# I'm going crazy over here! What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

Okay, so I own 24-105, and I had plenty of help from you guys, and I realized that getting a macro is a must... but what then???

So, my ideal choice would be 85mm 1.8, a macro, 35mmL, 135mm L, 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II.

But I can't afford them all, not to mention I plan on getting a MF camera in the future, but even then I'd like to own a Canon, as it does have it's strengths. 

On my 24-105 I mostly shoot at 60-70mm, 105mm, 35mm, in that order.

Do I get a 100mm USM macro and another lens? Or just 100mm L macro?

So: 100mm USM macro + 70-200mm 4L (how sharp is it? especially compared or 2.8 is II?)
or 100mm USM macro + save up for 135L
or 100mm USM macro + 85mm 1.8 (not only is 85mm 1.2 pricey, but it is also distorted, so no tnx)
or 100mm USM macro + 50mm (I had a 1.8, it gave wonderful images, but I couldn't use it professionally, and the 1.4 has horrible distortion, I can't have that)

or just the 100mm macro *L *

I hate distortion, it has given me so much head ache on 24-105. And I am very fond of sharpness, there is no such thing as "too sharp" for me. 

What I wouldn't like is a lens that has lots of micro sharpness, but little contrast overall.

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open. ;D

Now, I know I should test these ,but I can't afford to rent them all, not to mention that it takes using a lens for a while in order to see it's strengths and flaws, so that's why I appreciate you experience so much. 

So, is the L 100 Macro worth it? Or shall I get a 100 USM macro and another lens? Perhaps get the USM macro and save up for 135mm?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 17, 2013)

for what you want and described the 100L is perfect
it is razor sharp wide open and stopped down
the IS is awesome and will be a great help for portraits
its weather sealed too

also if you are shooting low light portraits with flash in second curtain sync and dragging the shutter
the IS will be a godsend

I dont use this lens as much as i should as i typically go to my 85 or 135 wide open

so for you i really think you cant go wrong with the 100L the extra price for the IS and weather sealing is worth it IMO


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 17, 2013)

Sounds to me the 100L is the winner. Owned it for a while and really regret selling it. For what you use a lens for and the crazy sharpness you want perhaps putting all you bucks on the table for the 24-70 L v2 would be the better option.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> Sounds to me the 100L is the winner. Owned it for a while and really regret selling it. For what you use a lens for and the crazy sharpness you want perhaps putting all you bucks on the table for the 24-70 L v2 would be the better option.



Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.


----------



## sunnyVan (Oct 17, 2013)

70-200 f4 IS is sharp. Read:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1

70-200 f2.8 II IS is even sharper
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1


----------



## DJD (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.



I have to ask the obvious question, your title says "What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???" so why to you need a macro for fashion/portraits?
-djd


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

DJD said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.
> ...



Because I shoot a lot of beauty images. So I definitely need a macro, and if it can bridge as a portrait lens so much the better. I was wondering how much will I gain/loose by buying a macro and an 85mm, and apparently, a lot as the 100 macro L is far more useful than the non L version, judging by the comments.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> 70-200 f4 IS is sharp. Read:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1
> 
> 70-200 f2.8 II IS is even sharper
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1



Judging by those numbers they're quite close together, but I'd rather get a prime, as I really don't like distortion, and both suffer from it quite heavily. And I don't shoot weddings, so I'm about the effect, rather than chasing the moment.


----------



## dmills (Oct 17, 2013)

I'd also recommend the 100L as being the lens that would fit both your macro and fashion needs.

That being said, depending on how much other work you do, you may find that a different lens + an extension tube might suit your needs better. You didn't mention whether you use a full-frame or crop sensor camera. While the 100L is a fantastic lens, it won't give you the shallow depth of field that the 85 1.8 would give you. 

When I shot primarily on a 60D, I found the 24-105 to be my most useful lens (Even though I owned a 70-200 2.8 IS II). Now that I shoot mostly with a 5D3, my go to lens is the 70-200. 

So, in summary, I'd say that if you ONLY need a lens for the two uses you mentioned (macro + fashion), the 100L is your best bet. If you shoot much of anything else, especially outside the studio, and you have a full frame camera, you might be better served by the tremendously more versatile 70-200 + extension tube (just the 12mm, you don't need the 20mm)


----------



## Zv (Oct 17, 2013)

The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele. 

If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh. 

The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L. 

The 24-105L should do just fine for wider stopped down work at f/8 or more. I like that lens at around 35-70mm f/8-11. Good for environmental portraits.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

dmills said:


> I'd also recommend the 100L as being the lens that would fit both your macro and fashion needs.
> 
> That being said, depending on how much other work you do, you may find that a different lens + an extension tube might suit your needs better. You didn't mention whether you use a full-frame or crop sensor camera. While the 100L is a fantastic lens, it won't give you the shallow depth of field that the 85 1.8 would give you.
> 
> ...



I don't care about DOF... anyway  you got my dilemma right. At the same I want to shoot with no distortion, as that REALLY shows on products, and 70-200 is just weak in that regard. But it is more versatile, and so many times you just don't want to change or carry another lens. But I feel, I've got 24-105 for that.

I shoot FF, I wouldn't be considering a lens, but rather a camera, if I weren't.




Zv said:


> The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.
> 
> If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.
> 
> ...



You know, I was considering it(200mm), but it's at a such low supply where I live, and it's a bit too narrow to be my workhorse. But thank you, definitely the next one on my list, as it is very similar to the 135l, yet giving that lovely compression for beauty and portraits (and for full body shots, it's a shame my studio is as small as it is). I guess I skipped it for it's availability issue.


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> And please, *please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open*. ;D



Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g. 

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.
> 
> If you feel the need for another lens then I think something a bit more tele like the 200 f/2.8L might be an option to give you more of a compressed look to your images with lovely bokeh.
> 
> The 135L is awesome but the focal length is too close to the 100 IMO to warranty buying it if you have the 100L.



I have used the 100mm L IS Macro for quite some time, before purchasing the 135mm L. I must admit that since then I have not once used the 100mm for a portrait shot, but this is mostly because I tend to shoot the 135mm wide open all the time. I also use the 85mm f1.2 L Mark II and with this lens I don't shoot at f1.2 all the time, but do stop down sometimes as my desire for depth-of-field dictates. Since you don't intend to shoot wide open, I don't think this lens is a good option for you.

If you shoot stopped down anyway the 100mm is an excellent choice and in contrast to the other options talked about in this thread the 100mm L IS Macro is indeed an excellent macro lens, especially I have found it to be ideal for macro work when not using a tripod.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The 100L macro is all you need really. It should cover most of your requirements. It's got the macro, obviously, and is a great focal length for portraits. Not too wide and not too tele.
> ...



I see your point, and I know 135 is a better portrait lens, but as I must have a macro, I'd choose 100mm, as it's not even a competition.

Also, 85 1.2 has a lot of distortion, and I think 85mm is a bit too close to 100 perspective-vise.

100mm IS L 2.8 macro, 24-105 and 200mm L is what I'll set up as my kit.



Alrik89 said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > And please, *please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open*. ;D
> ...



You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too?  lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?


----------



## andersde (Oct 17, 2013)

Definitelty agree the 100L is the one. Its a fantastic lens and the IS really is useful.

If you're not shooting wide open then the 135mm and 85mm lose their benefits over the 100L. 

The 200mm also looks like a really nice.lens, been debating this one myself vs a 70-200 or the 70-300L.


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 17, 2013)

Can I ask what you shoot exactly to be so sensitive to distortion (85L can be criticized on a lot of thing but its distortion is average at worst, generally unoticeable) andso averse to shooting wide open? just curious.

Anyway you seem set on the 100L (macro is a good reason)...as to the second one when I think portraits I think environmental portraits so 35 1.4 would be a nice idea but you don't mention it (and the 1.4 capability might be wasted).


----------



## chauncey (Oct 17, 2013)

We happen to live near a very photogenic park system...in four years I have never seen a 70-200 f/2.8 not being used for portrait/wedding work.


----------



## sunnyVan (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > 70-200 f4 IS is sharp. Read:
> ...




100L is great. You seem to have your mind set already so I won't try to convince you. 
But I just want to say that the two zoom lenses mentioned above have minimal distortion. Telezoom is different from a normal zoom. A normal zoom like 24-105 or even 24-70 has at least moderate to massive amount of distortion. A telezoom has very little. 
Anyway, get the 100L. It's a nice choice.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

andersde said:


> Definitelty agree the 100L is the one. Its a fantastic lens and the IS really is useful.
> 
> If you're not shooting wide open then the 135mm and 85mm lose their benefits over the 100L.
> 
> The 200mm also looks like a really nice.lens, been debating this one myself vs a 70-200 or the 70-300L.



Forget about the 70-300. Distortion is just crazy.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 17, 2013)

TS-E 90mm f/2.8


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> andersde said:
> 
> 
> > Definitelty agree the 100L is the one. Its a fantastic lens and the IS really is useful.
> ...



It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 17, 2013)

Love my 70-200mk2 it's a workhorse,i plan on getting the 85 1.2 next month though for special portraits  here is a shot from yesterday taken with the 70-200  



Fiona by Lseriesglass, on Flickr


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> Can I ask what you shoot exactly to be so sensitive to distortion (85L can be criticized on a lot of thing but its distortion is average at worst, generally unoticeable) andso averse to shooting wide open? just curious.
> 
> Anyway you seem set on the 100L (macro is a good reason)...as to the second one when I think portraits I think environmental portraits so 35 1.4 would be a nice idea but you don't mention it (and the 1.4 capability might be wasted).



I shoot a lot of vertical and horizontal lines in the backdrop, and it does show, and makes the whole image look cheap (like columns, doors, windows, striped floors and walls).  It's fine when there is only floor/wall line.



privatebydesign said:


> It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.



How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.

Also, I often don't shoot directly, but at an angle, and then distortion really messes things up, especially when you have chess pattern, like I did last season.

So, I'll stick with the 100L macro and get another lens to join it later (presumably 200L 2.8 non-is or the 70-200).

Obviously it is better than 100mm USM macro.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 17, 2013)

The 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro is a great lens and will serve many of your purposes for macro and portrait photography. But since you seem really averse to lens distortion you should also consider the 90mm TSE f2.8 because you can remove almost all of the distortion by adjusting the horizontal and vertical focal planes.


----------



## SwampYankee (Oct 17, 2013)

I wrestled with this a while back. The 135L or the 100L Macro. I ended up getting the 100L macro and I'm glad I did. Besides portraits is just a whole bunch of fun. The macro part is just great, flowers, cats eyes, dripping facets. always something to take a picure of and great for portraits too. 135L is a bit sharper but thats like ccomparing the sharpness of 2 brands of razor blades. Weather sealing, macro and 4 stops of IS made it a no brainer. quick note, the 4 stops is more like 2 stops on really small macro shots. Get a good mono pod and lean into those bees on the flowers


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 17, 2013)

just get the 100 L you do not like it then return it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It is so easy to automatically correct lens distortions in post, you can even set the correction as an import preset so you do nothing, that distortion really isn't any kind of serious consideration. There is absolutely minimal IQ hit when doing simple lens corrections too.
> ...



Dude, with an asinine comment like that you are just demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding. IT IS THE LENS THAT IS CREATING THE DISTORTION, the software IS REMOVING IT!

If you want models, balls, dragons, whatever, in the corner of your shot with no distortion you HAVE to use lens corrections.

I presumed nothing other than that you had a basic understanding of what you were talking about, I shan't make that mistake again.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

David_in_Seattle said:


> The 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro is a great lens and will serve many of your purposes for macro and portrait photography. But since you seem really averse to lens distortion you should also consider the 90mm TSE f2.8 because you can remove almost all of the distortion by adjusting the horizontal and vertical focal planes.



I love tilt shift, but it is impractical for me at this time (no AF, and I don't like those news of knobs falling off), but I was planing on renting it here and there. Already played with it and I love that lens.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Would you give it up?  I am asking for help becasue I want to avoid liquifying every single image I ever shot. Fixing it, and never shooting it wrong doesn't compare, does it? It is "easy" to fix globally, but then you have a much softer image to work with... and I don't want that.


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 17, 2013)

skoobey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...


post some un-edited model photos to show us the problem


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 17, 2013)

lindsay adler uses medicore sigma lenses.

http://www.lindsayadlerphotography.com/

todays lenses are normaly not a problem for fashion shootings.





> How many times must I mention that it cannot be done in post without deforming the corners (you know those corners where models might be - yes, deformed shoes, hands, and elbows are not my cup of tea). Many presume that model is only to be put in the middle of the image, not touching the edges anywhere. Not the case with me.



you must be an extrem demanding professionell... can we see your portfolio?



> post some un-edited model photos to show us the problem



yeah i am too very curious to see what he is complaining about.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 17, 2013)

If you aren't using a level and a tripod while you are shooting your grid patterns and models in the corners of the frame, won't you always get that infamous "distortion"?

And if you are on a tripod, which you should be based on your serious issues with lab-test level distortion, then a tilt shift with no AF should do the trick.

Why do you hate distortion so much? I think it helps images since it is a 2D representation of the 3D world, and gives the viewer more information.

I say embrace "distortion", and stop photographing brick walls and reading test charts and reviews.

You should also throw that 24-105 in the garbage. That lens has never taken a good image.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 17, 2013)

Distortion may drive you crazy but I have no problems with it as LR corrects for it automatically.

I use the 100 macro in the studio along with the 85 1.8. Both are razor sharp for portrait /fashion.
I also use the 70-200 2.8L v1 and it is also super sharp.

The zoom has tremendous versatility (and weight) and has only a slight disadvantage in ultimate sharpness compared to the primes. The contrast is lower especially wide open. but a little bump in post solves the problem.

The most cost-effective mix IMO would be the 70-200 2.9LII and a Sigma 50.
This would not overlap FL. If you need the macro get the 100L as it also works well as a portrait lens.

The 135 f2 is supposed to be legendarily sharp but if you are not using it wide open all the time you are carrying a lot of weight and expense without any real benefit.

You say you want to get MF setup? If you are having trouble affording the Canon lenses you are going to be in tears trying to buy MF gear unless it is used film equipment and then you will be in tears finding processing and scanning to fit your budget and meet your quality demands.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 18, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> lindsay adler uses medicore sigma lenses.
> 
> http://www.lindsayadlerphotography.com/
> 
> ...



All I can post is a test shoot, but okay... What I am complaining about is the amount of work I need to do yearly just to correct the lens distortion. And, sure, I can fix it here and there, but all the time... I don't think so. These tests show exactly how much distortion affect's the image, and I know they're not the prettiest images, I didn't choose them for the model(s?), but for the vertical lines.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/33s9nd

*I'm asking here is the 100L better than 100 non l enough to be my go-to lens, without me being sorry for not getting the non l version and a longer lens(70-200 or 200mm L)?* ;D I know that some people don't care about distortion, an that some people shoot wide open, and that many don't care about macro, but I'm asking you for help in my situation. 


I'd rather charge my credit card 10000 bucks and go for MF, being that it'll take me a couple of months to repay it, then spend 2500 cash on a 35mm. That's why I'm so skeptical about spending money on 35mm, I don't want it to end up being money sitting on a shelf. I only buy what I need, isn't that logical?  At this time, I feel I'm missing basic things on 35mm, so rather than spending ever more money and have two kits that I'm not satisfied with, I'd rather invest in the necessary lenses for 35, as I will need that 35 when I go MF (they're not excluding each other).


----------



## RVB (Oct 18, 2013)

The is almost no distortion with the 85mm 1.2 Lmk2 ,just some -EV in the corners,so any idea of "deforming the corners" or "Liquifying" the image is nonsense,Lens profiles do almost nothing to the image except correct the Vignetting..


----------



## PureShot (Oct 18, 2013)

The best lenses range for fashion, is 70-200mm
24-105L make a good job, just add sharpness in PS 
85mm and 85L mm produce sharp and perfect boken 
100L mm macro is very nice , tamron 90mm work well too 
135L mm make a perfect result 
70-200L give you a better range hi IQ, good boken
www.pureshotstudio.com


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 18, 2013)

skoobey]
[quote author=Alrik89 said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > And please, *please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open*. ;D
> ...



You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too?  lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?
[/quote]

I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization. 

Same issue with the 70-200m: do you like the flexibility of a zoom lens? 
-> Yes! --> 70-200mm 2.8 II
-> No! --> Fixed focal length lens like the macro lenses mentioned above.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 18, 2013)

A 100mm macro L or non L should be alright. If you've got money to burn, then go for L. Couple it with a 50mm and I think it's enough. That's what I'm using though I went for the cheaper route, a 50mm F1.8II and a 100mm F2.8 USM non-L macro. Have fun!


----------



## Plato the Wise (Oct 18, 2013)

Get the 70-200 2.8L and one of the non-L macros or extension tubes if your strapped for cash.

70-200 2.8L is big, but it is great for portraits.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 18, 2013)

After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..

My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
Now macro is mostly for studio so... I don't know... in the end I might just go crazy and get 70-200l and 100l macro, and the heck with it. ;D

I must say I love the is on my 24-105, and it useful even in the studio.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 19, 2013)

skoobey said:


> After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..
> 
> My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
> and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
> ...



buy a 77mm polariser and get a 67mm to 77mm step up ring. the step up rings are dirt cheap on ebay


----------



## skoobey (Oct 19, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..
> ...



I completely forgot about that! You see, this is why I'm still learning.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 19, 2013)

only downside is you cant use the hood doing it with the step up ring but i wouldnt worry about that too much especially for a CPL


----------



## pwp (Oct 19, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> TS-E 90mm f/2.8


That's a rare call for the 90 TS-E. For fashion & beauty? I have the 90 TS-E f/2.8 and while it's really useful for products & some static subjects, for dynamic shoots that fashion and beauty really SHOULD be, the manual focus of the 90 TS-E makes it a non-starter. No IS as well...

OP should be happy as a cricket with a 100L Macro f/2.8, which BTW, is my next lens purchase. It's my 135 f/2 which is languishing on the studio shelf, largely because my shooting style benefits so much from good IS.

-pw


----------



## Zv (Oct 19, 2013)

pwp said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > TS-E 90mm f/2.8
> ...



Agree, IS on any lens over 85mm is essential for me (even 50mm would be nice). I love the 135L but most of the large aperture adv is negated by having to keep it above or near 1/160s. I'm losin out on those dimly lit backgrounds even with flash. Ambient light is rarely 1/160! Great for outdoors though! 

What anyone would need a TS in fashion is beyond my scope of understanding but I'll take a guess. 

The models are particularly tall and require a shift to correct distortion. 
Or just to keep the subject all in sharp focus no matter the angle? 
Or for selective focus effects. 

I wish I had bought the macro instead of the 135L now that I think about it. Then again I'm not a macro guy. For OP it's perfect.


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 19, 2013)

skoobey said:


> After all this I'm only further confused.* Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible.* And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..
> 
> My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
> and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
> Now macro is mostly for studio so... I don't know... in the end I might just go crazy and get 70-200l and 100l macro, and the heck with it. ;D



The sharpest lens in Canon lineup is the EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM macro - distorion-free. Buy a 72 to 77mm stepup-ring.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 19, 2013)

If you can live with extension tubes for macro'ish shots, the 200 f2.0 has zero distortion and is as sharp in the far corners as the center from wide open f2.0. And no difference in sharpness from 2.0 until 6.3. Killer AF and the best bokeh ever. And unlike the 180mm, it has a very effective IS, and you can use 52mm filters.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 19, 2013)

Nah, I'm getting the 100l macro, and I'll be back to show how it's faired for me. I'll take it purely because it is sealed, and the IS, as I plan on using this lens a lot and 300 bucks is nothing if I compare it to the amount of frustration I'd get from motion blurred images over the years.

180mm is not suitable for full body shots due to my studio size, if I had a bigger studio, I might have considered it. And also no IS at 180mm? I don't think I could handle that.

200 is way too long to be my workhorse, not to mention the lack o IS, but given the image quality/price point, I'd be tempted to get it rather than a zoom as my tele-lens.

I'll get something more compressed later. Probably the 70-200 with IS. I played with my lens with IS OFF, and it really is a must have feature on any lens.

I've shot with TS-E 90 and I loved it, but it is really only suitable to shoot fashion if model is sitting down and you're shooting from a tripod, as focus is crucial in modern photography.
There are plenty of current editorials that benefit from "focal plane" of the tilt shift lens.
It's just that those knobs on Canon are way to small for my taste.
And, as it is MF, there really is no reason for anyone into tilt not to just purchase a used lens and use an adaptor for their camera.


----------



## VitC (Oct 19, 2013)

My guess is that we are talking about two different DISTORTIONs here. One can be partially controlled by software, the other only by changing one's viewing distance to the image to approximate the original angle of the lenses' view. That's why everyone is tending towards a longer focal length, and the 100L is indeed a good recommendation.


----------



## ME (Oct 19, 2013)

The second part of your post has gotten many responses. As to the first part: Medication, meditation, therapy. ;D


----------



## skoobey (Oct 19, 2013)

ME said:


> The second part of your post has gotten many responses. As to the first part: Medication, meditation, therapy. ;D



Oh my. 



VitC said:


> My guess is that we are talking about two different DISTORTIONs here. One can be partially controlled by software, the other only by changing one's viewing distance to the image to approximate the original angle of the lenses' view. That's why everyone is tending towards a longer focal length, and the 100L is indeed a good recommendation.



Exactly. And even the "regular" meaning barrel or pincushion distortion always carries a "moustache" effect, so it can't really be removed, but it's removal can rather be simulated.

And the face will be appearing distorted on all focal lengths on all cameras, but the "calming" effect of longer lenses seems to be most pleasing for portraits and fashion work, but conventions are there to be broken, unless you do want to create something "normal" and that is what I'm striving to do currently. 

My personal choice would be 135l, but it's too long for full body shots in my lighting setups, and at the same time has no is, so it's use "in the field is rather limited to a tripod in low light, so I really hit the nail on the head at 100mm, and I do need a macro, so there it goes.

Now I'm wondering weather to go for 70-200 f4 or 70-200 2.8 for my telefoto? 70-200 especially the is IS version VERY heavy and bulky.
*Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?* Taking the dof aside?
If only 2.8 non is were a bit lighter. Chucking about 10 pounds of camera all day isn't my idea of fun.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 20, 2013)

I never do software lens corrections when people are in the shot they always end up looking a bit weird especially with wider angle lenses but if shooting buildings or architecture i will correct


----------



## VitC (Oct 20, 2013)

So, yeah, get the 100L. It is truly very good. You can use the 1.4 Extender if you add an 12mm extension tube between it and the lens to get more working distance, e.g. insects. 

I had a 70-200 4L, it was sharp, but I missed the IS. It was supposedly sharper than the IS version, but I cannot vouch for this. It was as good as my 70-200 2.8L IS version1 that I had at the same time, but way lighter. I gave it to a good friend along with my original 5D. 

My 70-200 2.8L II is definitely a step above the older version, and weight being the only "problem". But weight also stabilizes. I remember the old days, when I carried around an Arriflex all day. My arm muscles were amazing. It's just part of the job, let the weaklings fall by the side. 

My 85 1.8 is quite nice, but lacks sharpness and contrast when compared to the 70-200 2.8L II. But it has its uses. 

Good luck! And, keep that 24-105 4L IS. I think it has made me more money than any other lens, and I've had at least 50 lenses in my past.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 20, 2013)

VitC said:


> Good luck! And, keep that 24-105 4L IS. I think it has made me more money than any other lens, and I've had at least 50 lenses in my past.



Uh, so much weight, and when I add another camera and those heavy (probably Mamiya) lenses, I'm truly gonna became a bodybuilder. No wonder so many photographers are buff, this is hard work. hahaha :

I'm keeping the 24-105 for sure, it's one of those "when in doubt" lenses. It does it all, is a pretty good 35-60mm lens.



wickidwombat said:


> I never do software lens corrections when people are in the shot they always end up looking a bit weird especially with wider angle lenses but if shooting buildings or architecture i will correct



Yes they do end up looking strange! And not just on wider angles. If you compare a lens with strong distortion at 35mm and the 35mm with little distortion, and "correct" them both, you'll clearly get the difference. That is because the light is not just curved between the sensor and the back of the lens, but also between the subject and the lens, not to mention between the elements(hence the greater distortion on zooms). And that's why I insist on minimal captured distortion.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 20, 2013)

If you owned a full frame body and you want a perfect fashion and portrait lens, no doubt is the the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. It's fast, sharp and its focus is dead on. I also use the for portraiture the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS and this is also a fenomenal lens: insanely sharp, lighter and responsive, except for sometimes hunting in low light, but rememeber you have to zoom with your feet.
If people would be mostly static, Canon 100mm f2.8L IS would a way to go.

If you shoot with cropped sensors, I suggest the 24-70mm f2.8 (Mark I or II) since focal range of 100mm is probably to long.


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 21, 2013)

skoobey said:


> *Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?
> *


*

You shoot stopped down, so why should sharpness at wide-open matter?*


----------



## skoobey (Oct 22, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > *Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?
> ...


*

I'm asking at f8 for two different lenses? I don't care about sharpness wide open.*


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 23, 2013)

skoobey said:


> Alrik89 said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...


*

It is not easy, to put the question right, isn't it?
And, wow, you already got an answer concerning sharpness with a stopped-down aperture:


Alrik89 said:



I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

Click to expand...

*


----------

