What should I buy?

Jstuver wrote in post #16648636
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

If budget is limited, the I'd say get the 28mm f1.8 for the wider end. If budget is not a concern, then go for the 24mm L f1.4.

You said "Macro". Do you really mean macro, or did you just mean telephoto? For Macro, get either 100mm f2.8 (L or non-L version). If you just meant telephoto, get the 85mm f1.8.

Sorry I meant telephoto. Thanks

It sounds like the 28mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 would be a great combo that may fit your budget.
Or choosing the 24L and 85L would be the extreme options.

I was going to say same thing as xarqi. My 24 has so little distortion it is a non factor completely. I would have to be 6" from something to exaggerate the distortion. Landscapes and portraits have none without overanylizing....

I agree with what divide said above as options and budgets.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16651078
I was going to say same thing as xarqi. My 24 has so little distortion it is a non factor completely. I would have to be 6" from something to exaggerate the distortion. Landscapes and portraits have none without overanylizing....

I agree with what divide said above as options and budgets.

I will strongly contradict you on the 24L's distortion. It is amazing lens as long as it's level.
Take your 6D and 24L Frame and open doorway in your house and take one step back.
So your have the whole doorframe inside your viewfinder. Just past the minimum focusing distance.
Take a shot with the camera level, then one at 30* and one at 60* angled up standing in the same spot.
The 24L will warp the doorframe terribly. It love the lens but it has it's faults.
I don't mind my subjects at minimum distance with a wide background, but keeping the lens level is the most important thing.
It creates a "3D pop that I love! Here is an example.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/plain'

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16651208
I will strongly contradict you on the 24L's distortion. It is amazing lens as long as it's level.
Take your 6D and 24L Frame and open doorway in your house and take one step back.
So your have the whole doorframe inside your viewfinder. Just past the minimum focusing distance.
Take a shot with the camera level, then one at 30* and one at 60* angled up standing in the same spot.
The 24L will warp the doorframe terribly. It love the lens but it has it's faults.

It is not caused by the lens, so it is not a fault of the lens. It is purely an effect of perspective and that is totally determined by the relative distances to various parts of the scene. That is your call, so any fault is yours.

xarqi wrote in post #16651238
It is not caused by the lens, so it is not a fault of the lens. It is purely an effect of perspective and that is totally determined by the relative distances to various parts of the scene. That is your call, so any fault is yours.

You are correct. In reference to the distortion, being a barrel or pincushion distortion the 24L has very little.
In perspective distortion, the wider FL lenses tend to have more perspective distortion.
While I cannot always change my location to the subject, I can keep the camera level to minimize some distortion was my suggestion.
The same way a tilt-shift lens helps to correct lines in perspective distortion on a building.
The 24mm TS-E lens is far superior to my 24L II in that respect, by it's design, not my own error.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16651323
In perspective distortion, the wider FL lenses tend to have more perspective distortion.

Again, this is not inherent in the lens, but in the choice the user makes about where to stand in relation to the scene when using the lens.

Yup. Know how perspective works and you know when it can catch you out and make allowances.

That's what they are for, certainly. Any error I meant on your part (aside from ascribing perspective "distortion" to focal length), was in positioning yourself such that this normal optical effect was going to be problematical. As you say though, keep things level and the effect will be symmetrical in the frame, rather than exaggerated on one side, and that can often be enough to make the shot workable.

^ When framing the same shot or a portrait, with the 24mm and a 85mm, the image is more compressed with the 85mm. Level, tripod etc...
It appear more natural, pleasing, better, etc. Yes, this is in relation to the subject distance. What is the correct name for this distortion / effect?
"Distance distortion"?

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16651574
^ When framing the same shot or a portrait, with the 24mm and a 85mm, the image is more compressed with the 85mm. Level, tripod etc...
It appear more natural, pleasing, better, etc. Yes, this is in relation to the subject distance. What is the correct name for this distortion / effect?
"Distance distortion"?

What occurs is that to keep the subject the same size in the frame with a longer focal length, there must be more distance to the subject. The immediate effect is to reduce the effects of perspective rendering the captured relative sizes of features of the scene closer to their actual relative sizes. This is especially noticeable with portraits as we are very sensitive to the relative sizes of facial (and other) features.

Now, if you increase focal length, you increase magnification, which is why you have to stand back for the same subject framing. However, the background is also magnified by a greater amount, or to put it another way, less of it is included in the frame. This is the effect called "compression". It can dramatically simplify the background in portraits, especially when selective DoF is employed to further isolate the subject.

xarqi wrote in post #16651718
What occurs is that to keep the subject the same size in the frame with a longer focal length, there must be more distance to the subject. The immediate effect is to reduce the effects of perspective rendering the captured relative sizes of features of the scene closer to their actual relative sizes. This is especially noticeable with portraits as we are very sensitive to the relative sizes of facial (and other) features.

Now, if you increase focal length, you increase magnification, which is why you have to stand back for the same subject framing. However, the background is also magnified by a greater amount, or to put it another way, less of it is included in the frame. This is the effect called "compression". It can dramatically simplify the background in portraits, especially when selective DoF is employed to further isolate the subject.

That makes perfect sense. So it would be called wide angle 'decompression' Rather than my incorrect usage of 'distortion' As opposed to a narrower and more pleasing (85mm) compression of the facial features and background.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16651771
That makes perfect sense. So it would be called wide angle 'decompression' Rather than my incorrect usage of 'distortion' As opposed to a narrower and more pleasing (85mm) compression of the facial features and background.

It's a tiny bit different in reverse. It's not just that there is more, and potentially 'busier' background included with a wider lens for the same subject framing - the "decompression" aspect, but that wider field of view encompassing that background, with potentially more recognisable objects in it, makes it more likely that the effects of perspective may be more obvious, as in your door frame example, the "distortion" aspect.

I'm a big fan of the 24L, I've seen it used for some awesome astro photography shots. For portraits it's got very minimal distortion and it's incredibly sharp.

lenslends wrote in post #16652238
I'm a big fan of the 24L, I've seen it used for some awesome astro photography shots. For portraits it's got very minimal distortion and it's incredibly sharp.

I have never tried any astro shots, but I have seen some amazing work with the 24L by some pros on here.

Everythin xarqi said regarding distortion is true. The lens itself is PHENOMONAL regarding distortion at such a wide FL. Any architecture not shot with care will be distorted with any wide lens, and xarqi explained why it is less with longer FL.