Recently went FF and returned to Canon, lens advice appreciated.

Salutations fellow Canonites!

I recently got my hands on a Canon EOS 1Ds which has it's shutter block replaced and serviced by Canon at quite an incredible price. However now I am at a stand-still as to what lenses I should mount on to it. Starting fresh in this day and age, I've used a plethora of Canon L primes (14mm 2.8L II, 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L, 85mm 1.2L II, and the 135mm 2L) and know these are all very capable lenses, but never used any of them over a FF sensor -- only a 1.3x crop (ref. 1D Mark III). Unfortunately, I no longer have the Canon gear I did a year ago so I am quite literally starting fresh in the dSLR market but my heart belongs to Canon so here I am.

I shoot primarily on-location/studio portraiture and for fun, do some rural landscape work and fine art photography (as subjective as that may be). For my portraiture work, I do use off-camera lighting but I'm not sure if that is relevant to my inquiry or not; just trying to cover all bases here. Anyways, so here's the question...

What lens would you suggest to someone who has a 1D series body, true angle-of-view advantage of full-frame coupled w/100% VF coverage and shoots the subjects that I do?

I have a preference for primes, but it is not essential that the suggest be one.

Thank you to all who lend me their advice for near-future purchasing ventures!

Back in the film days, 75mm - 85mm was reckoned to be a good length for portraits. Not sure if Canon produces a prime around that sort of focal length. As for landscape, I'd have thought 24mm or wider should fit the bill.

Sorarse wrote in post #9932288
Back in the film days, 75mm - 85mm was reckoned to be a good length for portraits. Not sure if Canon produces a prime around that sort of focal length. As for landscape, I'd have thought 24mm or wider should fit the bill.

I'll agree that 85mm was a great for portraiture, my experience with it was on a 1.3x crop which gave it more of an angle-of-view similar to a 135mm lens on FF.

I guess what I'm looking for here are specific lens models and makes that serve the 1D series and FF well.

I do own primes but my 24-105L IS sees a lot of camera-time. I've used it for everything from landscapes to portraits. You may want to at least consider it because it can cover several focal lengths and is quite capable.

85mm 1.2L
135mm 2.0L
100mm 2.8L

All great primes.

Well, for portraits on full frame, I shoot the 50L, 85L, 135L and 200L (the f/2.8.) as well as an 80mm Zeiss Biometar and a 180mm Zeiss Sonnar. Every one of those lenses is spectacular and every one has its uses.

Specifically what sort of portraiture do you do?

seaside wrote in post #9932369
I do own primes but my 24-105L IS sees a lot of camera-time. I've used it for everything from landscapes to portraits. You may want to at least consider it because it can cover several focal lengths and is quite capable.

Would you say that the optic quality throughout the entire lens range is good or does it have a "sweat spot" area in the zoom that delivers a noticeably better IQ performance?

timbar21 wrote in post #9932378
85mm 1.2L
135mm 2.0L
100mm 2.8L

All great primes.

I know the 85mm 1.2L (I & II) are amazing optics, as well as the 135mm 2L. I'm a bit confused about the third one...are you referring to the 100mm 2.8 macro lens or has Canon released a 100mm L prime now?

Hermes wrote in post #9932383
Well, for portraits on full frame, I shoot the 50L, 85L, 135L and 200L (the f/2.8.) as well as an 80mm Zeiss Biometar and a 180mm Zeiss Sonnar. Every one of those lenses is spectacular and every one has its uses.

Specifically what sort of portraiture do you do?

I do everything from glamour shots to corporate head shots. I often use the ideology of subject-driven lighting when deciding on how I am going to light the individual. If I am going to be doing portraiture work that is light only by ambient light, I'm afraid I might find myself leaning towards the Seiko Epson R-D1s for use but I won't know until I give it a go with my 1Ds. The lumi-grain on the 1Ds from what I've seen reminds me a lot of the "noise" the R-D1s creates at higher ISO.

Do you need an adapter to mount Zeiss lenses these days on Canon or have the made a 'C' mount finally?

Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far!

saiminyaku wrote in post #9932458
Would you say that the optic quality throughout the entire lens range is good or does it have a "sweat spot" area in the zoom that delivers a noticeably better IQ performance?

I know the 85mm 1.2L (I & II) are amazing optics, as well as the 135mm 2L. I'm a bit confused about the third one...are you referring to the 100mm 2.8 macro lens or has Canon released a 100mm L prime now?


I do everything from glamour shots to corporate head shots. I often use the ideology of subject-driven lighting when deciding on how I am going to light the individual. If I am going to be doing portraiture work that is light only by ambient light, I'm afraid I might find myself leaning towards the Seiko Epson R-D1s for use but I won't know until I give it a go with my 1Ds. The lumi-grain on the 1Ds from what I've seen reminds me a lot of the "noise" the R-D1s creates at higher ISO.

Do you need an adapter to mount Zeiss lenses these days on Canon or have the made a 'C' mount finally?

Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far!

For your needs I'd say, 50 for glamour & full-body, 135 for headshots/close portraits.

The Zeiss lenses I use are pentacon six mount with Hartblei tilt adapters. Zeiss do now make a few lenses in Native Canon mount (ZE). The 100mm f/2 Makro Planar is the only one I'd even bother considering for portraits.

Hermes wrote in post #9932613
For your needs I'd say, 50 for glamour & full-body, 135 for headshots/close portraits.

The Zeiss lenses I use are pentacon six mount with Hartblei tilt adapters. Zeiss do now make a few lenses in Native Canon mount (ZE). The 100mm f/2 Makro Planar is the only one I'd even bother considering for portraits.

Thanks for your input, fellow portraiture shooter. I look forward to seeing to trying out the suggested focal lengths on my 1Ds but now I need to determine how I am to see them -- which lens(es) to choose.

After researching a mention of a 100mm 2.8L I came to notice that his post was indeed no typo and that such a lens did indeed exist and not only that, it is of the macro sort! I guess I have been away from the dSLR scene for longer than I thought, hahaha -- a lens I am most definitely considering.

I do miss the 85mm 1.2L greatly for it's ability to quite literally eat up light and separate the subject from the background while delivering a great bokeh in the process. At this time though, I cannot justify a $2,000.00 lens based on current finances.

Any other lenses I should take into consideration?

From what I've read and seen the 100L would be a excellent choice along with a 50mm. Back when I shot film, I used a 50 f1.2 and 105 f2.5 90% of the time for portrait work. On my 5D I do love my 135L & 35L trying to decide for myself which 50mm to go with, they all seem to have issues. I will probably end up with another Nikkor as they can be had for cheap.

If I were starting over and had your shooting needs, I think I'd go with an all prime set up. Some combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135mm lenses, preferably L's.

DavidR wrote in post #9933618
From what I've read and seen the 100L would be a excellent choice along with a 50mm. Back when I shot film, I used a 50 f1.2 and 105 f2.5 90% of the time for portrait work. On my 5D I do love my 135L & 35L trying to decide for myself which 50mm to go with, they all seem to have issues. I will probably end up with another Nikkor as they can be had for cheap.

Do you use many Nikkor lenses on your 5D? Which adapter do you use and how does the IQ chalk up when making a Nikkor a convertible lens of sorts?

Lyndon Chen wrote in post #9933811
If I were starting over and had your shooting needs, I think I'd go with an all prime set up. Some combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135mm lenses, preferably L's.

I was thinking the same myself. I was in love with the 24mm 1.4L (and now they have a Mark II), but the 50mm 1.2L is still without remedy it seems (and 35mm 1.4L remains an untouched piece of art). I know a 85mm 1.2L (I or II) will make it back into my camera gear arsenal one day; I imagine that day is farther away than I'd like it to be though.

The 100mm 2.8L is looking very appetizing for the time being but I know it's gonna send me itching to invest in to a wider focal length. Then again, I can use my R-D1s and the CV 35mm 1.4 which has an effective angle-of-view close to 50mm given the 1.5x crop factor the dRF.

Still itching for other people's input on this one.

Thank again to everyone who has contributed so far.

Lyndon Chen wrote in post #9933811
If I were starting over and had your shooting needs, I think I'd go with an all prime set up. Some combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135mm lenses, preferably L's.

i agree with lyndon. i would go with 35L, 85, and 135L for a ff camera

With my 5DMKII .... my favorite triptic
24L1.4II (Permanently ready to use on the body)
85L1.2 (My 135L2.0 is sleeping on the shell)
300L2.8 (I would prefer 200L2.0)

So we have a lot of prime enthusiasts still here at POTN, eh?

Any zoom shooters want to play devil's advocate?