Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mollycusack on November 17, 2013, 06:30:51 am
-
I have a Canon 5D Mark three a 50mm lens and a 24-70 mm lens and I am after a new portrait lens.
I'd be using it predominantly for weddings and environmental portraits.
can anyone please give me any suggestions as to which one I should consider? I'm thinking about a prime fix lens.
Thanks
Molly
-
Sure thing. The Canon 85mm f/1.8, and the Canon 100mm f/2.0 are excellent choices, and not very expensive. The Canon 135mm f/2.0 is wonderful, too, but might be a little too long depending on your style and what you want to shoot. My personal preference is for something in the 100mm range, as I think the 85 is a little too wide on a full frame sensor. Also, the 85 is awfully close to the long end of your zoom, so maybe the 100 would work for you, too.
If money is absolutely no object, the Canon 85mm f/1.2 is completely awesome, but it's really best used under controlled conditions as it's hard to focus accurately during an event. Well, at least I find it so.
(Finally, when you get one of these lenses, you'll want to do the AF micro adjustment on your camera, to make sure it's focusing accurately to begin with. It's easy enough to do (http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/af_microadjustment_article.shtml), though somewhat time consuming.)
-
Wedding???
Canon 85mm f/1.2 really has no peer. You can crop the overhang, you cannot "add" framing. Sigma has new lens down there tha many are raving about IIRC. But resale of non-system brands always haunts me
Add a light 50 (cheap f/1.4, I don't like the feel of the 1.8 no matter what Rockwell says) and a 28-35 range prime. AF here isn't as important due to depth of focus of these guys, but since you're selling pics you want as many snappy shots as possible so the AF 35 1.4 is great.
The 50 is light, the other two... well a bit heftier.
With good glass cropping is no big deal, but YMMV
-
when i still had my canon gear, for events like weddings i used the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 135 f/2.0. you can cover everything with this combination, and without carrying excessive weight (ok the zoom isn't light but you probably wouldn't want to be without it).
i had the 85 as well but felt it was too close to the long end of the zoom so reserved it for exclusively portrait sessions only. the 135 really helps as it gives you that bit more reach across a larger room that the zoom is lacking. it's also an awesome lens in its own right.
then for portraits you can either use the longer end of the zoom or the 135, depending on situation and what you're after.
-
Photographers always think the best lens for anything is always the one they don't own :)
-
Photographers always think the best lens for anything is always the one they don't own :)
Very good point!
One thing, I used to only own and shoot primes. With weddings, you might consider having a high quality zoom. That way you can better handle and capture good images in spontaneous situations. With todays quality in the best zooms, there really is not a big compromise.
-
The following recommendations are based on shooting with other full frame Canon cameras, the EOS 1Ds Mark III and the 1D X:
EF 85mm f/1.8: great lens and compared to the price of the half stop faster option, a bargain.
Canon EF 135mm f2L: peerless performance from wide open to deeply stopped down coupled with how this focal length lens "draws" perspective with portraits (this is based on the increased subject to camera distance for the same framing compared to shorter focal lengths) is something my clients find very flattering.
-
Do you have much experience with the Zeiss MF's?
The following recommendations are based on shootign wiht other full frame Canon cameras, the EOS 1Ds Mark III and the 1D X:
EF 85mm f/1.8: great lens and compared to the price of the half stop faster option, a bargain.
Canon EF135mm f2L: peerless performance from wide open to deeply stopped down coupled with how this focal length lens "draws" perspective with portraits (this is based on the increased subject to camera distance for the same framing compared to shorter focal lengths) is something my clients find very flattering.
-
The 85mm 1.8 was my go to lens for years when shooting weddings, a great all purpose portrait lens than rarely is found wanting. I did however prefer the drawing style of the 100mm f2 and wish my 85mm had it. Just a touch softer and more pleasant. The 85L of course is the king of gorgeous rendering for a short telephoto portrait lens IMO.
-
For most of the wedding day (the preparation, ceremony and reception) I have a 24-105 and 70-200 mounted. There is always a lot happening in a lot of different places so the zoom is fairly critical. If I have more time or the lighting demands it (I love those dark churches where they don't allow flash...) then on goes a faster prime.
I had an 85mm F1.8 and it was lovely, especially for the price. I may get another. But I prefer the flexibility of a zoom unless i'm doing only taking photos of a single person.
-
Hi Molly
For weddings I use my 85mm 1.8 a lot - I leave my wife to lug the 70-200 these days - I like to travel light (is that possible with a 1Ds?). For location portrait shoots I usually now only use the 85 and rarely anything else. Outdoors I can run back and forth to get my zoom and the 85 is so small and light I love it. I did once yearn for the 1.2 but when I tried it I found it heavy and slow to focus. So for once cheap is good - for me anyway.
This shoot I did a couple of weeks ago was all shot on the 85 1.8 except for one picture - the one of the family around the gnarled tree which was shot on a Zeiss 50mm f2.
http://jimpascoephotography.zenfolio.com/kavanagh (http://jimpascoephotography.zenfolio.com/kavanagh)
Regarding the 135mm f2 - it is a beautiful lens, but I just find it too long for a fixed focal length. But it does all depend on your shooting style.
Jim
-
I do not understand why everyone thinks that a prime is the only way to go for portrait photography. This is a relatively recent development with the copycat trend of shallow DOF and out of focus facial features. The longer the lens the larger the aperture can be and still have the background out of focus and a pleasing bokeh. The 70-200mm f2.8 is more effective in more situations than a 85mm prime, the lens everyone makes a kneejerk response and buys.
With Canon another very nice lens is the 24-105mm f4 IS lens. Effective in low light and with the ability to have a slower shutter speed while shooting at f5.6 or f8 as may be needed to have adequate DOF when camera to subject distances are limited.
Check the DOF tables for different focal lengths and apertures and compare that to the working distances you normally encounter with weddings and with outdoor work. For outdoors the 24-105mm would be the shortest lens I would want to use. The more you can crop in camera the less post processing work will be needed and with wedding photography the time required is already way out of hand. In this regard digital has been more of a curse compared to the days shooting weddings with film.
-
Lots of choices here.
70-200mm's are popular and useful for portraits (take your pick f2.8/f4 will do fine too) various offerings from third party makers too
85mm f1.4/1.8
Some use a macro lens anything from 90mm to 105mm will be decent
I think the 70-200mm would be most useful for weddings (if you are into longer shots not everyone is)
Quite a few folks have a prime too, really depends on the speed you want/price/size
-
I do not understand why everyone thinks that a prime is the only way to go for portrait photography. This is a relatively recent development with the copycat trend of shallow DOF and out of focus facial features. The longer the lens the larger the aperture can be and still have the background out of focus and a pleasing bokeh. The 70-200mm f2.8 is more effective in more situations than a 85mm prime, the lens everyone makes a kneejerk response and buys.
With Canon another very nice lens is the 24-105mm f4 IS lens. Effective in low light and with the ability to have a slower shutter speed while shooting at f5.6 or f8 as may be needed to have adequate DOF when camera to subject distances are limited.
Check the DOF tables for different focal lengths and apertures and compare that to the working distances you normally encounter with weddings and with outdoor work. For outdoors the 24-105mm would be the shortest lens I would want to use. The more you can crop in camera the less post processing work will be needed and with wedding photography the time required is already way out of hand. In this regard digital has been more of a curse compared to the days shooting weddings with film.
Not sure that "everyone thinks prime lenses are the way to go". But for me they have become my preferred option. I have had a 70-200 2.8 for 12 years and shot hundreds of weddings and portrait shoots with it. However I now use an 85 for most of that work. I'm sure you have compared the weight of the Canon 70-200 2.8 with the Canon 85 1.8. One is like lugging a house-brick around, the other can fit easily in a jacket pocket and weighs next to nothing. Have you noticed the price difference too. In addition, a small lens is much less ostentatious in many situations and for portrait shoots (outdoors) it is easy to frame by walking forwards or backwards. Shallow depth of field may be a copycat trend to you, but I have shot that way for a very long time. I was using prime lenses on a Mamiya RB67 a long time ago. And anyway - the 85mm does have the ability to be stopped down to a smaller aperture too. You cannot open an f4 lens up to f2. I would not claim one lens is better than another, but for me I have made my choice and the OP is asking for opinions.
Jim
-
You need to check that the camera you get can focus whatever you need to use in the appropriate light conditions. In other words you need to test; specs alone do not predict what will happen.
A very interesting $350 combo wide open is a Rebel with a $100 50/1.8. You can get the Rebel cheaply preowned, the lens I would buy new as they are sensitive to drops.
The 85/1.2 and 135/2 work reliably on cameras with good focus. I don't know if the 5D3 is one of these, the 5D2 is not. The 1Ds2 and earlier have an issue in that they have no fine focus adjustment and therefore may need to be sent back for adjustment with these lenses.
Edmund
-
The 135L is one of the fastest focuing lenses I've ever used, on everything from a 5D (good), 5D2 (less good), 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3 (GREAT).
The 85 1.2II is slowish but accurate on a 5D, same on the 5D2, and great on the 1ds series. Its not an easy lens to use, at first. At F2.2 the focusing errors, however slight, are generally covered by DOF.
You need to check that the camera you get can focus whatever you need to use in the appropriate light conditions. In other words you need to test; specs alone do not predict what will happen.
A very interesting $350 combo wide open is a Rebel with a $100 50/1.8. You can get the Rebel cheaply preowned, the lens I would buy new as they are sensitive to drops.
The 85/1.2 and 135/2 work reliably on cameras with good focus. I don't know if the 5D3 is one of these, the 5D2 is not. The 1Ds2 and earlier have an issue in that they have no fine focus adjustment and therefore may need to be sent back for adjustment with these lenses.
Edmund
-
The 135L is one of the fastest focuing lenses I've ever used, on everything from a 5D (good), 5D2 (less good), 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3 (GREAT).
The 85 1.2II is slowish but accurate on a 5D, same on the 5D2, and great on the 1ds series. Its not an easy lens to use, at first. At F2.2 the focusing errors, however slight, are generally covered by DOF.
At 1.2 the focusing errors are certainly *not* covered by DOF :P
Image below taken at very high ISO shows the typical falloff pattern of the 135. There is unfortunately no iris detail due to my incompetent focus, and the high ISO and very bad light under which this image made. As we all know, the 85 has an incredible 1.5 stops (!) advantage over the fast 135, and needs to be focused with great care.
Edmund
-
"I do not understand why everyone thinks that a prime is the only way to go for portrait photography. This is a relatively recent development with the copycat trend of shallow DOF and out of focus facial features. "
So true. At least for me as it has been my preferred way of working ( using smaller lighter weight, larger maximum aperture to make focusing easier even if I shoot well stopped down, single focal length rather than bigger, bulkier and heavier, zoom lenses with smaller maximun aperture zooms) for only the past thirty years. I guess I'm the cat everyone has been copying. :)
"The 70-200mm f2.8 is more effective in more situations than a 85mm prime"z
I have both. Both have their place. With portraits I want to get the gear out of the clients face as much as possible and let's be honest: any 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is a big hunk of metal and glass to stick into someone's face from a short distance away and while backing off to shoot the same framing of the main subject at 200mm it has it's aesthetic advantages (compressing perspective, moderating the degree of background detail), the further away I am the less psychological contact I have with the sitter.
"With Canon another very nice lens is the 24-105mm f4 IS lens."
I've had three and rented two or three others. None met my criteria. Nice decent lens. nice range of focal lengths, but ultimately it's a lens that doesn't work for me.
"The more you can crop in camera the less post processing work will be needed and with wedding photography the time required is already way out of hand. In this regard digital has been more of a curse compared to the days shooting weddings with film."
On that I agree with you whole heartedly.
-
It's not really usable at 1.2, at least reliably, and certainly not with AF. I've used the 85L for a long time. It certainly works better with a 1ds series body. At 1.8 it works well.
At 1.2 the focusing errors are certainly *not* covered by DOF :P
Image below taken at very high ISO shows the typical falloff pattern of the 135. There is unfortunately no iris detail due to my incompetent focus, and the high ISO and very bad light under which this image made. As we all know, the 85 has an incredible 1.5 stops (!) advantage over the fast 135, and needs to be focused with great care.
Edmund
-
It's not really usable at 1.2, at least reliably, and certainly not with AF. I've used the 85L for a long time. It certainly works better with a 1ds series body. At 1.8 it works well.
I published a bunch of fashion show images taken with the old version of this lens, and at one point used it for much of my own work.
As I remember, in a strong close up, my trick was using single point AF to bring an eye into focus, and then moving my head until the precise spot I wanted was sharp.
It's one of the rare lenses with strong personality and sharpness combined, and in fact cheaper than most MF lenses ...
Edmund
-
with the Canon 24-105 F4 lens - at F8...in Janakpur, Nepal in early December 2013
I have a love-hate relationship with this lens...It covers a lot of focal lengths, has IS, and is relatively small compared to others in this range - a great travel lens and if I lose (damage) it, it won't make me cry to replace it. On the other hand, I wish I had the Tamron 24-70 IS F2.8 or the new canon F2.8...
-
with the Canon 24-105 F4 lens - at F8...in Janakpur, Nepal in early December 2013
I have a love-hate relationship with this lens...It covers a lot of focal lengths, has IS, and is relatively small compared to others in this range - a great travel lens and if I lose (damage) it, it won't make me cry to replace it. On the other hand, I wish I had the Tamron 24-70 IS F2.8 or the new canon F2.8...
I have two 24-105 lenses (two cameras, backup). I recently got the new 24-70 2.8 II.....it has not been off my camera since. You do not have to pixel-peek to see the difference....very impressive glass.
-
The 135L is one of the fastest focuing lenses I've ever used, on everything from a 5D (good), 5D2 (less good), 1ds, 1ds2, 1ds3 (GREAT).
The 85 1.2II is slowish but accurate on a 5D, same on the 5D2, and great on the 1ds series. Its not an easy lens to use, at first. At F2.2 the focusing errors, however slight, are generally covered by DOF.
I can't really explain this, but some lenses just work well with some cameras. I guess because cameras are now the film.
Anyway.
I don't think just the focusing properties really match the look of a camera to lens. I have the 1.8 and 1.2, used the 1.8 like crazy with the 1ds1, less so with the 1ds2,3 and not because of shooting wide open it just seems the 1.2 stopped down is prettier the later 1 series than the first 1ds. I know that probably makes no sense but it does to me.
I use the contax 55mm all the time in horizontal orientation.
Kathy Ryan would love it if every photo was taken with New York available light and 50mm, with orange cheeks, and crushed down darks for the "I use to do heroin" now I live with my parents in Queens look.
That look really wouldn't apply to a portrait studio in Omaha.
I think one thing that is important is to stick with one lens, especially for personal work. There is something that happens when you only use one lens. You start seeing the world through that frame and only that frame.
Switching lens all the time is like dating three people at once. Eventually your going to get their names mixed up.
Maybe that's why I hate zooms (though I use the damn things).
IMO
BC
-
Allegretto asked me: "Do you have much experience with the Zeiss MF's?"
A bit. It depends on how you define "much". I think I have enough that I would not recommend the longer focal length ones for shooting a wedding with. The problem is not the lenses (they are great optical instruments and feel great in the hand) but manual focusing using the viewfinder on today's DSLRs . Maybe it's my eyes but I find a well tuned AF system (I tune the phase-based autofocus systems in my cameras' to the AF lenses I deploy by using a LensAlign Mark II target and FocusTune software combination) is consistently more accurately than manually focusing through the viewfinder.
-
Kathy gets roped in by hype.
Kathy Ryan would love it if every photo was taken with New York available light and 50mm, with orange cheeks, and crushed down darks for the "I use to do heroin" now I live with my parents in Queens look.
That look really wouldn't apply to a portrait studio in Omaha.
BC
-
Do either of you ever work with Kathy?
-
In another life.
Do either of you ever work with Kathy?
-
Kathy gets roped in by hype.
Ya think?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/wQkllR1tUeph8eqh0OGzvWsTo1_400.jpg)\\
-
Perfect.
She usually has three catagories of images: SVA MFA flavor of the month, usually looks like cheap versions of Jurgen Teller/Soth/Platon/Mary Mark/Martin Schoeller/T-Bone; relatively unknown shooter who is REALLY GOOD; and the usual suspects of editorial guys/gals, namely Jurgen Teller/Soth/Platon/Mary Mark/Martin Schoeller/T-Bone.
Ya think?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/wQkllR1tUeph8eqh0OGzvWsTo1_400.jpg)\\
-
Perfect.
She usually has three catagories of images: SVA MFA flavor of the month, usually looks like cheap versions of Jurgen Teller/Soth/Platon/Mary Mark/Martin Schoeller/T-Bone; relatively unknown shooter who is REALLY GOOD; and the usual suspects of editorial guys/gals, namely Jurgen Teller/Soth/Platon/Mary Mark/Martin Schoeller/T-Bone.
I like the work of all the photographers you mentioned, but from the cover I posted I'm amazed any of these subjects made the cover because I don't think they've hosted Saturday Night Live and at least one person is smiling.
Photojournalism has fallen.
BC
-
Is that a low rent pastiche bargain basement austerity cover? Only I don't get all yank cultural references.
-
I like all the shooters I've mentioned very much. I see some people Kathy uses who are, uh hum, influenced by the shooters I mentioned.
And yes, the NYT Mag is for the most part far, far from photojournalism.
I like the work of all the photographers you mentioned, but from the cover I posted I'm amazed any of these subjects made the cover because I don't think they've hosted Saturday Night Live and at least one person is smiling.
Photojournalism has fallen.
BC
-
If you are looking to shoot weddings, any kind of event action do not spend the money on the 85MM 1.2. I have it, I love it, autofocus is slow and terrible, the lens is incredible though.
As someone mentioned the 100MM F2.8 Macro is a great portrait lens, as is the 135 F2, the 70-200 is a great lens to add to your 24-70.
-
Agreee. Damn it, there are hunreds of lens ;D
-
I shot a gig last week. 5D3 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS was my main stay. It basically gets the job done. AF is reliable. The zoom give me the flexibility and f2.8 is sharp enough for most applications.
After I ticked off the money shots with the zoom I used my zeiss 100MP and new world class zeiss 135mm f2 Sonnar for a few. Wow, I nailed the manual focus on the leading eye with the 135mm @ f2 and the images were out of this world!
There is no right or wrong lens just what ever the photographer is comfortable with to get the job done.
-
In terms of a prime lens on a full frame camera my preferred lens is the Nikon 105mm f2 DC. It provides a better working distance than the 85mm and it is still short enough to be easily used indoors. I dislike the 85mm when I was using a crop camera that turned it into a 135mm focal length as indoors it was often too long. Outdoors I use the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm zooms.
It seems that few people think of the 70-200mm f2.8 as a portrait or people lens but it is in fact excellent for this purpose. Nice bokeh and blurred out backgrounds thanks to the shallower DOF with the longer focal length. A 50mm lens may need f2 for shallow DOF but at 150-200mm a smaller aperture can be used to the same effect.
An excellent Nikon lens is the 24-105mm f4 IS lens but it is too slow for general wedding photography during the ceremony or reception. I rented one and used it for 15 minutes during a reception and took it off as it was too slow for the available light. With low light my cameras need f2.8 glass to focus fast enough to catch the shots with proper framing. Outdoors the 24-105mm is not as good a choice as the 70-200mm lens.
I would not bother with the 70-200mm f4 lens as it is not fast enough for use in photographing wedding ceremonies or receptions 100% of the time whereas the f2.8 version is fast enough even in dimly lit churches, which seems to be the rule, and candle lit receptions which are also commonplace.
With both weddings and engagement sessions one needs to be taking pictures and not frequently changing lenses. With two cameras during the bridal prep I will have the 105mm on one camera and the 24-70mm on the other and I do not need to make a lens change. I have the option of switching out the 24-70mm for a 14-24mm 2.8 lens (or with Canon I used the much less sharp 16-35mm f2.8) for broader environmental shots during the prep, ceremony, and reception. For engagement shoots the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm are all that is needed if used properly with care as to the backgrounds, shooting angles, and apertures used.
If in doubt about the usefulness of a particular lens it pays to rent one for a week and try it out. It is inexpensive to do this and you avoid the risk of having something you will seldom use and end up selling at a loss in a year's time.
I can get all the shots my clients want with the 16mm fisheye, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, and a +4 Closeup lens that I use on both zooms. I used to carry along a macro lens and 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm primes. The primes were completely unnecessary and more of a crutch than must have lenses with today's cameras. 10 years ago f1.4 primes were essential but the autofocus and high ISO capabilities of DSLR's has greatly improved since that time.
-
In terms of a prime lens on a full frame camera my preferred lens is the Nikon 105mm f2 DC. It provides a better working distance than the 85mm and it is still short enough to be easily used indoors. I dislike the 85mm when I was using a crop camera that turned it into a 135mm focal length as indoors it was often too long. Outdoors I use the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm zooms.
It seems that few people think of the 70-200mm f2.8 as a portrait or people lens but it is in fact excellent for this purpose. Nice bokeh and blurred out backgrounds thanks to the shallower DOF with the longer focal length. A 50mm lens may need f2 for shallow DOF but at 150-200mm a smaller aperture can be used to the same effect.
An excellent Nikon lens is the 24-105mm f4 IS lens but it is too slow for general wedding photography during the ceremony or reception. I rented one and used it for 15 minutes during a reception and took it off as it was too slow for the available light. With low light my cameras need f2.8 glass to focus fast enough to catch the shots with proper framing. Outdoors the 24-105mm is not as good a choice as the 70-200mm lens.
I would not bother with the 70-200mm f4 lens as it is not fast enough for use in photographing wedding ceremonies or receptions 100% of the time whereas the f2.8 version is fast enough even in dimly lit churches, which seems to be the rule, and candle lit receptions which are also commonplace.
With both weddings and engagement sessions one needs to be taking pictures and not frequently changing lenses. With two cameras during the bridal prep I will have the 105mm on one camera and the 24-70mm on the other and I do not need to make a lens change. I have the option of switching out the 24-70mm for a 14-24mm 2.8 lens (or with Canon I used the much less sharp 16-35mm f2.8) for broader environmental shots during the prep, ceremony, and reception. For engagement shoots the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm are all that is needed if used properly with care as to the backgrounds, shooting angles, and apertures used.
If in doubt about the usefulness of a particular lens it pays to rent one for a week and try it out. It is inexpensive to do this and you avoid the risk of having something you will seldom use and end up selling at a loss in a year's time.
I can get all the shots my clients want with the 16mm fisheye, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, and a +4 Closeup lens that I use on both zooms. I used to carry along a macro lens and 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm primes. The primes were completely unnecessary and more of a crutch than must have lenses with today's cameras. 10 years ago f1.4 primes were essential but the autofocus and high ISO capabilities of DSLR's has greatly improved since that time.
I pretty much agree with everything you say here - and in fact for weddings I could shoot everything on just two lenses, the 24-70 and 70-200, and for years that is what I did. But then I got bored - the lenses are too bland (although excellent) and I needed a challenge. Which is why I mostly use primes, some of them MF.
I don't really agree that you need an f2.8 rather than an f4 70-200 for interior shots. I do have the 2.8, but with the way high ISO copes now I think an f4 would be fine. I rarely use above 1600 on my five year old camera, but if I had the latest bodies I would go much higher I'm sure.
To go back to the original post, I think lenses are such a personal thing that you just have to try a lens and use it a lot to get a feel for it. Life would be very boring if there was just one perfect lens and I like having a change now and then. I find the harder something is to do the more I rise to the challenge and find ways around the limitations. It's interesting to see all the different opinions in this thread about lenses, and what a great thing that is. Each to their own.
Jim