What should I buy?

Okay I am looking for a little help.
I shoot mainly portraits, kids and the like. I have a Canon 5d mark ii and a canon 50mm f1.4 that I love.
I am looking to get something a bit wider and something a bit more macro, what I can't decide is if I should go with one lens like the zoom canon 24-105L or if I should get a 28mm and an 85mm prime? I know I won't shoot a whole ton with them but it would just be nice to have something a bit more in both directions than just my 50mm
Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Heya,

Do you need wide aperture? What do you typically shoot at with your portraits? Are you shooing at F1.4 with that 50mm F1.4? Or are you stopping down for sharpness and depth of field?

A zoom will give you more options for your money. A prime will be a specialized version of a single focal length. I get primes for the aperture. If you're stopping down to F2.8~F4 for portraits, you don't need a prime, and can just get a zoom to cover more focal lengths for versatility and less lens swapping for the moment (important when dealing with kids).

If you're used to doing portraits at F4, then the 24-105 F4L is a great lens for that.

If you're looking to do portraits at F1.4, F1.8, F2, then you need primes. And if that's the case, I'd get 35mm and 85mm in the F1.4 to F2 variety.
Or if you're ok with F2.8, the 24-70 F2.8 is a way to go.

Very best,

Thanks for the fast reply. Yes aperture is very important as I shoot with natural lighting. Okay looks like I should go with primes which was my first thought but there are so many lenses I decided I should ask

I shoot with both zooms and primes, more primes lately. A zoom is nice to have for it's versatility. If you end up considering a zoom, you really can't lose with the 24-70 or 24-105. The 17-40 is another option if you're looking for something really wide at a relatively low cost.

Jstuver wrote in post #16648761
Thanks for the fast reply. Yes aperture is very important as I shoot with natural lighting. Okay looks like I should go with primes which was my first thought but there are so many lenses I decided I should ask

Heya,

I'd look at:

Sigma 35mm F1.4
Sigma 85mm F1.4 / Canon 135mm F2

Or,

Canon 35mm F2 IS
Canon 85mm F1.8

Or,

Samyang/Rokinon 35mm F1.4 (fully manual)
Samyang/Rokinon 85mm F1.4 (fully manual)

Very best,

28mm F2.8 IS is pretty nice, super sharp, good contrast, super light. 35mm F2 non IS if you're cheap, or IS if you've got more money.

I worry that the 35mm focal length will be too close to the 50mm...

Jstuver wrote in post #16648896
I worry that the 35mm focal length will be too close to the 50mm...

You said "a bit wider."

35mm is noticeably wider than 50mm. 24mm is literally wide angle, on a full frame. That's only half your focal length you're used to using. If you have access to a zoom with these focal ranges, I suggest you take it and look at different focal lengths of 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, 85, 100, 135, 200. See what field of view is best for your needs. Then get lenses that match what you liked best.

Very best,

Jstuver wrote in post #16648896
I worry that the 35mm focal length will be too close to the 50mm...

28mm is pretty wide without the perspective distortion of the 24mm.

not a very popular lens, but it's optically fantastic.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648804
Heya,

I'd look at:
Canon 35mm F2 IS
Canon 85mm F1.8
Or,
Samyang/Rokinon 35mm F1.4 (fully manual)
Samyang/Rokinon 85mm F1.4 (fully manual)

Very best,

Canon is dependable and those are a great combo of lenses.
If you don't mind full time manual lenses, the Samyangs are highly rated and much cheaper.

Sorry yes I did.
I have a cheap canon ef 28-80mm that I hate and when using it I don't necessarily like the 35 focal length any better than the 28 but it's a hard decision. It looks like the 28mm seems to run less money which might be good seems I doubt I will use it a ton...

I would not like fully manual as my eyes even though they have been checked and are perfectly fine, don't always seem to focus correctly lol.

Jstuver wrote in post #16648959
Sorry yes I did.
I have a cheap canon ef 28-80mm that I hate and when using it I don't necessarily like the 35 focal length any better than the 28 but it's a hard decision. It looks like the 28mm seems to run less money which might be good seems I doubt I will use it a ton...

Take that zoom, spend a day or two shooting at a very strictly focal length. No variation. Make yourself only able to use it at 28, 35, 80. One or two days each. Then review your photos. See which ones you like the most, and look to see what focal length wins your eye the most. Just looking through the lens doesn't really tell you how it's going to be. Go actually use it. Make some photos with it, not just some office shots at your desk. Go out and do what you normally would do, and see which focal length does the work you are looking for, field of view wise. Nail that down. You'll have your answer. If your answer is "all of them" and you can't figure it out, then you're a zoom kind of guy (in which case, get yourself a Tamron 24-70 F2.8).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648967
Take that zoom, spend a day or two shooting at a very strictly focal length. No variation. Make yourself only able to use it at 28, 35, 80. One or two days each. Then review your photos. See which ones you like the most, and look to see what focal length wins your eye the most. Just looking through the lens doesn't really tell you how it's going to be. Go actually use it. Make some photos with it, not just some office shots at your desk. Go out and do what you normally would do, and see which focal length does the work you are looking for, field of view wise. Nail that down. You'll have your answer. If your answer is "all of them" and you can't figure it out, then you're a zoom kind of guy (in which case, get yourself a Tamron 24-70 F2.8).

Very best,

That sounds like a good idea, thanks.

Charlie wrote in post #16648937
28mm is pretty wide without the perspective distortion of the 24mm.

How do you figure that, since perspective "distortion" is caused by distance to the subject and not by focal length? Even if you argue that "I meant with the frame filled of course, so it goes with out saying I'd be closer with the 24", you are only going to be about 14% closer, and I can't see that making the difference between presence and absence of "perspective distortion".

More on topic: I can't better the advice given by MalVeauX above. Well done, that man!