Hello All, hoping you could take a look at my lens plan and see if I am headed in the right direction. Currently own a 5D and at this time -- do not have any plans on making any changes in the camera department.
First, my lens choices (want to stick with 3)
35L
85L
135L
Now, what I shoot. For the most part (90% of my pictures), it is of my two girls (7 and 2 years old). I really don't take portraits in the 'technical' sense. I would call them advanced snapshots. Most often, I take pictures of my girls on vacations, walking around town, etc. I do need a little reach as I will also be taking pics of them during recitals, etc. I also want the lens versatility to shoot in low light - restaurants and the like.
Of the three lenses above, I only own one (135). We recently came back from a vacation and that lens stayed on my camera 80% of the time - when outdoors.
Well, that troika is canonically known as the "holy trinity" of lenses. Which I suppose tells you all you need to know about them. I don't have the 35L myself but do have the two others. The 85L calls for more measured, sedate work and is the ne plus ultra for available light in my view - given the combination of a portrait focal length and f/1.2 aperture; wider focal lengths do not work for me at ultra-wide apertures because too much of the frame is inevitably out of focus, unless you absolutely poke someone in the face with the front element - while the 135L is the speed demon with a useful stand-off focal length.
Jul 03, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
They are all great lenses of course. If you have the money and don't think they are too expensive just go for it. But it is a bit of an "overkill" for shooting advanced snapshots of your two young girls.
You could also buy the 24-70L (instead of the 35 & 85 lenses) and have together with your 135. A lot lower price and still very good.
I appreciate your desire for these primes, I have the 35 and the 135, they are remarkable in every way. But for what you shoot why not go with zooms. The 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 non IS, and a 580ex would cost less than the "holy trinity." You give up speed, but your 5D performs exceptionally well at ISO800, and even 1600. One more idea with the zoom option would be to drop the 24-70 and pick up a 50L. But if you love primes then you should not live with anything else. I personally have gone to all primes with a 5D, and two zooms with an E-3, best of both worlds. Good Luck! Derek
Lars Johnsson wrote:
They are all great lenses of course. If you have the money and don't think they are too expensive just go for it. But it is a bit of an "overkill" for shooting advanced snapshots of your two young girls.
You could also buy the 24-70L (instead of the 35 & 85 lenses) and have together with your 135. A lot lower price and still very good.
+1
For the type of usage you describe you'll get very good milage out of that 24-70 / 135 combination, add that 35/1.4 as a fast standard prime (and still have money left).
I've got the 135mm L too, great for the kids, especially at events or outdoors. The 35mm f1.4 is a fabulous lens by all accounts - really excellent for portraiture. I get a similar result using my 24mm L on a crop body, the 35mm field of view is great indoors and f1.4 can really open up available light photography.
I've not used the 85mm L, but I do own the 85 f1.8. This is a superb lens for photographing young children who move around very fast, my understanding is that this lens focuses appreciably faster than the L, and costs a small fraction of the L price. The 1.8 is also going to be easier to walk around with, being lighter and more compact. The L has terrifyingly small depth of field, nailing precise focus on moving subjects might be frustrating.
I would be very cautious about using zooms indoors on younger kids, zooms IMHO just aren't fast enough. You need all the light you can get, and f1.4 kicks f4's ass everytime.
If you like the perspective of a 35 FF, might be good, but IMO a normal perspective is much more pleasing for informal snapshots (aside from larger groups where you need wider, of course)... you need a fast 50 IMO. If you are only looking L's, there is an L, but the new Sigma 50/1.4 might seem good enough for you too.
Go for the 35L and the 135L. But while the 85L is a wonderful lens, it does take some time to master and for your purposes I don't think it would offer anything you couldn't do with the 85/1.8. And the 85/1.8 will focus one heck of a lot faster so it would probably be better suited for your purpose. So I'd recommend that and then spend the savings on a 24-70L or perhaps the 24-105L IS. Good luck!!
I would keep the 135L. Get the new sigma 50 it will cover low light restaurants and then get one or better yet both the canon 85mm lenses, you'll be set for whatever situation presents itself.
Regarding the 35, I doubt highly that I will use it often - but there will be times in a tight restaurant, family gathering (inside), etc where I will want to get pix of 2 or more people. 85 or so above will just not give me that perspective.
Regarding the 24-70, what a nice lens. I have one now -- but it is going to be sold. I just found myself 80% of the time at 70 and wanting a big more reach. I also have a 70-200 2.8 (non IS) - funny that exact lens was mentioned in this thread! There is no doubt that is a great lens - but it is tough to 'carry around' town.
The 135L its a keeper -- no doubt about it. I just love the lens and it's pretty much sitting on my camera at all times.
Just to 'validate' my reasons for having nice lenses - even though I am at the advanced snapshot level. My wife and I look through our old pictures all the time. And as we continue to do so -- I want them to be the best they can possibly be (both technically and with good equipment). For example, when I nail a picture with my 135 -- there is nothing like it. The lens just takes the image I took and adds a little 'magic'. So yeah, such lenses could be seen as 'overkill' for my level, but I am learning and want solid lenses to be around me.
That totaly depends on wether or not hes a prime or zoom guy? Get the primes I got the zooms mentioned below and its the primes that stay on the mount.
PetKal wrote:
I think you'd be very well served by these three lenses: 16-35 MkII (or 17-40L), 24-70L and 135L.
So called "holly trinity" of lenses seems to be a Canon fora "thing" which tends to cloud people's reasoning of their real photography needs.
Going prime is never a bad idea, I can't imagine anyone ever thinking I wish I didn't have these prime lenses. So along with your "holy trinity" I would suggest another trinity listed in order of desirability, 50L, 24L, and 200L. The 50L I think you would especially appreciate for your purposes. Again, Good Luck, Derek
rhorta wrote:
I'm a bit confused after the OP's latest post.
Ruy
I think he wants to own the 35L 85L and 135L and there is no need to dissuade him from doing so. It doesn't sound like a bad idea really. Perhaps the 24-70 isn't fast enough for some of the low lit restaurants he frequents to perform up to expectations at 35mm, 50mm etc...? Perhaps it doesn't create "magic" when compared to the 135L...
Like the OP I too have the 135L and I will never part with it. I had originally wanted to pursue a similar course after getting my hands on the 135L, but I went the zoom route for the wide end and like the primes at the normal and longer focal lengths. I'm waiting on the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 I just ordered and if I like it I will stick with my 16-35 mk2 and avoid the 35L altogether, and later on set my sights on the 85L. I have the aforementioned wide zoom and the 85 f/1.8 and now the Sigma 50 will fill the gap between 35mm and 85mm for me. Here's hoping the Sigma is the real deal, I just couldn't bring myself to consider the 50L with the design defects and price tag.
