# If you can only afford one L prime- which one do you choose?



## JoTomOz (Sep 24, 2019)

Been thinking about pulling the trigger on the RF 85 as there is a sale on here in Australia. Although it is a focal length I would use I’m hesitant because to be honest, as expensive as they are I can probably only afford one RF L prime. I shoot primes mostly and can’t afford to shell out for the whole set when they all come out. 

I realise everyone’s use case is different (mine is primarily nightscapes and family/portrait) but was curious if anyone had thoughts on this (and whether it is a lens that is released in RF yet or not) 

Thanks!


----------



## Kit. (Sep 24, 2019)

When I could only afford one L prime, I chose TS-E 17.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 24, 2019)

I shoot a lot of family related stuff, and if I absolutely had to choose between the RF50 and RF85 I think I would have to go with the 50 as it is more versatile. But, glad I don’t have to make the choice though.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2019)

400/2.8 III please. Can these be delivered to my work address please?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Sep 24, 2019)

just to throw a spanner in why only Canon - i chose the Sigma 85mm Art lens and it produces fantastic results and comes ahead of the Canon offering in tests.

Not sure on its fitment to RF though ?

A lot of people differ with 85 and 50 and a lot of people only like one or the other so its probably best to know which camp you fall in , personally i don't like 50 and prefer 35 and 85.

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I shoot a lot of family related stuff, and if I absolutely had to choose between the RF50 and RF85 I think I would have to go with the 50 as it is more versatile. But, glad I don’t have to make the choice though.


Yeah, I was thinking about this too- 50 may make more sense given it can do a lot


----------



## sdz (Sep 24, 2019)

Depending on my mood, I'd take any or all of these lenses:

1. EF 200 F/2
2. EF 400 F/4 DO
3. RF 85 F/1.2

Collectively, they would set me back $15K retail....


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 24, 2019)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> just to throw a spanner in why only Canon - i chose the Sigma 85mm Art lens and it produces fantastic results and comes ahead of the Canon offering in tests.
> 
> Not sure on its fitment to RF though ?
> 
> ...


Yeah in general I tend toward 35 and 85. It’s not that I don’t like 50, just that I am happy with what those two can cover and like a 2 lens solution for many outings. 

In terms of Sigma, while I have thought about it I haven’t considered it seriously for the same reason I haven’t considered the 85 1.4- I see lenses as a very long term investment and don’t like the idea of using a mount adapter for 10+ years.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2019)

Probably the 600L III or the 400L III. I only bought the 500 because it was subsantially cheaper.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 24, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Yeah, I was thinking about this too- 50 may make more sense given it can do a lot



It is hard to argue against the 50, which is an amazing lens, but I think the answer depends on the photographer's primary interest--what type of photography is most important, most compelling? If it is strictly portraiture, even this wonderful Rf version of the 50 doesn't produce the most flattering head-and-shoulders shots if the subject has a very round face or is overweight. It works beautifully, to my eye, for children and slimmer faces, but it does emphasize roundness.

For some subjects, even an 85mm might not compress enough, and I'd be using 135mm and above--but on a 70-200mm zoom.

But for dynamic life-style portraits, intimate shots of couples, 3/4 to full body length portraits, and compelling still lifes, this 50mm would be my first choice. 

When I saw one post above choosing a 400mm, at first I chuckled, but then realized it really depends on the preferred subject!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2019)

If I could afford one $13K Super Tele, I'd buy a whole host of lesser L Primes. The question does not make much sense, since the price varies by a very wide range.

I sold all of my L primes except for my 100L. Zooms replaced them. I guess 100L is my answer, I can't justify a $13K lens to use a few times a year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The question does not make much sense, since the price varies by a very wide range.


Agreed, a much better way to pose the question is, "My budget is X, what one lens would you buy with those funds for use case(s) Y?"


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed, a much better way to pose the question is, "My budget is X, what one lens would you buy with those funds for use case(s) Y?"



Or if he really wants to limit it to one lens, but one lens of any price, it could be "If your house burned down, destroying all your lenses, and you couldn't replace them at all, but someone were to offer to give you one lens, on the condition you use it and don't resell it, what would it be?"

The craziness of the hypothetical of course highlights how artificial it is.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 24, 2019)

For me one L prime is EF 35L II. Great all rounder for almost everything that I can think of, except of birding and closeup portraits. Of course if you like 35mm look.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2019)

The scenario is that you can only afford 1 L lens, and then people recommend a $10,000 lens? If you can afford that one, you could get a dozen cheaper ones instead.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 24, 2019)

In all fairness he wrote RF-L, which is rather limited to the 50 and 85, that’s how I understood it at least.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> In all fairness he wrote RF-L, which is rather limited to the 50 and 85, that’s how I understood it at least.



But the title doesn't specify RF, hence the confusion.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> In all fairness he wrote RF-L, which is rather limited to the 50 and 85, that’s how I understood it at least.


"and whether it is a lens that is released in RF yet or not"


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2019)

A 500mm f/4 L weighing 1.8kg. I'd even buy an EOS R to put it on.


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Probably the 600L III or the 400L III. I only bought the 500 because it was subsantially cheaper.


There were version II lenses back when I bought my own 500 II. I chose this as a compromise for size and weight.


----------



## pwp (Sep 25, 2019)

Which prime? Nobody can answer that question except for yourself OP. It depends entirely on your shooting style. One persons ideal prime might be a 14mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4. 

With the exception of the big whites, primes have never made it to my regular working kit. I don't care what anyone says, the flexibility offered by zooms is pretty much unbeatable for busy professionals. My clients couldn't be happier with the output from the 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII that 90% of my work is shot on, the balance coming from the big whites. 

Canon is talking about a possible 120-300 f/2.8 zoom. Sounds awesome to me! 

-pw


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> "and whether it is a lens that is released in RF yet or not"


He also said, "I realise everyone’s use case is different (mine is primarily nightscapes and family/portrait) " Yet people are naming super-tele and tilt shift lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

SteveC said:


> But the title doesn't specify RF, hence the confusion.


There would be no confusion if people would read past the title. 

"Been thinking about pulling the trigger on the RF 85 as there is a sale on here in Australia. Although it is a focal length I would use I’m hesitant because to be honest, as expensive as they are I can probably only afford one RF L prime. "

"I realise everyone’s use case is different (mine is primarily nightscapes and family/portrait) "

For RF prime "L" there is only the 50mm and 85mm right now. Not as fast, more money, and a zoom rather than prime = 28-70.

Why people are hoisting up the Super-tele lenses in this thread is the confusing part.  He has not changed anything in his OP since I read it around 5:15am this morning.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Been thinking about pulling the trigger on the RF 85 as there is a sale on here in Australia. Although it is a focal length I would use I’m hesitant because to be honest, as expensive as they are I can probably only afford one RF L prime. I shoot primes mostly and can’t afford to shell out for the whole set when they all come out.
> 
> I realise everyone’s use case is different (mine is primarily nightscapes and family/portrait) but was curious if anyone had thoughts on this (and whether it is a lens that is released in RF yet or not)
> 
> Thanks!


I will be completely honest. If you are going RF and you can only afford one lens... based on what you say you mostly shoot, get the RF 28-70 F/2L and you will be very happy you did. I have it and the RF 85mm f/1.2. I love them both. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the 28-70 every day of the week. It is a spectacular lens and unmatched by any zoom I have ever had. IQ is as good as any prime, in my opinion. If you can only get one lens, a phenomenal zoom makes the most sense. I am mobile right now, so can't show an example. Go to the forum portrait thread and look for my posts of Izzi. I am not a professional, so take that into account. I know, not a prime and very pricey. But it will cover a whole lot more ground. Anyway, you asked about an RF prime. If you absolutely must go that way, get the 50mm. I do not own it, but 85mm can sometimes be a little long indoors. I own the 85mm along with the 28-70mm. Seriously, if you can get just one, do whatever you can to get the zoom. You won't find any need to buy a 35mm, 50mm, or even 85mm later. So in the long run, the zoom is a bargain.

Edit: Replied to the wrong post the first time. I'm stupid when it comes to smart phones.  Also posted an image taken with the zoom that I could not access on the road.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If I could afford one $13K Super Tele, I'd buy a whole host of lesser L Primes. The question does not make much sense, since the price varies by a very wide range.
> 
> I sold all of my L primes except for my 100L. Zooms replaced them. I guess 100L is my answer, I can't justify a $13K lens to use a few times a year.



Depends what you shoot, doesn't it? I can cover normal focal lengths in other ways, but a supertelephoto lens is unavoidable for my preferred subjects, and there's no non-L Canon option beyond 400mm*, so that makes the decision. It's just a bit of fun, anyway 

*edit: come to think of it, can you even get to 400mm without an L? Not including adding extenders to e.g. 300mm. You get the idea anyway.


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 25, 2019)

Sorry for the confusion, post could have been clearer for sure. Not that it matters at this point but the Idea was you may want/need a handful of lenses to cover your use case, but if you could only afford one really high end prime lens, like a pricey new RF lens, what would it be. And why- which I didn’t put in the post.


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 25, 2019)

pwp said:


> Which prime? Nobody can answer that question except for yourself OP. It depends entirely on your shooting style. One persons ideal prime might be a 14mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4.
> 
> With the exception of the big whites, primes have never made it to my regular working kit. I don't care what anyone says, the flexibility offered by zooms is pretty much unbeatable for busy professionals. My clients couldn't be happier with the output from the 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII that 90% of my work is shot on, the balance coming from the big whites.
> 
> ...


Yeah, perhaps I am too hung up on the idea that primes are the way to go. Not only are the more versatile, they are potentially more value for money as they are like multiple lenses in one!


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I will be completely honest. If you are going RF and you can only afford one lens... based on what you say you mostly shoot, get the RF 28-70 F/2L and you will be very happy you did. I have it and the RF 85mm f/1.2. I love them both. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the 28-70 every day of the week. It is a spectacular lens and unmatched by any zoom I have ever had. IQ is as good as any prime, in my opinion. If you can only get one lens, a phenomenal zoom makes the most sense. I am mobile right now, so can't show an example. Go to the forum portrait thread and look for my posts of Izzi. I am not a professional, so take that into account. I know, not a prime and very pricey. But it will cover a whole lot more ground. Anyway, you asked about an RF prime. If you absolutely must go that way, get the 50mm. I do not own it, but 85mm can sometimes be a little long indoors. I own the 85mm along with the 28-70mm. Seriously, if you can get just one, do whatever you can to get the zoom. You won't find any need to buy a 35mm, 50mm, or even 85mm later. So in the long run, the zoom is a bargain.
> 
> Edit: Replied to the wrong post the first time. I'm stupid when it comes to smart phones.  Also posted an image taken with the zoom that I could not access on the road.


Thanks CanonFanBoy, I think you may have convinced me on the f2 zoom.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 25, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> And why- which I didn’t put in the post.


In my case (and I suspect, in most cases) - because that lens does something that I need and that cannot be done with a non-L lens and/or with a zoom.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Thanks CanonFanBoy, I think you may have convinced me on the f2 zoom.


Believe me, this lens does not disappoint at all. As to the difference between f/2 vs f/2.8... people will say it is not much. Yes it is. I owned the EF 24-70mm f/2.L II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lenses before my switch. The difference in bokeh is big too:

"f/2 is one stop or twice as fast as f/2.8, so in the same light you can:

Double your shutter speed (e.g. 1/60 instead of 1/30 sec)

Use your flash at 1.4 times (the square root of 2) the max distance you could at f/2.8, (say 20 ft instead of 14 ft)

Take a picture w/o flash in half the light (say one bright room light vs. two bright room lights on)
Use half the ISO speed setting (or film), (e.g. ISO 100 instead of ISO 200)." From DPReview.

I have always said that I could be satisfied with two high end zooms. That's true. If I had to choose between just two lenses for what I do, it would be a short and a moderate zoom. f/2 convinces me even more. My favorite lens was an EF 135mm f/2 before I switched. When it comes out in RF, I will buy again. But a high quality zoom? So good these days that the versatility and bang for the $ is unreal.

By the way: The 28-70 is so huge you will feel like you really got your $ worth and you'll probably be the only guy for miles and miles that has one.  I like big lenses. The 85mm is big too. I won't be buying f/2.8 lenses in RF. Not that they are not great, just that f/2 is more useful to me. The prices are not too badly different.

PWP (above) is a professional. He said: "With the exception of the big whites, primes have never made it to my regular working kit. I don't care what anyone says, the flexibility offered by zooms is pretty much unbeatable for busy professionals. My clients couldn't be happier with the output from the 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII that 90% of my work is shot on, the balance coming from the big whites."

I'm a mortal. I'll never have the scratch to afford a big white. Wouldn't be useful to me anyway. Fast modern zoom? Hell yes!  Remember, a lot of people have not seen in the wild, much less used, what they might recommend. I am no pro, however, I shoot at a lot of model boot camps and fashion shows. I might make 3,000+ images in a weekend. Probably 2,950 are shot on zooms.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Yeah in general I tend toward 35 and 85. It’s not that I don’t like 50, just that I am happy with what those two can cover and like a 2 lens solution for many outings.



As they might for me. Back in film days when I had only primes (for some obvious reasons), I gravitated toward taking the 28, 85, and 200mm lenses along. If I used anything else, it was because I knew there was some reason to use a different lens, so that is what I took.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 25, 2019)

If there were an rf35 1.2, I’d have jumped on it in favor of the rf50. As it stands, I got the rf50 and the rf35 1.8 - not quite as ‘wow’ inducing as the ef35 1.4L II, but excellent considering the price. Sold my old sigma 50 art. Kept my 35L. As for the 85L - as wonderful as it is; I just very rarely do portraiture, so it stays in a draw mostly. I find 35 & 50 more versatile. I doubt I’ll replace the 85L with the RF version. Not worth it for me. But I’ll never sell the EF85L either...

So, to recap my waffling: I personally prefer the 50 over the 85 for versatility; and if there were a 35, I’d have taken that instead. But it all depends on your needs. Maybe the 24-105 might be better yet. I was surprised to discover how good it was, and how much I ended up using it.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 25, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Thanks CanonFanBoy, I think you may have convinced me on the f2 zoom.



Not wanting to disagree with canonfanboy (that photo was compelling!), the 28-70 is large and heavy! If it’s around the house family portraits, then it’s fine. If it’s casual travel style family pics, then you might find yourself leaving it behind. Are you close enough to a store to try it out for size?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> By the way: The 28-70 is so huge you will feel like you really got your $ worth and you'll probably be the only guy for miles and miles that has one. ,950 are shot on zooms.



Are you saying it's so massive that it bends light on the OUTSIDE of the lens?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Are you saying it's so massive that it bends light on the OUTSIDE of the lens?


Has it's own gravitational field.  Took a trip to Mississippi and Tennessee this past weekend. Two strangers walked up and asked about it. At a shoot here in Texas, another photog thought I was using a Sony body because it makes the R look so small. haha


----------



## SteveC (Sep 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Has it's own gravitational field.  Took a trip to Mississippi and Tennessee this past weekend. Two strangers walked up and asked about it. At a shoot here in Texas, another photog thought I was using a Sony body because it makes the R look so small. haha



Of course the true behemoth would be the 1200mm EF. It would leave a black hole in your finances though--if you can find one for sale.


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 26, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Not wanting to disagree with canonfanboy (that photo was compelling!), the 28-70 is large and heavy! If it’s around the house family portraits, then it’s fine. If it’s casual travel style family pics, then you might find yourself leaving it behind. Are you close enough to a store to try it out for size?


I have shot a few clicks with it at a camera store and it felt like a beast but not too heavy for me. But you bring up a good point- I have no issue carrying my r almost everywhere but with a lens that big- would it change that? or would I often just chuck an old non-L prime on the camera instead? I wouldn’t think so but will have to give it some thought.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 27, 2019)

Between the RF 50 and 85, I would (and did) buy the 50.

If you can only afford one, you can shoot the 50 from the same distance away as you would the 85, crop down to the same framing, and get something _pretty close_ to what you would have gotten with the 85. And if you ever get a higher MP RF body, it will still be pretty high resolution.

You can't widen up the 85 to be similar to the 50 in post.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 1, 2019)

Since you have clarified that it doesn't have to be an RF prime, I'd say the L prime I'd hate to be without the most is my EF 135mm f/2L.

It has a look none of my other lenses, prime or zoom, have.

Yes, it is the cheapest L prime ever. 
Yes, it's more than a little long in the tooth. 
Yes, there are other lenses in the short to medium telephoto range that score significantly better shooting flat test charts at relatively close distances.

But I don't desire a lens that can let me be the best flat test chart shooter in the world. 
I desire more a lens that renders a three dimensional world the way the EF 135mm f/2L does.

Correcting the field of focus to be flat enough to score well all the way to the edges and the corners of a flat test chart seems to mean giving up the smoothest rendering of out of focus areas. Just look at the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS and see that Canon's designers sold its soul in order for it to perform better shooting flat test charts than the EF 85mm f/1.2L II. But where is the rendering of out of focus areas that the EF 85mm f/1.2L II can give (even when stopped down to f/1.4 or narrower)?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd say the L prime I'd hate to be without the most is my EF 135mm f/2L.


I miss my 135 f/2. Should have kept it a while longer. I loved it for the same reasons as you.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Oct 2, 2019)

I would get a 50mm. Hope Tamron would launch a 50mm similar to the recent 35mm f/1,4 sooooooon.


----------



## JoTomOz (Oct 2, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Since you have clarified that it doesn't have to be an RF prime, I'd say the L prime I'd hate to be without the most is my EF 135mm f/2L.
> 
> It has a look none of my other lenses, prime or zoom, have.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your love for 135/f2! i have misrepresented my situation in the opening post as I do in fact have the 135/2 and love it for basically the same reasons and wouldn’t part with it unless I switched brands. Thankfully it is so much more affordable than the modern L primes. However I’m also interested in trying out a modern, well corrected lens as I don’t have any that fit that description at the moment. In that sense a 50 would pair better with the 135 than an 85mm, but still leaning towards the idea of the f2 zoom. 

It’s still fun hearing (and helpful to hear) what people would choose if they could only have one high-end lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 2, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Thanks for sharing your love for 135/f2! i have misrepresented my situation in the opening post as I do in fact have the 135/2 and love it for basically the same reasons and wouldn’t part with it unless I switched brands. Thankfully it is so much more affordable than the modern L primes. However I’m also interested in trying out a modern, well corrected lens as I don’t have any that fit that description at the moment. In that sense a 50 would pair better with the 135 than an 85mm, but still leaning towards the idea of the f2 zoom.
> 
> It’s still fun hearing (and helpful to hear) what people would choose if they could only have one high-end lens.



The problem with "well corrected" lenses is that what that usually means is "optimized for shooting flat test charts at relatively short distances at the expense of pleasing out of focus areas when taking pictures of a three dimensional world at longer distances."


----------



## MovingViolations (Oct 3, 2019)

For landscape work it would be hands down the TS-24L


----------



## rjbray01 (Oct 4, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Been thinking about pulling the trigger on the RF 85 as there is a sale on here in Australia. Although it is a focal length I would use I’m hesitant because to be honest, as expensive as they are I can probably only afford one RF L prime. I shoot primes mostly and can’t afford to shell out for the whole set when they all come out.
> 
> I realise everyone’s use case is different (mine is primarily nightscapes and family/portrait) but was curious if anyone had thoughts on this (and whether it is a lens that is released in RF yet or not)
> 
> Thanks!


I agree - it's a tough decision but 85mm would be my choice too - ideal portraits, can crop to 70-200 equivalent and use panorams for wider angle static landscapes ... 

I follow Thomas Heaton on YouTube and many of his landscapes are shot with a 70-200 and joined as a panorama to great effect 

I realize it's not ideal but if the constraint is just one lens then it seems to me 85mm is in the middle as a jack of all trades whilst being capable of producing perfect portraits


----------



## Dockland (Nov 15, 2019)

A 800mm f/5.6 (and sell it to get some other Primes instead  )


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 15, 2019)

TSE 50 mm


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2019)

Dockland said:


> A 800mm f/5.6 (and sell it to get some other Primes instead  )


If that's your reason, it's the 1200mm f/5.6 to give you more $$.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 15, 2019)

JoTomOz said:


> Sorry for the confusion, post could have been clearer for sure. Not that it matters at this point but the Idea was you may want/need a handful of lenses to cover your use case, but if you could only afford one really high end prime lens, like a pricey new RF lens, what would it be. And why- which I didn’t put in the post.


I would choose 85 for everything portrait, I have the 50 also, and for close ups , it’s just wrong. But, I couldn’t live with only 85 and no 50. Those are my only two lenses and work excellent together.

So, there you go, I’m of absolutely no help


----------



## Dockland (Nov 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If that's your reason, it's the 1200mm f/5.6 to give you more $$.


Didn't know there was one


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2019)

Dockland said:


> Didn't know there was one


Photo from TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04


----------



## Dockland (Nov 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Photo from TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04



That's some serious looking glass (and metal) Don't even want to think about the price


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I sold all of my L primes except for my 100L. ...
> I guess 100L is my answer...


I second that at once.

I love/need a portrait lens. the 100L gives me macro as well.
f stop and bokeh are limited with this lens.
But it is so versatile that I'd take it any time.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 15, 2019)

Canon EF/RF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2019)

Dockland said:


> That's some serious looking glass (and metal) Don't even want to think about the price


$180,000 https://petapixel.com/2015/04/28/bh-is-selling-a-used-canon-1200mm-f5-6l-lens-for-just-180000/


----------



## Dockland (Nov 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> $180,000 https://petapixel.com/2015/04/28/bh-is-selling-a-used-canon-1200mm-f5-6l-lens-for-just-180000/


...and not even IS


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 16, 2019)

now, that is a one L lens I cannot afford. hm.. will have to have a convo with my manager on Monday around lunch time.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2019)

Dockland said:


> ...and not even IS


IS isn’t used when on tripods so are you thinking of hand holding?


----------



## Dockland (Nov 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> IS isn’t used when on tripods so are you thinking of hand holding?


The joke insinuated that, yes


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2019)

Dockland said:


> The joke insinuated that, yes


I am not arguing with anyone who can hand hold that monster.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am not arguing with anyone who can hand hold that monster.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am not arguing with anyone who can hand hold that monster.


That’s what she said.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> now, that is a one L lens I cannot afford. hm.. will have to have a convo with my manager on Monday around lunch time.



A famous, now deceased papparazo switched to Canon just for this lens and he added a review on the page where he bought it, along the lines of "Expensive, but pays for itself, combined with a 2x extender, there's no place celebreties can hide with this."
That review sadly didn't survive the website makeover


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 17, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Photo from TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04
> View attachment 187537



It's a good thing his daughters look like their mother!


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 17, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> I second that at once.
> 
> I love/need a portrait lens. the 100L gives me macro as well.
> f stop and bokeh are limited with this lens.
> But it is so versatile that I'd take it any time.



I've never been a fan of using macro lenses for portraiture. All of that flat field correction usually kills the out of focus areas and optimization to be best at close focusing distances often sacrifices some optical performance at typical portrait distances.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never been a fan of using macro lenses for portraiture.


Of course there is always an optimized tool for a dedicated work. 

But that was not the question of this thread. And sometimes life is about compromises.
And if you can get 80% of one job (portrait, IMO) and 100% (macro) of the other with 50% of the price than that is a great compromise.
And it seems that I am not alone with my opinion and decission here.

But if you have an EF 85L 1.2 II or 1.4 IS to give away I'll gladly send you my address


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 17, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Of course there is always an optimized tool for a dedicated work.
> 
> But that was not the question of this thread. And sometimes life is about compromises.
> And if you can get 80% of one job (portrait, IMO) and 100% (macro) of the other with 50% of the price than that is a great compromise.
> ...



Didn't your mother ever ask you, "If all of your friends run off the edge of a cliff, are you going to follow them?"

The EF 85mm f/1.8, the EF 100mm f/2, and even the EF 135mm f/2 can all be had for much less than an EF 85mm f/1.2 L II or EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS (which in my opinion is a bit too "corrected" for field curvature to make it a great portrait lens - but that's what sells lenses these days: how sharp they can make the corners of a flat test chart shot at relatively close distance).

I will concede that the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (either "L" or non) might be a better portrait lens in some use cases than the 85/1.8 and its larger cousin, the 100/2. But it can't hold a candle to the nearly three decades old 135/2.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Didn't your mother ever ask you, "If all of your friends run off the edge of a cliff, are you going to follow them?"


Didn‘t your mother ever teach you about a respectful conversation?
Surely Not, from what I read here 



> The EF 85mm f/1.8, the EF 100mm f/2, and even the EF 135mm f/2 can all be had ...


I own the 85/1.8 and the macro, so do you, too?
And from my experience I always got better portraits from the macro.
But surely this was only from my lack of skills.

And for the 135, which surely is also an excellent lens, but again a real specialist.
Try to use it indoors where you have not enough space between you and subject.

So put your own choice here but also accept the one of others, especially if they choose versality over specialists that work at only one point.

Otherwise you show yourself as specialist as well. As one in intolerance.


Edit, by the way:
Could we now go back on track?
This is NOT the "What's your favorite portrait lens" thread (and I stated that there are some better out there)
but the "If you can only afford one L prime...".


----------



## stevelee (Nov 17, 2019)

I love the 100mm non-L macro. It is very versatile. But for me, portraits look too "clinical," for lack of a better word. I'd much rather use the 85mm f/1.8 for them, but it is nice to have both lenses available so I can choose the best tool for what I want to do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 19, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Didn‘t your mother ever teach you about a respectful conversation?
> Surely Not, from what I read here



My apologies if you are not from a part of the world where we ask this, half joking, of each other any time one appeals to "everyone else is doing it too."


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> My apologies if you are not from a part of the world where we ask this, half joking, of each other any time one appeals to "everyone else is doing it too."


Thanks for your apologies and accepted. 

For clarification:
Tor me this was simply misplaced here and therefore offensive in this case. But even with emoticons it is difficult to read between the lines.
Maybe I got this wrong because I never saw myself as one of those "lemmings" but more often as one that stands to his individual opinion, even if it is not a common one.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 19, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Thanks for your apologies and accepted.
> 
> For clarification:
> Tor me this was simply misplaced here and therefore offensive in this case. But even with emoticons it is difficult to read between the lines.
> Maybe I got this wrong because I never saw myself as one of those "lemmings" but more often as one that stands to his individual opinion, even if it is not a common one.



Your posts never did sound like a lemming's!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Your posts never did sound like a lemming's!


Thanks!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 25, 2019)

If I could only afford 1 L-prime I would get an L-zoom


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> If I could only afford 1 L-prime I would get an L-zoom


In addition to the prime...


----------

