lens help!

Hey everyone,
i want to get a new lens. I want an L lens. Which one would be best for my 50d. I like to take Fashion type photos, editorial type stuff and headshots...i was thinking about the 135L but someone suggested the 85L but that 2,000 a little pricey! let me know your thoughts. thanks everyone!

The 135L is ideal for head shots but could be a little too long on a crop sensor being slightly over 200mm in full frame equivalent with the 1.6 x factor. For portraiture on full frame the focal range 80mm to 135 is the norm with 200mm considered a last resort. Another lens to consider is the 100mm ef macro L which has the advantage of IS.

Will an L-lens let you make better pictures, make you feel better when using it, or start a thirst for many more L-lenses?

You can get a 50 1.4, 85 1.8 AND the 135L for the price of the 85L, think about it.

maybe 35L + 135L or 50L + 135L for only a little bit more

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #10268402
maybe 35L + 135L or 50L + 135L for only a little bit more

I presume that the smiley indicates that "little bit" means "quite a lot". Anyway, why would you want a 50L? It costs ~13 times what the 50 mm f/1.8 II costs, is a lot heavier, and you'd be out of a lot more money if you lost it. I bet you it's a lot lighter as well, and you wouldn't worry a lot about losing it, seeing as it is comparatively cheap. There is also the 50 1.4, which costs about 4 times what the 1.8 costs, and about 1/7th of the 1.2.

He doesn't need the 50L at all. I highly doubt that he will need an aperture of f/1.2 for fictional low-light fashion-shots. And if you're about to mention that it will probably be sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8, you may reconsider doing so.

Don't get an L to get an L.

50mm f/1.4 + 135L or 35L + 85mm f/1.8

I wish Sigma made L lenses, not because I am unhappy with them.. I'd just like to tell people they are L lenses.

DStanic wrote in post #10270856
I wish Sigma made L lenses, not because I am unhappy with them.. I'd just like to tell people they are L lenses.

Why?

Jonta wrote in post #10270630
I presume that the smiley indicates that "little bit" means "quite a lot". Anyway, why would you want a 50L? It costs ~13 times what the 50 mm f/1.8 II costs, is a lot heavier, and you'd be out of a lot more money if you lost it. I bet you it's a lot lighter as well, and you wouldn't worry a lot about losing it, seeing as it is comparatively cheap. There is also the 50 1.4, which costs about 4 times what the 1.8 costs, and about 1/7th of the 1.2.

He doesn't need the 50L at all. I highly doubt that he will need an aperture of f/1.2 for fictional low-light fashion-shots. And if you're about to mention that it will probably be sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8, you may reconsider doing so.

Don't get an L to get an L.

hmm yeah.. why would anyone want to buy those L lenses in the first place? I mean the kit 18-55 IS lens is about 10 times cheaper than either the 24-105L and 24-70L I have had the ef 50 f1.8II and sold it after a month because it's totally crappy build, slow and loud af, crappy bokeh, no grip at all when mounted on a larger camera etc etc etc. I wasn't being sarcastic at all in my previous post because for the price of a new 85L you can probably get a used 50L and a 135L

DStanic wrote in post #10270856
I wish Sigma made L lenses, not because I am unhappy with them.. I'd just like to tell people they are L lenses.

you could always tell them about your special EX lenses...

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #10289976
hmm yeah.. why would anyone want to buy those L lenses in the first place?

Mainly because people think they need them, not realizing that they are the limiting factor in their photography.

I mean the kit 18-55 IS lens is about 10 times cheaper than either the 24-105L and 24-70L

True. It's also a lot cheaper than the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II, Which, like the 24-105 and 24-70, isn't meant for the same tasks as the 18-55. So comparing these is rather silly.

(I'll hazard a guess, and assume you've already listed all your arguments here, and just put in some etc.s to impress upon people that you had more than enough reasons to discard the lens.) Yes, I'm sure there are many people who don't like this lens. But it is close to impossible to overlook all the people who love this lens. And there's still the 1.4. One of these two is probably right for him, and on the offchance that it isn't, they're quite cheap. I can see people wanting to defend their purchasingdecisions though. They're all over POTN.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all in my previous post because for the price of a new 85L you can probably get a used 50L and a 135L

Sure thing. I didn't check the prices, and based my assumption solely on the smiley you put there. My main point was: "Why get a 50L?"

Jonta
Shooting pigeons with cannons, since 1990

(punpreventionsquad: "Or Canons!")

Jonta wrote in post #10290564
Mainly because people think they need them, not realizing that they are the limiting factor in their photography.

This is indeed true for almost all hobbies/industries. Guys with tricked out cars just to be smoked by a hoopty. Just the way of the world. People want to look for any other reason to blame but themselves.

jp129 wrote in post #10290590
This is indeed true for almost all hobbies/industries. Guys with tricked out cars just to be smoked by a hoopty. Just the way of the world. People want to look for any other reason to blame but themselves.

Correct. A lot of people know this, we just need to bring the knowledge and realisation to the newbies as well.

Nice signature btw. (For future reference: Driver > Glass > Body)

Jonta wrote in post #10290564
Mainly because people think they need them, not realizing that they are the limiting factor in their photography.True. It's also a lot cheaper than the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II, Which, like the 24-105 and 24-70, isn't meant for the same tasks as the 18-55. So comparing these is rather silly.(I'll hazard a guess, and assume you've already listed all your arguments here, and just put in some etc.s to impress upon people that you had more than enough reasons to discard the lens.) Yes, I'm sure there are many people who don't like this lens. But it is close to impossible to overlook all the people who love this lens. And there's still the 1.4. One of these two is probably right for him, and on the offchance that it isn't, they're quite cheap. I can see people wanting to defend their purchasingdecisions though. They're all over POTN.Sure thing. I didn't check the prices, and based my assumption solely on the smiley you put there. My main point was: "Why get a 50L?"

Jonta
Shooting pigeons with cannons, since 1990

(punpreventionsquad: "Or Canons!")

I believe the 24-105L and 24-70L cover the same focal range on the FF as the ef-s 18-55 on a crop. Well if you really want to compare an EF-S lens to another how about the 17-55 IS USM lens? It's about the same price range as the Ls so why are people buying them? hmm are you trying to say that those of us who own L lenses are bunch of amateurs who will remain newbies with very limited knowledge about photography for the rest of our lives? Then of course I couldn't help but wonder how many photos you have taken with a EF 50mm f1.2L lens or with any other L lenses.