Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon Lenses  (Read 4968 times)
ahbriggs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« on: December 14, 2012, 01:18:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I've just recently purchased myself a location lighting kit and I'm now looking at investing in a lens. I own a Canon 5D Mk III and I'm looking for the ideal lens to best suit my needs. I like to shoot people and portraits and I want a lens that is both sharp and crisp in image quality. I have been looking at the 70-200 and the 24-70 both second generation. I'm leaning towards the 70-200 due to the lack of an image stabilizer within the 24-70. I would like to hear opinions and recommendations about each lens as well as what people find themselves shooting with the most.

Thanks,

Ashley
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1465


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2012, 06:18:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I find I use my 70-200 much more when shooting individual portraits in either the studio or on location. The 24-70 is a nice lens, but 70mm isn't long enough for most portraits for the way I shoot.

I own four of the 70-200 Canon lenses. (Yeah, I have a problem...) The new 70-200/2.8 is pretty amazing, but the 70-200/4 I.S. is no slouch, and it's half the weight and half the cost. I use the f/4 lens most of the time, and break out the f/2.8 only when I absolutely need the wider aperture, which isn't very often when shooting location portraits.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 808


« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2012, 09:35:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both the 24-70 and 70-200 version II lenses, they are excellent, pretty much on par with L primes for their respective focal lengths at overlapping apertures. I find I use the 24-70 lens more often, simply based on focal length preference.
Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1822



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2012, 11:03:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd get an EF 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2L over the 70-200mm f/2.8L. Image quality is one reason, larger maximum aperture is a second, weight and size are two more.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an exceedingly  high quality lens  I would not discount it just because it lacks IS.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L  IS II is no performance slouch either but is really big and really heavy. if you discount size and weight as a factor try renting one for a week, carrying it around and working with it daily and you'll see what I mean.

Which ever lens or lenses you end up with, do yourself and your clients a favor and get either the LensAlign Mark II (http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html) and FocusTune software (http://michaeltapesdesign.com/focustune.html combination or the Datacolor Spyder LENSCAL target (http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/lenscal/) and tune the performance of your camera's autofocus system for your individual lenses.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 502



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2012, 05:47:10 PM »
ReplyReply

IMHO the 85 1.2L is the best lens Canon make followed by the 135 F2L.
Both are exceptionally sharp and under f2 the 85 has a look that you wont get from a zoom.

Comes at a price of course.. Shocked

That said, I've been playing with a loan 28-70 2.8L II and could happily shoot with just that and the 70-200 2.8 for
about 90% of my shots..
Logged

ahbriggs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2012, 08:30:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I think I'll stick with the 24-70, I currently rent the first generation lens and I use it a lot. I will eventually gravitate towards specialty lenses like the 85mm but I essentially want a single purchase solution at the moment. I have noticed back focus with certain lenses but I never thought to look into getting it corrected. I appreciate the advice Ellis and I think I will go with DataColour.
Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 439



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2012, 10:34:44 AM »
ReplyReply

You might want to try Focal software for doing the lens calibration it will take the guess work out of it and is very reliable. The software is well written and works very well, much better in my opinion than some of the other solutions, which I have used.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/


Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2012, 12:00:08 PM »
ReplyReply

much better in my opinion than some of the other solutions, which I have used.
My experience too. Getting the right afma setting can significant;y improve AF performance.

I'd also agree that the 70-200 f2.8 is rather a big lump for portrait work, great lens though.
Logged
Rob Whitehead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2013, 10:26:38 AM »
ReplyReply

IMHO the 85 1.2L is the best lens Canon make followed by the 135 F2L.
Both are exceptionally sharp and under f2 the 85 has a look that you wont get from a zoom.

Comes at a price of course.. Shocked

That said, I've been playing with a loan 28-70 2.8L II and could happily shoot with just that and the 70-200 2.8 for
about 90% of my shots..

Yep, the 85 1.2 has a magic quality. Hard to beat for portraits.
Logged

Carpe lucem
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2013, 05:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to jump in here for a quick question...

Any thoughts as to which is the better tool - Focal or Focus Tune?

Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1822



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2013, 07:04:27 PM »
ReplyReply

A comparison between FocusTune and FoCal software; http://mtd.forumatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15&sid=d23405e926cce23bee43b852a22769fe Admittedly it is by Michael Tapes who invented both the LensAlign targets and FocusTune software.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2013, 02:58:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Admittedly it is by Michael Tapes who invented both the LensAlign targets and FocusTune software.
So about as unbiased as Steve Jobs comparing Macs with Windows then ;-)

That one Focal 'con' is allegedly 'Advanced computer skills advised' is real nonsense when earlier a 'pro' is supposed to be the 'Mature user interface' and 'Automatic (hands-off) operation for most functions'. Doesn't quite add up does it ?

I've not done a comparison of the two, but do own Focal Pro. It requires no advanced computer skills to use, ease of use is it's main feature as far as I can tell. It does a great 'hands off' job with supported cameras.
From the screen shots I've seen of Focus Tune it looks a lot less user friendly and complex, plus there's no automated shooting options for the cameras that can handle it.

Focal Pro's main 'con' is that it costs more, but there several discount offers around that make the difference much less. I'd still buy Focal Pro again.
Logged
Dave_Wyatt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2013, 06:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Firstly, what do you currently shoot with?  Both the 24-70 and 70-200 are excellent lenses but are very different lenses.  The 24-70 lacks the IS because it is a shorter focal length so should be hand holdable at a slightly slower speed (somewhere around 1/60th whereas the 70-200 without IS would be around 1/250th, so the 2 stop saving from the IS means they work out about the same).  I would suggest the 70-200 is possibly a bit long, and is not a small lens, but then the 24-70mm is no lightweight either...

If you are fairly new to portraiture, you might get on better with the 24-70mm for a while and see how you work.  Overall it is the more versatile of the two.  If it was me, I would probably look at fast yet affordable prime lenses instead, something like an 85mm 1.8 to get you started.  It is much smaller and lighter and will give you a much shallower depth of field for more options when shooting.
Logged

Landscape into Photo: http://www.landscapeintophoto.com
Custom ICC Profiling Service: http://www.customprofiles.co.uk
Portfolio site: http://www.davewyatt.co.uk
adamstuffy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2013, 06:05:50 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have a Canon 5D Mk III then it is really a great camera but you are looking for buy a new Canon lenses for the purpose of sharp and crisp in image quality then many choices that can be available for you. Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM would be a great choice for you which may help you to fulfil your needs.


Logged

wedding photographer - http://vipeaphotography.com/
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2013, 05:04:55 PM »
ReplyReply

You can't beat the fast primes for sharpness, bokeh and selective focus. Some of the ones people have mentioned are less expensive than the fast zooms too. You mentioned buying lights, so I assume you're looking to do posed portraits. In that case, you won't really need the variable focal length as much anyway.

On the other hand, if you want to shoot candids, then the zooms will really be handy. But I end up shooting candids at focal lengths longer than 80 almost all of the time, so I don't think the 24-70 would be my first choice. Great for landscapes though.

That leaves the 70-200s. As others have said, the 70-200 2.8 is really intended for use wide open. If you don't need f2.8 (which is really useful for blurring backgrounds), go for the f4. The f2.8 is pretty big and heavy. When I was younger, I didn't care. Now I'm finding I can't handhold lenses that big as steadily as I used to.

I'm about to buy a 24-105 L. I'm thinking that could become my go-to candid portrait lens in the field. But again, for posed portraits, I'd get a really great prime lens, like an 85. If you have nothing else in that focal length range now, you might even consider something like Sigma's 105 macro lens. Extremely sharp, insignificant distortion, (relatively) cheap, and useful for other purposes.
Logged
Rob Whitehead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2013, 09:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

24-105l is a good lens, better than I was expecting when i got it as part of the kit. But for portraits - 85mm 1.2L @ f1.2. I mainly use it for candids. Focuses pretty well with the 5dmk3 - good enough to use, anyway.

Am shooting a nighttime concert today, will jus take the 35 1.4L and the 'magic lens' (yes, that's the 85 1.2L) to this. No flash, just available light. At last year's event the other togs had 70-200L's - i'm sure their framing was better overall, but when the 85 1.2L nails it at 1.2 it can be spectacular.
Logged

Carpe lucem
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad