Need Help Picking Next Lens?

So I have been looking into getting a lens to photograph individual portraits and our new Shih Tzu puppy. Searching around I am a bit confused so I need some help.

I have the 24-105 which works great for landscape, group photos, and studio portrait shots. However, when I get in low light and flash is not allowed or really want to isolate the subject from a close proximity background I have some difficulties.

Budget: $2000

Equipment: Gear List

Lenses Looked at:
85 f/1.2 - great lens but people mention slow AF?
85 f/18 - faster AF with great optics?
50 f/1.2 - people say go with the f/1.4?
Macros - macro has always interested me plus it doubles as portrait lens.

Any help would be greatly appreciated...Jeff

.

Any of those would work well. You might add the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Very sharp and works well for a portrait lens if you got a little more room and dont mind softening at times because it will show every pore.

With that kind of budget it sounds like you really want the best. So I would look at one of the L's. 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L or 135mm f2L if you have the room (probably not indoors). 50 1.2 and a seperate macro lens like the canon 100mm f2.8 would still come in under budget. The 85L is legendary, though, but again it needs more room indoors and with a non-full frame camera.

gjl711 wrote in post #7855370
Any of those would work well. You might add the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Very sharp and works well for a portrait lens if you got a little more room and dont mind softening at times because it will show every pore.

Some vary nice photos from other members with this lens. Reading through some post it looks like members are fond of the 100mm f/2 also... Thanks for the suggestion...Jeff

tkbslc wrote in post #7856190
With that kind of budget it sounds like you really want the best.

I had to learn the hard way. When I first started I limited everything by how much money I had at that impatient moment. I went from XTi to 40d to 50d, 50mm f/1.8 to 28-135mm to 24-105, 100-400 to 300 f/2.8, Benro tripod to Gitzo. Its painful to even type that. Now I just wait a little longer and get the higher end equipment right from the get go, saves me money in the long run. Thanks for suggestions, I will be cross eyed by tonight ...Jeff

You have very impressive lenses!
Have you thought about upgrading your body to 1D or FF?
You could sell your 10-22, get the 17-40 (or 16-35)
and either get a 1DIIn or 5D classic with your budget.
Plus, if you sell your current body, you could even get the 5D MarkII

Or... if you don't want to upgrade your body...
Have you thought about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS?
It's quite possibly the best overall lens for cropped bodies.
Looks like in your lineup, you don't have a lens for low-light/indoor use, which it would perform extremely well in. Best part is, you save $1K for other glass like the 50 f/1.2 or 85 1.8 + others.

With your budget, it's hard to go wrong

I'd go for the 85 1.8 for sure. If you could afford the 1.2 mk2 then go for it. I read somewhere that the MK2 is almost as fast as the 1.8. That was one of the reasons for making the MK2. Also, I've heard very good things about the 100 F2 which is the big brother of the 85 1.8. Good luck with your choice,

Ron

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];7857068']You have very impressive lenses!
Have you thought about upgrading your body to 1D or FF?
You could sell your 10-22, get the 17-40 (or 16-35)
and either get a 1DIIn or 5D classic with your budget.
Plus, if you sell your current body, you could even get the 5D MarkII

Or... if you don't want to upgrade your body...
Have you thought about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS?
It's quite possibly the best overall lens for cropped bodies.
Looks like in your lineup, you don't have a lens for low-light/indoor use, which it would perform extremely well in. Best part is, you save $1K for other glass like the 50 f/1.2 or 85 1.8 + others.

With your budget, it's hard to go wrong

I am holding out for the 1DMKIV . Before I bought the 50D I gave some serious thought to a new body but ended up getting the 300mm f/2.8 instead.
Looking through post I did see mention of the 17-55 and gave it some thought. I just can't get over how sharp the 85 f/1.2 is wide open. Just a little scared of the shallow DOF, arghhh, decisions, decisions. How do you like your Sigma 50mm? Thanks for the suggestions...Jeff

jerokaz wrote in post #7858313
I'd go for the 85 1.8 for sure. If you could afford the 1.2 mk2 then go for it. I read somewhere that the MK2 is almost as fast as the 1.8. That was one of the reasons for making the MK2. Also, I've heard very good things about the 100 F2 which is the big brother of the 85 1.8. Good luck with your choice,

Ron

I was reading the same thing about the 85 f/1.2 on FM. I think I need to stop reading and just buy it . If you had the money would you sell your 1.8 and get a 1.2 or are you completely happy with it? Thanks for your help...Jeff

I'm happy with my 1.8,(my wife is looking over my shoulder), so if I had the money, I'd buy her a big diamond ring............... Or a big white lens with a red ring around it, 2.8...............

Good luck,

Ron

jerokaz wrote in post #7858633
I'm happy with my 1.8,(my wife is looking over my shoulder), so if I had the money, I'd buy her a big diamond ring............... Or a big white lens with a red ring around it, 2.8...............

Good luck,

Ron

ROFLMAO