# buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??



## iggyotis (May 11, 2011)

Hi guys,

I am just about to purchase the 5DII, as currently I use a 550d but I want to move into the professional arena and move into full frame with better ISO handling. Waiting for the III doesnt seem like an option now that there are delays so I'm going to go for it and get the II.

Lens wise I have the 50 1.4 which I love but sometimes the length comes up short in clubs when I just cant get any nearer the bands for instance. I also take photos of interiors in restaurants/bars but I need something a little wider to capture some of these small rooms.

Budget wise I'm trying to work out whether it is worth just going for the L lens and biting the bullet with regards to cost as these will take me through many years, but I just dont know for sure which ones are best for what I need! Would the 34mm 1.4 be wide enough in say a 20-30ft room where I want to get the whole scene in? Or should I go for the 24mm? Same issue with the other end...is the difference between the 50mm to 85mm enough or should I push to 135mm? It's hard as I have no camera shops nearby which have these lenses so I'm trying to work out what is best!

Thanks in advance for any help!

Zoe


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2011)

First off, simply putting your 50/1.4 on a 5DII will give you 'something a little wider' than your current setup (the 1.6x crop factor of the 550D means the field of view with your 50/1.4 on that camera is equivalent to an 80mm lens on the 5DII. 

So, that is probably the answer to your longer lens question. Right now, you've got about the equivalent of an 85mm lens on FF, and it's coming up short, so you should consider the 135mm f/2L (which is great on a 5DII!). 

On the wide end, the 35mm f/1.4L is probably not going to be quite wide enough for a 20-30ft room where you want to get the whole scene in. Both the 35L and the 24L II are excellent lenses, but the 24mm is substantially wider. Some numbers: standing 25 ft from a wall, the 35mm lens on FF will frame an area 25 ft wide and 17 ft tall; the 24mm lens would frame an area 37.5 ft wide and 25 ft tall. One possibility would be to rent one or both of those lenses (e.g. lensrentals.com) and see which you prefer. Another option if your budget permits would be to get the 5DII kit with the 24-105mm f/4L IS - that's a great general purpose zoom on FF, and would allow you to compare focal lengths and figure out which is best (that how I decided on the 35L over the 24L II for my needs).


----------



## iggyotis (May 11, 2011)

Thanks for the reply N!

Yes the reviews I've read of that 135 sound amazing so I think that is definitely top of my list

I was considering going with a zoom as this would indeed cover both ends but my concern for the 24-105 is that it wont be good enough in low light situations? Although it does have the IS so this would help I just worry that it wouldn't cope well in really dark clubs...what are your thoughts? I have been going back and forth between zoom and prime and which to go for and it seems every day I change my mind! I like the fact that the prime forces me to move around to get the right shot and it's so crisp but then that one zoom would in effect be a great lens to cover most jobs..at least until I can work out exactly where I'm going...wedding photography, gigs, interiors for example.


----------



## Grendel (May 11, 2011)

x2 on the 135/2L, great performer. As for zooms (if money isn't an issue...), the 16-35/2.8L and a 70-200/2.8L would cover you for most situations (along w/ your 50.) Also, a 24-70/2.8L is a good indoor range. Consider renting some lenses online (eg. here) before you buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> I was considering going with a zoom as this would indeed cover both ends but my concern for the 24-105 is that it wont be good enough in low light situations? Although it does have the IS so this would help I just worry that it wouldn't cope well in really dark clubs...what are your thoughts?



In those situations, f/4 will not cut it...and in all probability, f/2.8 will not cut it, either. IS is not the answer there - while it's true that the 3-stop IS of the 24-105mm means it performs like f/1.4 in terms of handholdability, the trade off is shutter speed (that's how IS works, it allows a longer shutter speed) - and that means subject motion wil become a problem. 

I think for dark clubs, fast primes are the way to go. I was suggesting the zoom for 'general purpose' use. I've got a set of primes for portrait/low-light work (the complete 'holy trinity' of primes - 35L/85L II/135L), but the lens I usually leave on my camera is the 24-105mm. 

Depending on your budget, there are also lower-cost alternatives - the EF 28mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2 together would cost less than the 135mm f/2L. 

The 24-70mm on a 5DII is a good compromise lens for event work - f/2.8 with the 5DII's excellent ISO performance (usable ISO 3200). If you're shooting a wedding with only primes, you need two bodies so you don't miss shots.


----------



## Flake (May 12, 2011)

For interiors you don't need a wide fast prime! You need a tripod and a Pano head, if you can manage to stretch you should get the 17mm TSE tilt shift lens, which is one of Canons most high performance products. In addition 3 - 4 speedlights and good few hours with the strobist learning how best to place them to light a room effectively. 

Doing interiors well is technically quite challenging anyone can snap away hand held but that simply won't cut it in a commercial market.

As for shooting bands - well you've been doing it for free and there's a queue of others waiting to take your place, this market is a dead duck if you want to make a living from it. Unless you really want to donate your time and your money for free don't even bother buying a lens in the hope of professional returns.


----------



## Act444 (May 12, 2011)

Anyone who has the 135L - is the focus fast enough for indoor sports use? 

I have the 35L but I use it on a 1.6x body which gives me an excellent FOV (similar to what 50mm gives you on a FF). I'd say it's my sharpest lens. Outstanding all the way down to f/2. Softens a bit once you open up to f/1.4 but still very useable. May be better on FF, but not sure.


----------



## zerotiu (May 12, 2011)

I will suggest 135 f/2 for portrait

If I were you, I won't use fix for interior / architecture use.. I will get 16-35 / 17-40 
because I can assure you that you will not use the aperture under 8 . 

35 L f1.4 ? nah...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2011)

Act444 said:


> Anyone who has the 135L - is the focus fast enough for indoor sports use?



Absolutely - AF is very fast on the 135L. It's great for head/shoulders portraits (on FF), and also an excellent lens for indoor sports (although with the 5DII, the AF system is somewhat limiting - it does better on the 7D for that use).


----------



## Act444 (May 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has the 135L - is the focus fast enough for indoor sports use?
> ...



Cool. Thanks for the response! I wondered how it compared to say, the 85 1.8 which I used to have- it was quite fast.


----------



## alipaulphotography (May 12, 2011)

Sigma are producing superb primes at the moment which are in many ways better than the canon offerings.
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has better centre sharpness at f/1.4 than the canon offering, great autofocus and a more robust 'modern' design.
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 has much faster autofocus than the canon f/1.2 (they have no f/1.4) and is obviously much cheaper.
I do hope sigma release a 35mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2 as I will likely buy them if they are as good as the canon offerings. Canon's versions are both excellent so the only 'niche' sigma could go for is the lower price.

I personally haven't felt the desperate need for 24mm on full frame - but that's just me. At 24mm, you will lose some of the lovely bokeh that longer f/1.4 lenses produces - something to think about if that is an effect you are after.


----------



## sb (May 12, 2011)

Iggyotis, honestly if you can live with 100mm, forget the 135mm f/2 and go with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS. It is not only a much better low light lens than the 135mm, but it's better all around. It's noticeably sharper than 135 at f/2.8, with way less vignetting. The IS DOES matter, because to get a sharp pic with the 135mm you need at least 1/135sec shutter, whereas with the 100mm Macro, because of the hybrid IS, you can handhold and get a sharp pic even at 1/25 sec, so you can more than make up the one stop f difference between the 2 lenses. 

Secondly, the 135 does not look that good wide open, I personally wouldn't use it at f/2 - it's a tad too soft for my taste. Even when you stop it down to 2.8, the 100mm macro makes it look silly in comparison. 

Thirdly, if you happen to need to shoot something that's closer than the minimum focusing distance that the 135mm allows (I think it's a minimum of 1m or so, maybe more) you'll be happy you have the 100mm macro on, because you can shoot from a foot away, if not closer. 

Last year I was trying to decide between these 2 lenses, tried both of them, analyzed test shots on a pixel level, and I hate to say it but 135mm did not live up to the hype. It looks impressive mounted on the camera, but way too limiting, and ultimately not as good.

Cheers


----------



## kennykodak (May 12, 2011)

my picks would a 16-35 II and the 100L for a full frame sensor. have both with no regrets.


----------



## Axilrod (May 12, 2011)

sb said:


> Iggyotis, honestly if you can live with 100mm, forget the 135mm f/2 and go with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS. It is not only a much better low light lens than the 135mm, but it's better all around. It's noticeably sharper than 135 at f/2.8, with way less vignetting. The IS DOES matter, because to get a sharp pic with the 135mm you need at least 1/135sec shutter, whereas with the 100mm Macro, because of the hybrid IS, you can handhold and get a sharp pic even at 1/25 sec, so you can more than make up the one stop f difference between the 2 lenses.
> 
> Secondly, the 135 does not look that good wide open, I personally wouldn't use it at f/2 - it's a tad too soft for my taste. Even when you stop it down to 2.8, the 100mm macro makes it look silly in comparison.
> Cheers



Not trying to take anything away from your assessment, but I think you may have gotten a bad copy of the 135. I have the 35L, 50L, 85L, 100 Macro L, and the 135. In terms of overall image quality, the 135 is way up there (hard to decide between that many primes, they're all pretty damn sharp). But one thing about the 135, it took a little while to grow on me, it has more of a learning curve than the others. 

But for this guy's situation, I would have to agree with you. There are much more useful focal lengths if he doesn't have many lenses. The 100mm Macro is very very sharp, the Hybrid IS is awesome, and it's much more versatile than the 135mm. The 16-35mm II would be a great choice for indoor stuff, that is the only zoom lens I have left in my collection and its A LOT of fun on a FF sensor.


----------



## sb (May 13, 2011)

Axilrod, it's possible that it was a bad copy, I didn't bother trying to get samples from another copy, but now that I have the 100mm L, I don't think I'll bother finding out because I'm more than happy with it. I also have the 85mm 1.2 L and the 35mm f/1.4 L, both fantastic lenses (although I hate the size of the 85mm, I'm planning to get the f/1.8 version for carrying around) The other thing that slighlty annoys me with the 85mm f/1.2 is the slow AF, lack of IS and pronounced CA at f/1.2, but I guess I'm just being greedy now 

35 L is by far my favorite lens - I can't say enough about it. FOV with a FF camera is really fun, and it actually changed the style of my photography, because I find myself rarely using long lenses now.

50L is on the list for sure, but I think I want the 45mm 2.8 TS first


----------



## Admin US West (May 13, 2011)

sb said:


> Axilrod, it's possible that it was a bad copy, I didn't bother trying to get samples from another copy, but now that I have the 100mm L, I don't think I'll bother finding out because I'm more than happy with it. I also have the 85mm 1.2 L and the 35mm f/1.4 L, both fantastic lenses (although I hate the size of the 85mm, I'm planning to get the f/1.8 version for carrying around) The other thing that slighlty annoys me with the 85mm f/1.2 is the slow AF, lack of IS and pronounced CA at f/1.2, but I guess I'm just being greedy now
> 
> 35 L is by far my favorite lens - I can't say enough about it. FOV with a FF camera is really fun, and it actually changed the style of my photography, because I find myself rarely using long lenses now.
> 
> 50L is on the list for sure, but I think I want the 45mm 2.8 TS first



If your 135mm l is not sharp wide open, it probably has something wrong. I have two 35mm l's and two 135mmL's temporarily, and all are wonderful and sharp wide open. I take more images with my 135mmL at f/2 each year than with all of my other lenses combined, but the 35mmL may change that.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I am just about to purchase the 5DII, as currently I use a 550d but I want to move into the professional arena and move into full frame with better ISO handling. Waiting for the III doesnt seem like an option now that there are delays so I'm going to go for it and get the II.
> 
> ...



Hi Zoe,

If I understand you correctly your main focus would be live band photography - including those wide angle shots?

You already have the 50 1.4 which is excellent for that. Depending on budget I would maybe start with adding either the longer focal range or the wide angle range first. I'm really a prime person but I'm going to mention the 24-70 2.8L and the 16-35 2.8L zooms - which in my book are the only zooms worth owning, especially given your purpose. So you could do one of those and then add the 135L or even the 200 2.8L. I personally don't see any good reasons to own the very expensive 70-200 2.8L

And anything IS will not help you with what you're trying to achieve.

The 35L is certainly a great lens but I also find it to be the most boring focal range there is. The 24L would cover what you are describing but it's very much a one-trick-pony and it's a lot of money for that in my opinion.


----------



## MK5GTI (May 13, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Sigma are producing superb primes at the moment which are in many ways better than the canon offerings.
> ........
> I do hope sigma release a 35mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2 as I will likely buy them if they are as good as the canon offerings. Canon's versions are both excellent so the only 'niche' sigma could go for is the lower price.
> ....................



I am hoping for the same thing, i don't want to pay for the expensive L since Sigma prime is giving me fantastic result, but when sigma release these two lens, it will also serve the Nikon and Sony side too, which the Zeiss 135 is obviously more $$ (F1.8). so how low sigma wants to list the 135, i don't know.

but yeah, they should have complete the 3 primes, they have the 85 now, just need 35 (or 24) and the 135


----------



## Caps18 (May 16, 2011)

I understand your dilemma.... I was shooting people in a moderately lit casino with a 16-35mm and I had to increase the ISO pretty high. I would imagine a dark nightclub would require more than a f/2.8 (without using a flash, which will not look good.)

How soon after getting this 5D would you need to shoot? the 50 f/1.4 would be a good test lens. It really depends how close you want to be to the subject you are shooting. 24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.

Zoom with your feet.


----------



## alipaulphotography (May 17, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> 24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.
> 
> Zoom with your feet.



Do you mean 24-88mm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > 24-28mm is what most point & shoots do, so you can't go wrong with a 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm.
> ...



I suspect s/he means most P&S cameras start at 24-28mm on the wide end.


----------



## AdamJ (May 19, 2011)

One key thing about shooting concerts is how close to the stage you can get. If you're right there at the stage, 135mm might be long enough but if you're any distance away, you'll benefit from something longer. I used to photograph a girlfriend singing classical recitals and I couldn't stand right by the stage because of the nuisance to the audience. From a distance of, I guess, 30ft from her, I mostly used the long end of a 70-200mm f4 and shot in continuous mode to ensure a fair number of keepers. She was almost always spotlit so, while I would have liked something faster, I got by with f4.


----------



## Chicorob (May 19, 2011)

I know someone else noted this already, but if you are focued on primes and you already have the 50 1.4, you will probably want something really wide like the 24 1.4 (or 2.8 if budget is a concern) and I personally would go for the 100 2.8L IS macro only because of its versitility. You can shoot portraits, it is super sharp and lightweight, and with IS it will be as effectively as fast as just about anything out there in that focal range. 

Have you considered just going with the 70-200 f2.8 (IS or non IS) for the longer end? Both versions are great and would provide you more flexibility while giving up very little in terms of sharpness and contrast. They are a little big and heavy but the 5DII combo with this lens is amazing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2011)

Chicorob said:


> ...the 100 2.8L IS macro...with IS it will be as effectively as fast as just about anything out there in that focal range.



Yes, as long as your subjects are motionless. 4-stop IS means you can handhold the 100mm lens down to about 1/6 s...but all the people in your images will be blurry at that slow a shutter speed. To stop _subject_ motion (vs. photographer motion), you need a faster aperture. Even one stop can make the difference between blurred and sharp (blurred in a motion sense, anyway - the trade off with a fast aperture is a thin DoF, so a fast tele lens and a close subject might mean that only part of the subject is in focus).


----------



## KyleSTL (May 19, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> 24-28mm is what most point & shoots do
> 
> I suspect s/he means most P&S cameras start at 24-28mm on the wide end.


The majority of P&S cameras have 30-35mm (equ) lenses. Only recently have makers started doing 28mm or 24mm (past 2-3 years). A quick dpreview feature search yielded only 46 fixed-lens cameras with 24mm or wider. 221 cameras are 28mm or wider, and they list 348 cameras total that are 'current'.


----------



## iggyotis (May 22, 2011)

thanks guys for the responses this is a real help...I was also able to try out some of the lenses a few days ago and I feel I'm much closer to a decision. My findings were that I'm a prime person, not a zoom for sure. I picked up the 24-70, 24-105 for the first time and took a few test shots and yes they were great, but once I took a few test shots on the 34 1.4 or even compared to my 50 1.4 there was no comparison. I LOVE the pictures prime takes and thats enough for me to sacrifice the flexibility. 

Next decision I've made is that I want to work more in portraits/weddings NOT bands music. I'm trying to make myself fit everything but I really dont want to cover this music end so why am I trying!

So I need a couple of great L series lenses that will cover me for weddings/portraits that are great in low light and will give me a good footing to begin with. So I've wittled it down for the longish end, to the 100mm 2.8 and the 135 2...


sb said:


> Iggyotis, honestly if you can live with 100mm, forget the 135mm f/2 and go with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS. It is not only a much better low light lens than the 135mm, but it's better all around. It's noticeably sharper than 135 at f/2.8, with way less vignetting. The IS DOES matter, because to get a sharp pic with the 135mm you need at least 1/135sec shutter, whereas with the 100mm Macro, because of the hybrid IS, you can handhold and get a sharp pic even at 1/25 sec, so you can more than make up the one stop f difference between the 2 lenses.
> 
> Secondly, the 135 does not look that good wide open, I personally wouldn't use it at f/2 - it's a tad too soft for my taste. Even when you stop it down to 2.8, the 100mm macro makes it look silly in comparison.
> 
> ...



thanks for this sb...but yeah do I go for the 135 2 with that extra reach, or decide that the amount of time I will need that extra reach might just not be worth it but to have the 100 2.8 for detail shots like ring, invite, glasses shots at wedding and also I could use it for more general purpose as well? I wasn't able to test the 135 in store so I'm worried it will just be too long...or maybe I would enjoy being able to take candid shots from afar? Any opinions on either of these lenses?

so next decision is what wide angle to get...the 34 1.4 is wide but is it wide enough (on a FF) or would 24 1.4 be better? or do I decide that for the time being if I can only buy 2 L primes then flexibility is a good thing so the 34 would be able to be used for more things so go with this and add the 24 if needed at a later date? Would it be silly to get the 34 when I have the 50 or is that L stamp really worth having in my bag and it will be better than my 50? Again any suggestions most welcome.


----------



## unruled (May 22, 2011)

you could also get the 85 1.8, often claimed to be the unofficial -l lens (for IQ). epic lens. epic bargain.
or if your pockets go deeper, 85 f/1.2


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

Another suggestion, and one that I take when selecting a new prime, is to look at images I've taken with my zoom lenses. Lightroom, and probably other software lets me see the images focal length used, the aperture, shutter speeds, etc and gives a total of photos taken at each setting. Before I decided on a 35mm L last July, I found I took more photos at 35mm than 24mm by about a 4:1 margin.

I really haven't missed not having a 24mm prime so far.

For example, on last Wednesday, the keepers from photos I shot were:

35mm L - 135
50mm 1.4 - 6
85mm 1.8 - 0
135mm f2 - 139

On Thursday:

35mm L - 24
50mm 1.4 - 118
85mm 1.8 - 182
135mm f2 - 58

The difference was my ability to move around more on Thursday. Almost all of my best images, as usual, came from the 135mm f2.


----------



## iggyotis (May 22, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> The difference was my ability to move around more on Thursday. Almost all of my best images, as usual, came from the 135mm f2.



i think im definitely leaning towards the 135f2. I was trying to weigh up whether the 70-200 2.8 IS would be more flexible for weddings, but so far when I've been able to compare shots from zooms in stores and the ones on the primes I just dont think I have the same love for zooms as I do primes! The only issue I have is that sometimes I need to take photos at catwalk shows so I think there I may just have to rent out the 70-200 as you just dont know where you're going to stand so I think I would need that flexibility.

Do you only use the 35 as your widest lens scalesusa? MY concern is that the 35 wont be wide enough but then I also think that dropping a lot of money on the 25 this early doesnt make the most sense for me when in reality it might just be used for a few shots of interiors where DOF wont be as critical to me as I'll want most of the scene in focus so paying for that low aperture might not be worth it. If you had to choose between your 85 and your 35, if you only had the 50 f1.4 and the 135 f2 which would it be?


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

[Do you only use the 35 as your widest lens scalesusa? MY concern is that the 35 wont be wide enough but then I also think that dropping a lot of money on the 25 this early doesnt make the most sense for me when in reality it might just be used for a few shots of interiors where DOF wont be as critical to me as I'll want most of the scene in focus so paying for that low aperture might not be worth it. If you had to choose between your 85 and your 35, if you only had the 50 f1.4 and the 135 f2 which would it be?
[/quote]

I have a lot of primes and zooms. I tend to favor the ones listed above most of the time.

Canon 15mm fisheye

Tokina 17mm f/3.5

Canon 24-105mm L

Canon 35mm L

Canon 50mm f/1.4

Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS

Canon 85mm f/1.8

Canon 100mm L

Canon 100-400mm L

Canon 135mm L

I also have a Canon 28mm f/2.8, Canon 22-55mm that I do not use, and will probably sell some day. I've owned a lot more Canon lenses, I buy and sell them pretty often, and keep the ones that work for me. I don't lose money, I make sure I can sell a lens for what I paid for it, or I pass it up.

I also have Canon Tc's, and extension rings, reverse lens adapter, and a lot of adapters for other lens makes to EOS. I have lots of old film cameras from almost every manufacturer, bought for the lenses. Even a Hasselblad that I bought used three weeks ago.

i'm retired and go to a lot of garage sales as well as having some great software that does a Craigslist search over several cities within a few hundred miles, so I find the bargains on craigslist right away. I can spot a Craigslist scammer immediately, after using craigslist a while, they stand out clearly. I only buy in person.


----------



## iggyotis (May 22, 2011)

so do you think if I go for the 50 1.4 and the 135 2 would it more beneficial for me to grab the 35 or the 85 focal range, considering weddings are something I want to move in to?

or I could try and stretch to the 35 L AND the 85 f1.8 (as this isnt as pricey as the L series) if both were quite important focal ranges?


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> so do you think if I go for the 50 1.4 and the 135 2 would it more beneficial for me to grab the 35 or the 85 focal range, considering weddings are something I want to move in to?
> 
> or I could try and stretch to the 35 L AND the 85 f1.8 (as this isnt as pricey as the L series) if both were quite important focal ranges?



Wedding photography is very competitive. Its not the equipment, but the know how that brings success. The so called "Wedding Lens", the 24-70mm L must have that nickname for a reason! 

Try to work with a experienced wedding photographer, or at least, take a serious course in wedding photography to see if you really want to do it.

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/

It will be the best investment you could make, and save you thousands of dollars buying the wrong equipment.


----------



## iggyotis (May 22, 2011)

thanks for the advice and yes I understand the equipment is only part of it...but I do need the right equipment for the job at the end of the day and I need to start getting some lenses to cover me not only in that 50mm range if I am to try do do more professional photography. 

Weddings is only one part of what I'm interested in, portraits is another - street style is something I currently am employed to do and the 50mm is great for this but when it comes to me trying to branch out into other areas I need some more equipment. If the wedding thing doesnt work then hopefully I have a range of lenses that will cover me for other jobs and if not completely then I can slowly add more to my collection.

thanks for the link to the course as well, I'd definitely be interested in doing any courses to help me discover what it is exactly I would like to do in the photography industry... but it says Aug 25 â€“ Aug 29, 2010 - is this just a typo and it is actually meant to be 2011 or has it finished?


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> thanks for the advice and yes I understand the equipment is only part of it...but I do need the right equipment for the job at the end of the day and I need to start getting some lenses to cover me not only in that 50mm range if I am to try do do more professional photography.
> 
> Weddings is only one part of what I'm interested in, portraits is another - street style is something I currently am employed to do and the 50mm is great for this but when it comes to me trying to branch out into other areas I need some more equipment. If the wedding thing doesnt work then hopefully I have a range of lenses that will cover me for other jobs and if not completely then I can slowly add more to my collection.
> 
> thanks for the link to the course as well, I'd definitely be interested in doing any courses to help me discover what it is exactly I would like to do in the photography industry... but it says Aug 25 â€“ Aug 29, 2010 - is this just a typo and it is actually meant to be 2011 or has it finished?



The course has finished, it went for 5 days, and you can see some clips from it free, but must pay to see or download all five days worth.

The cost for five days of training is very low, you are seeing one of the great photographers in action, covering all the aspects. 

Much of the photography part will also be what you need for portraits. Photography is about light, and technique. Don't obsess about equipment until you become aware of the whole package. 

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/


----------



## iggyotis (May 22, 2011)

Much of the photography part will also be what you need for portraits. Photography is about light, and technique. Don't obsess about equipment until you become aware of the whole package. 

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/jasmine_star/
[/quote]

I'm not sure its obsessing, I just really wanted some good advice from those who know, on what two lenses (prime for sure as I know I prefer this over zooms) would be useful to me for future use in low light situations. If I want to strengthen my portfolio then I need some varying photos so only having the 50mm is rather restricting at times. I have a few friend's weddings coming up and it would be great to have some extra points of view in my portfolio again, hence the need for a lens to cover the wide and long ends.

even if weddings arent what i want to get into (but I'm sure they are), two extra lenses for me cant go wrong...so its just a case of getting the "right" ones or ones that will help me progress and give me some variation.


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

You won't go wrong with any of the core primes, 24mm L 35mm L, 50mm L, 85mm L, 135mm L, 200mm f2 L, etc.

The 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm are three focal lengths which provide good coverage as long as you can move about a bit. If I could, I'd have these three mounted on three 5D MK II's.


----------



## CaptainAw3some (May 23, 2011)

Sort of a related question not to the OP but to everyone giving advice: How long do you expect these lenses to stay useful? What's their shelf-life to you?

I'm looking at all of the lenses that are about to get updated, and reading reviews of newer versions of lenses that mention the shortcomings of the old versions. Say you bought a 35 today. Assuming it doesn't break or fail mechanically, how long are you expecting to use that lens until you bought a new 35 prime? A few years? The rest of the time you spend with Canon products?

I'm sure the answer will vary, but I'd like to see the different answers and perspectives.


----------



## Admin US West (May 23, 2011)

EF lenses from the very first ones in the 1970's are still in use on DSLR's today. Old FD and FL lenses from the 1960's are still in use today, and are popular to adapt to micro 4/3 camera bodies as a inexpensive alternative lens.

Even older Leica lenses from the 1940's are highly sought after.

People only toss them when they're broken, and often sell them for parts.

some old lenses that do not work on todays cameras are Sigma lenses which were reverse engineered to work with Canon EOS film cameras, but they did a poor job, and when DSLR's came out, they would not work. I have four of them to remind me that any Sigma lens I buy today may not work on a new Canon DSLR. They still work on a Canon film camera. This happened recently to a Sigma for Sony lens, it wouldn't work on newer Sony DSLR cameras. So, they are still at it. Sigma did offer to upgrade it.


----------



## unruled (May 23, 2011)

scalesusa, do you agree that it might be good for him to buy the 85mm 1.8 even if he gets another more expensive L ? its (relatively speaking) extremely cheap and offers very good quality imho.


----------



## Admin US West (May 24, 2011)

I'm reluctant to recommend a specific lens, certainly, the 85mm f/1.8 is a excellent lens at a bargain price, but he needs to determine the focal lengths he needs.

When I add a new lens, I usually have a specific project or usage in mind. Over the years, I've added a lot of them.

For my 5D MK II and 1D MK III, I use 35mmL, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm 2.0 for low light indoor photography.

Outdoors, I tend to favor zooms, but whenever I can be sure A focal length like 35mm will work, then I take the prime. Last year, a couple of days after I got my 35mm l, I spent a day at our local county fair and used nothing but the 35. I also took a trip to a dimly lighted limestone cave up north near the Canadian border, and the 35 worked well there. When they turned the lights out, even my 5D MK II would not focus. Its really totally dark down inside when there is no light.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 24, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> EF lenses from the very first ones in the 1970's are still in use on DSLR's today


Minor nitpick: Unless you're referring to prototypes or maybe FD-EF conversions (like the famous The EF system is not quite that old; but still, at over 20 years old (1987) it is amazing how much development they seem to have crammed into that space of time. Yet, as you say, the old lenses are still good.

Personally, I think the only limitation of older lenses is, generally speaking, autofocus. I enjoy using my TS-E lenses but they would be a handicap in most wedding situations - though they could be put to good use for staged photos, like the traditional wedding party lineup photo, and some newlyweds have asked their photographers to use the defocus capability of TS-E lenses for more dramatic couples photos.

I think that, as scalesusa seems to be saying, if you are thinking in terms of how close you can get to the right subject framing for a given focal length, you may need to rethink your movement during the wedding. It seems apparent to me that the 70-200mm f/2.8 will help some of these problems, of course, since you don't need to be very close. A shorter lens requires you to be close by. So, it might be in order to find out what sorts of venues are common for weddings, and experiment a bit with rentals if you can.

Personally, I don't know what wedding photog etiquette is, only just don't do this and become the subject.


----------



## Admin US West (May 24, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Minor nitpick: Unless you're referring to prototypes or maybe FD-EF conversions (like the famous The EF system is not quite that old; but still, at over 20 years old (1987) it is amazing how much development they seem to have crammed into that space of time. Yet, as you say, the old lenses are still good.



Oops, I transposed the numbers. I was thinking 1978, but the first one was indeed 1987.

At any rate, many, if not most are still alive and lurking in someones attic or in use.


----------



## sb (May 24, 2011)

Iggyotis, if you're interested in wedding photography, here are a few lens related comments from my personal experience:

1. Nothing can touch primes. Some people say 24-70 is the "wedding lens" but I hate it. Too much gets sacrificed with variable focal length, and I would personally sacrifice zoom ability before anything else. It's not hard to walk a little more, but not having a fast lens indoors really sucks, and 2.8 is not fast enough. I only used this lens for one wedding, and I will never use it again. The lens has noticeable barrel distortion @ 24mm, and pincushion @70mm. 

2. I use 35mm f/1.4 on a FF body more than any other lens during the wedding day. It is perfect for groom preps because I like the look of the ever-so-slight distortion of the male faces. Of course this is a matter of taste, you may prefer the flat perspective of longer lenses. I don't. However, the same slight distortion is too much for bride's preps, so I use a slightly longer lens for the bride. 50mm is ideal, 85mm is great too.

3. For the ceremony, if I am able to stand close, I usually use either 85mm f/1.2 (1.8 is fantastic too, in some ways better than f/1.2) or 100mm f/2.8 Macro with Hybrid IS. For some ceremonies I've used 35mm, but I like a little more reach here so I can get the closeup of the ring exchange. For church ceremonies, there are rules in terms of where you can stand and where you can't, so I use the 70-200 f/4 here for extra reach. I hate the 2.8 version of it because of the weight, and I'll gladly shoot at f/4 instead and crank ISO to whatever I need to compensate since 5DMK2 kills even at 6400

4. For portraits, I use the 35mm, love the 45mm tilt-shift (I'd shoot everything with that if it were socially acceptable), and longer lenses as well. This gives me a wide range of different looks.

5. For cocktails I use 35mm f/1.4 exclusively because I like the journalistic look rather than flat perspective of long lenses. My partner usually has the 85mm on a crop body (7D) to be able to take candids from further away without people noticing. 

6. For reception same setup as #5

If I were you, I would get the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 first. Down the road you can think about adding 1 long lens to the list (i.e. 135 or 70-200 etc)

Cheers


----------



## iggyotis (May 28, 2011)

thanks so much for your reply sb!

I totally agree about the 24-70...when I went in the store and tried it out I thought I was going crazy as I just couldnt get why everyone loves it. I think using the 50 1.4 prime as my first lens has totally ruined me for zooms so as much I tried to want it, because it would make my life easier being more flexible, I just know I would hate using it!

So yes the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8 are definitely on my list now! Do you think the 135L would be difficult to use for say candids, as you'd have to be quite far from people and hope no one walks in front of you!? I was trying to weigh up getting the 100 f2.8 macro or the 135L as my lens with extra reach as I wondered whether the 100 f2.8 macro might be better to begin as it has that extra reach AND is a macro, whereas the 135 might be too long on occasions so it might not get as much use.


----------



## Flake (May 28, 2011)

Funny but in the UK the 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L is regarded as the wedding lens, which is why the 5D MkII is available as a kit with it. Maybe not the fastest lens but the 24 - 70mm 2.8L just won't cut it, even at this time of the year it's so dull & overcast the IS is just a necessity. It's been raining for a month and some days it's been so dull the street lights have come on. It's cold too! The only solution is speedlites or / and IS.

Primes are all well and good but sometimes you'll just not be in the right place and miss the money shot, and all that changing of lenses will inevitably mean more dirt on the sensor, and more time messing in the kit bag. Great if you're in a church and don't want to disturb the ceremony & you're going to be under steady light and in a similar place though.

I do wonder how you're going to manage group shots when there's 30 people to shoot, I know formal wedding shots are a little out of fashion, but some do still like them.


----------



## wolftrap (May 29, 2011)

I've been shooting weddings for a year now with the following

EF 24mm f1.4L
EF 50mm f1.2L
EF 70-200mm f2.8L mk II

I'm fairly confident going to any wedding with those 3 lenses. The 50mm f1.2L probably gets the most use. Like you I research and think about lenses for a long long time before buying them. I see a lot of local wedding photographers using the L zooms, 16-35mm or 17-40mm and 28-70mm and they give nice clean pictures, but they don't jump out. You don't get the bokeh of the fixed primes. In the next 3 months I'll be going for the following and then I'll have everything I need.

EF 35mm f1.4L
EF 85mm f1.2L
EF 100mm f2.8L macro mk II


----------



## iggyotis (May 29, 2011)

hey wolftrap, 

that sounds like my dream setup! so the prob is trying to work out which ones to get first I guess... I know you have the 24 but I wondered whether I would use this as much as the 35 so maybe it was better to get the 35 to begin with? Also at the long end I know the 70-200 is a great piece of glass but its quite heavy and "in your face" so I was thinking maybe the 135 L might be a bit less intrusive? Have you ever used that prime before?


----------



## Admin US West (May 30, 2011)

I have the 35mm l and the 135mm l, and they are a great pair. however, there is a large gap between the two, and 85mm is pretty useful.


----------



## iggyotis (May 30, 2011)

So you favour the 70-200 over te 135 for weddings? Is this because it gives you more flexibility?


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 15, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> So you favour the 70-200 over te 135 for weddings? Is this because it gives you more flexibility?



I shot a wedding and used both the 70-200 IS (v1) and the 135mm f/2. When I was looking through the pictures, I kept running into shots that I thought FOR SURE were from the 135mm, but when I looked I realized they were the 70-200. And I hear the 70-200 II is a big improvement, so yes, for weddings the 70-200 would definitely be more versatile, and I don't think you'd lose much image quality (if any). 

You can't really go wrong either way, but if you can only have one, get the 70-200.


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 15, 2011)

wolftrap said:


> I've been shooting weddings for a year now with the following
> 
> EF 24mm f1.4L
> EF 50mm f1.2L
> ...



I've had ALL of the lenses that you have/want in the last year (except the 24 1.4 and my 70-200 was v1). I'll tell you this, when I got my 85mm 1.2, I pretty much stopped using my 100 f/2.8 Macro L IS and sold it shortly after. I just know that every single picture that comes out of that 85mm is a winner. 

The 35mm f/1.4 is awesome as well, but with the 24 and 50 I wonder how much use you'll get out of it. 

I've only been using DSLR's for a year, and in the last year I have had:
16-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L (2 different copies)
35mm f/1.4L (2 different copies)
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L IS (sharpest zoom I have ever used)
85mm f/1.2L II
100mm f/2.8L Macro IS
135mm f/2

I was new to all of this (video guy switching over) so I wasn't sure what I wanted. I've downsized recently, and at the moment I have: 16-35mm II, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, and the 135mm f/2. I sold most of the others because they didn't feel necessary, but I sold the 35mm 1.4 to try out the Zeiss 35mm 1.4.

Anyways, going from a T2i w/ kit lens to a 5DII and all of the previously mentioned was crazy, but a hell of a learning experience. Ultimately I learned that: Primes > ALL (but at the same time the 70-200 showed me just how damn sharp a zoom can be).


----------



## sb (Jun 15, 2011)

iggyotis said:


> thanks so much for your reply sb!
> 
> I totally agree about the 24-70...when I went in the store and tried it out I thought I was going crazy as I just couldnt get why everyone loves it. I think using the 50 1.4 prime as my first lens has totally ruined me for zooms so as much I tried to want it, because it would make my life easier being more flexible, I just know I would hate using it!
> 
> So yes the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8 are definitely on my list now! Do you think the 135L would be difficult to use for say candids, as you'd have to be quite far from people and hope no one walks in front of you!? I was trying to weigh up getting the 100 f2.8 macro or the 135L as my lens with extra reach as I wondered whether the 100 f2.8 macro might be better to begin as it has that extra reach AND is a macro, whereas the 135 might be too long on occasions so it might not get as much use.



Iggyotis, sorry about late reply...

Anyway you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned 135L vs 100 f/2.8 macro. I 100% agree, and prefer 100 f/2.8 L macro (Hybrid IS). I don't consider 135L to be an ideal indoor solution because it doesn't have the IS, so you have to shoot at 1/135sec at least. Also i don't sufficiently like it @f/2.0 so I knew I was gonna end up stopping it down to f/2.8 anyway, so I decided I may as well get the macro (with hybrid IS) which kills @ f/2.8. The long 135mm reach is sometimes too much for cocktail mingling etc. and also sometimes you unexpectedly find yourself too close to the subject, and being able to close focus is essential.

Now about Flake's comment...

I actually have never missed the money shot due to messing around with lenses, mainly because once I don't frequently change lenses. Once I decide on what I'm going to use for a particular setting, I stick with it. Secondly, I always pay attention to what's going on around me, so i don't attempt to change lenses at a bad time. 

As far as large group shots are concerned, it's true that once in a blue moon, you'll end up having to shoot a larger group. For those extremely rare situations when 35mm on my FF is not wide enough, I have the 17-40mm f/4. Knowing that I would only need an extreme wide angle in very rare situations, I decided to save some money and get the cheapest pro wide angle I could get. 

Anyway, the point is, since you can't buy everything at once (unless you're really rich ) I would focus on the best bang for the buck, and 35mm and 85mm sure give you a lot of bang!


----------



## infilm (Jun 16, 2011)

The 16-35 will do the job for your interiors. I have one on my 7D and I'm rarely wanting a wider lens. On a FF sensor it definitely do well for you. In terms of a long prime such and the 100L. I really can't comment. I do have the 70-200L IS. Its great but probably not fast enough if you are shooting in a club. Good luck.


----------



## iggyotis (Jun 23, 2011)

hey guys, thanks for the recent comments ! I just got my 5DII the other day and wow am I loving it!! it makes my 50 1.4 stand out even more! so now tomorrow is the day i am going into the camera shop to buy 1 or 2 lenses to add to my arsenal. I know I would love that 35 1.4 so its just on the long end now that I need.

so the only small spanner in the works is I've been asked to cover Berlin Fashion week for a website and I'm concerned that having two primes (one wide/one long) will be awkward to change between. Im worried ill miss some good shots of people walking by who are further away if I just have my 35mm on my lens which is what i will use for the street style shots. I have my other 550d camera so I could wear both cameras but after seeing how amazing the pics look on the 5D it will be hard to go back to the 550d! if I got the 35/135 or 100 combo would there be a lens which was better suited to either camera? 

another option is to only carry one camera and then i buy one prime to add to my collection for things like weddings/events and then one zoom (either 24-105 f 4/20-70 f2.8) for those times when switching between primes might be hard to do or i nee to be very quick. so id just use the zoom for BFW and accept the picks wont pop as much but that ill get more shots maybe?

So hard to decide as my work can be quite random so the lenses have to cover so much... Or maybe I just accept they cant cover everything and just buy the 35 and the 100 macro and I have to try and work with this as much as possible.


----------



## infilm (Jun 24, 2011)

Sounds to me like you need to look at what light levels you find yourself working at the most. Then you can answer the question of primes or a zoom for yourself. If you are only going to have 2 lenses, I'd be looking at a zoom. Also its hard to beat the convenience of a zoom. 

Personally I find that MOST times I can work at a level where a f2.8 zoom is fine. For the rare times where I am below a 2.8, I go for my 35l or the 50l. If I am doing portrait work then the 50 is the lens for me. 

Good luck.


----------



## krboynton (Jul 4, 2011)

Cool. Thanks for the response! I wondered how it compared to say, the 85 1.8 which I used to have- it was quite fast.
[/quote]

I have both. The 85mm focuses a little faster, but has more light to do so. The 135mm is great for indoor sports and will do fine. Overall, though, you may want to keep your 550D and throw an 85mm on there, giving you about a 135mm focal length, then keep the 5D II for the standard and wide angle shots. Unless you're going to use f/1.4 on a 35mm f/1.4, I would go for the 35mm f/2. It's a little older, but the image quality is superior to my L zooms at the same focal length.


----------

