Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Best Canon non-L lenses, wide to medium, for lifestyle/people/corporate/interior  (Read 3311 times)

NickJB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59

Pro commercial photographer.
Shoot 5D MkIII
Subjects are lifestyle, people, outdoor action sports, portraits, interiors, corporate, editorial etc.
While I love shooting wide open for the look, for a lot of my commercial work I often feel more comfortable shooting in the f3.5 - 5.6 range to ensure subjects are in focus.
Adding some primes to the zooms I use.
While I'd love to get L series lenses, the price difference between, lets say, the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4 is around $1000. That's money I'd rather spend on marketing my business if I could, but I'd love to get some opinions from colleagues on real world pros and cons of the non L series lenses in the 24mm to 100mm range, also maybe a macro lens for editorial work (food in restaurant shoots etc).
Which non L series lenses in this size bracket are the best?
Is there really a major difference in what I'll be delivering to clients between the L's and the best of the non-L's?

Many thanks for your opinions and thoughts!

Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest

Pro commercial photographer.
Shoot 5D MkIII
Subjects are lifestyle, people, outdoor action sports, portraits, interiors, corporate, editorial etc.
While I love shooting wide open for the look, for a lot of my commercial work I often feel more comfortable shooting in the f3.5 - 5.6 range to ensure subjects are in focus.
Adding some primes to the zooms I use.
While I'd love to get L series lenses, the price difference between, lets say, the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4 is around $1000. That's money I'd rather spend on marketing my business if I could, but I'd love to get some opinions from colleagues on real world pros and cons of the non L series lenses in the 24mm to 100mm range, also maybe a macro lens for editorial work (food in restaurant shoots etc).
Which non L series lenses in this size bracket are the best?
Is there really a major difference in what I'll be delivering to clients between the L's and the best of the non-L's?

Many thanks for your opinions and thoughts!



Most of the "L" Canon lenses are fast lenses for sport work. If you are not using large apertures, there seems to be little merit in acquiring them. The 1.2 50mm is not "better" than slower 50mm lenses, just faster. Why are you even considering it?

There are many lenses that could be used for your work. The "L" lenses may not always produce noticeably superior results at moderate apertures.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2014, 11:04:24 pm by melchiorpavone »
Logged

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828

a lot of my commercial work I often feel more comfortable shooting in the f3.5 - 5.6 range to ensure subjects are in focus.

Adding some primes to the zooms I use.

With that info, I would say skip the primes entirely and just get the Canon 24-70 II. It will be pretty much just as sharp as the primes, and will have better color/contrast/look than the non-L primes.

If you want to shoot below f/2.8 then start to think about fast primes.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250

I shoot zooms a lot for travel - 17-40 (to be replaced by 16-35 f4), 24-105, and 70-200 f4.
My favorite primes are the
   35 f2 IS - sharp wide open, accurate autofocus, and hand holdable to 1/6 sec or so
   85 f1.8
   90 ts
   100m macro - not really sharper than the old lens and equally slow autofocus, but IS is useful in some situations

I have the 200 f2.8 which is a good lens,but less useful all-round and not really sharper than the 70-200 f4
I sold my second copy of the 50 f1.4 (which was marginally better than the first) hoping for something like a new 50 f1.8 IS with performance comparable to the 35 f2 IS (stopped down to f4-f8 the 50 is fine, but so are a number of other lenses if you need that focal length)

the 100 f2 and new 24 and 28 get consistently good reviews if you need those focal lengths

except for the 50 f1.4, I've found the canon primes to have little lens-lens variation and require minimal microfocus adjustment compared to the 17-40 and 24-105
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686

During the time I used digital-era Canon gear (2003–2006) my favorite lens was the 100/2. A stellar portrait lens…wish I'd hung onto it. My 50/1.4 was good enough optically but a total PITA AF-wise. I've written before here about destroying it with a sledgehammer (I had good reasons). I did keep the 70–300mm DO, but it's a unique lens with a distinctive low-ish contrast look. Might work for fine art but likely not so well for most commercial projects.

-Dave-
Logged

tcphoto1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
    • http://www.tonyclarkphoto.com

I specialize in food images and after year of non L lenses, I have retooled my kit to consist of the 35, 50 and 135L's. I find that there is simply a different look to the files in terms of color and contrast whether you're shooting nearly wide open or closed down a little.

If you are set on non L's I can recommend the new 35/2 IS, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660

yep, 35 (w/IS no less) and 85 1.8 are superb  and very light on the wallet compared to their faster siblings.

if you don't look at EXIF I'll bet it will be difficult for you to tell which is which between the "L" and 1.8
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com

The 35/2 (IS) is a pretty specatcular lens, and I've seen it used at KEH for under $500. Great deal. The 85/1.8 is also excellent, but let me put in a plug for the 100/2, as I prefer the slightly longer focal length for portraits. The 50/1.4 is very old, and rumors of its replacement have been around for years. But it's a fine lens and quite good at f/2.8 or f/4. I did not like the 28/1.8 though some people love it.

All that said, the suggestion to buy the latest 24-70/2.8 II is a good one. It's as good or better than the Canon primes, especially if you stop down to f/3.5 or f/4. Just an all-around fantastic lens.

I have sold almost all of my Canon primes, keeping only the 50/1.2 and the 85/1.2 and a twenty year old 300/2.8. Anything that requires lights or fast AF gets a Canon with one of the L-series zooms. The latest versions are plenty good enough for me.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/
Pages: [1]   Go Up