 16-35 F4LIS, or a Rokinon 14 F2.8 or an Obteka 15mm F4, but only if you embrace the crazy wide side of ultrawide for creative environmental portraits/groups.

I can't recall the name, but someone here on the board did it with the ultrawide with sequoia trees and it was lovely.

My own example (17mm on full frame; speedlite to fill that dark corner up):

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4033/35747014215_ac5e868af3_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WsQM​Vi] (external link)IMG_6077 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380! | Canon 5D Classic Bundle for Sale! $250!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Columbia
Member
33 posts
Joined Nov 2017
International Space Station
Dec 06, 2017 01:45 |  #6

What's the budget? That's important.

If I was shooting what you have listed as paid work it would be:

35 1.4
24-70 f2.8L ii
135L

Personally I would sell the 100L and just use extension tubes on the 135L. One less lens I would have to carry and as a portrait lens it's too close to 135mm, which the 135L does better.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,744 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 06, 2017 02:00 |  #7

Columbia wrote in post #18511684 (external link)
What's the budget? That's important.

If I was shooting what you have listed as paid work it would be:

35 1.4
24-70 f2.8L ii
135L

Personally I would sell the 100L and just use extension tubes on the 135L. One less lens I would have to carry and as a portrait lens it's too close to 135mm, which the 135L does better.

So, you are suggesting the 24-70 II, right? Seems reasonable.

I disagree with your entire logic of selling the 100L. It has IS, the 135 does not. It does 1:1, the 135 does not. If 100 is too close to 135, how much different is 85?

Use extension tubes with the 135L? Ok, you'd need 108mm of extension tube to make the 135L do 1:1. Canon EF 25 II tubes are $127 each. $508 to have 1:1 lens setup? A hugely cumbersome setup at that. And you still don't have IS. This is a bad idea on every level I can think of.

I have an 85 1.8, 100 macro, and 135L. Not selling any of them. I'm certainly not selling my 100 for the going rate of ~$350 to replace it with $500 worth of extension tubes.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Columbia
Member
33 posts
Joined Nov 2017
International Space Station
Dec 06, 2017 02:36 |  #8

Bassat wrote in post #18511686 (external link)
So, you are suggesting the 24-70 II, right? Seems reasonable.

I disagree with your entire logic of selling the 100L. It has IS, the 135 does not. It does 1:1, the 135 does not. If 100 is too close to 135, how much different is 85?

Use extension tubes with the 135L? Ok, you'd need 108mm of extension tube to make the 135L do 1:1. Canon EF 25 II tubes are $127 each. $508 to have 1:1 lens setup? A hugely cumbersome setup at that. And you still don't have IS. This is a bad idea on every level I can think of.

I have an 85 1.8, 100 macro, and 135L. Not selling any of them. I'm certainly not selling my 100 for the going rate of ~$350 to replace it with $500 worth of extension tubes.

The OP never mentioned macro work in his post and also omitted a budget. I took that to mean it wasn't a primary focus like portraits, which the 135L and 24-70ii do fantastically well, and so I offered an alternative that offsets the cost of the 24-70ii.

Extension tubes are a great convenience without having to invest in a lens (Kenko (external link), same build quality as Canon). Sure, I don't get as close to the same magnification as when I had my 100L, but they're a great alternative and one less lens I need to carry.

My previous post was from my perspective as if I was to shoot exactly what the OP stated. It was not an attack on anyone else's opinion and I think the animosity in the reply was uncalled for. It's obvious you have found what works for you and that's great, but shooting down alternatives without having the OP explain in further detail what they require doesn't look good.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,744 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 06, 2017 02:44 as a reply to Columbia's post |  #9

I disagreed with you. That is all. There is no right or wrong here, only opinions, none more or less valid than the next.

By the way, I disagree with the implication that you can read 'tone' or 'attitude' from written words. Any perceived attack or animosity is strictly internal on your part.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
MatthewK's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Maryland
Dec 06, 2017 04:58 |  #10

Reading fail on my part... I misread the OP as "Portraits, family and team SPORTS", hence my suggestion of the 70-200 zoom.

That being said, suggesting a lens to go with a 35/100/135 lineup for primarily portrait use? I mean, aside from a 85L/85A you pretty much the primary portrait lenses covered with the 135L and 100L. What more are you wanting for portrait work? Good suggestions for a wider zoom, either a 16-35 or 24-70. Might stoke some creativity while bringing some versatility to your lineup.


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Crockett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
James Crockett's Avatar
129 posts
Joined May 2017
Dec 06, 2017 05:36 |  #11

Thanks everybody for the replies. I've been eyeing the 24-70 2.8 ii.. with that said for around the same price, could get the 70-200mm 2.8 ii. I had the 70-200 f4 at one time but too me size, length of that lens was little difficult to shoot and the 70-200mm 2.8 is only bigger so with already having the 135L I feel like I have that area covered. Let me know what you think. Thanks everybody! Your the best.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,744 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited 6 days ago by Bassat.
Dec 06, 2017 05:50 as a reply to James Crockett's post |  #12

I started with 135L & 200L II primes. I thought a zoom would be more convenient, so I sold them and bought a 70-200 2.8. Massive beast. That didn't last long before I downsized it to an f/4. Then I missed the aperture of the primes. So I repurchased both the 135L and 200L II.

I had a 24-70 2.8... for about a week. That was the about the fastest lens I ever flipped. It took me about an hour to realize it was a compromise on both fronts. Not as fast as even my consumer primes, and a tiny zoom range, comparatively. Big and heavy on top of that.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
s1a1om
Senior Member
s1a1om's Avatar
Joined Jul 2013
Hartford, CT, USA
Dec 06, 2017 05:57 |  #13

I'm with @MalVeaux. Ultrawide can be fun for portraits. I'd suggest the 16-35 f/4 as I love mine, but you seem to have a preference for primes, so maybe the Canon 14mm?


Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

LOG IN TO REPLY
conraderb
Member
44 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Post has been edited 6 days ago by conraderb.
Dec 06, 2017 10:07 |  #14

Tough to say if you don't specify a price and weight/size.

I shoot professionally and have seen my work in major magazines.

I travel with a ton of L primes, but I would panic if I were on any shoot with the 24-70mm 2.8 L Mark 2 and 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 2 (I shoot Canon, of course). Both are expensive but I'm pretty impressed with the IQ when compared to the L primes.




LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Crockett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
James Crockett's Avatar
129 posts
Joined May 2017
Dec 06, 2017 14:56 |  #15

conraderb wrote in post #18511875 (external link)
Tough to say if you don't specify a price and weight/size.

I shoot professionally and have seen my work in major magazines.

I travel with a ton of L primes, but I would panic if I were on any shoot with the 24-70mm 2.8 L Mark 2 and 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 2 (I shoot Canon, of course). Both are expensive but I'm pretty impressed with the IQ when compared to the L primes.

I'm not worried about weight and size. Thanks!




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

836 views & 2 likes for this thread
Recommend a new lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00089 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is mrvair
989 guests, 488 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017