Lens decision dilemma

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Here is my current dilemma. I want to get some faster glass on the shorter end of the focal length. I would like to have more options for portraits ( both family and glamour) and low light. I currently have two paths that I can take but cannot seem to decide.

1) 2 lenses together - Canon 28mm F/1.8 and Canon 85 mm f/1.8 ( or perhaps the 100 f/2 instead ). These would be fast, and provide ample subject isolation. However, I shoot all L lenses ( aside from my Canon 10-22 ) and worry that I will be disappointed in the CA, color/contrast, and softness wide open that these lenses will provide.

2) I could take the cash I have, sell my 17-40 f/4L and put all of the money towards a 24-70 f/2.8L. This lens gets great reviews and I know that it is a great lens. It also is a zoom which is handy for walk around shooting. However, I worry that the 2.8 will not be fast enough in low light and will not provide enough subject isolation to much more flexible than the 17-40 f/4 ( aside from focal length ). However, my 17-40 overlaps a bit and I am missing the 40-70 range.

FYI ( The ranges I have covered currently are 10-22, 17-40, 70-200, 400 and a 1.4x teleconverter. )


So which would you do?

Feel free to post pics with either of these lenses if you shoot with them often.

 

[KenC]

I didn't vote because I'm for a third option, namely get the 85/1.8 and a 50/1.4. Any 28 mm lens is not a great portrait lens due to distortion and also will not isolate subjects from backgrounds all that well, even at 1.8, where the Canon 28/1.8 is reputed not to be that great on IQ. The 85 is a good portrait lens and good for isolating subjects (probably my next purchase). The 50/1.4 is also good for portraits and will blur the background nicely wide open. It also is a better lens in terms of build and IQ than the 28. You have 28 mm covered with the 17-40 and you're close with the 10-22. I guess there might be circumstances where you need a wider view and a faster aperture, but you mention portraits specifically and in that case you would probably have better lighting (flash or otherwise).

 

[Big Mike]

I would agree with that.
I recently upgraded my 50mm F1.8 (mk I) to the 50mm F1.4 and I'm strongly considering the 85mm F1.8. These are two of the 'gems' in Canon's line up. They are better than average but have a nice price point.

I also picked up a used Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, although the AF seems to be slower than the Tamron 17-50mm I had. The Canon 24-70mm, with it's USM Ring focus would be really nice.

On the other hand, the Canon 24-70mm is a beast. It's nicknamed 'The Brick'. It's a workhorse for many pro photographers, but maybe not idea for a casual 'walk around' lens, simply because it's so big and heavy. I've also heard a few pros say that it can be prone to mis-focusing.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Thanks guys.

Yeah, I have heard about the mis-focus issues especially at the wider end, which is what worries me as well. As for the primes, I actually had the 50mm f/1.4 and 85 1.4 lenses years ago. I sold the 85mm due to it being too tight in close quarters plus the 50mm and 85mm were too close in focal lengths. The 50 eventually met the same fate, but was also sold in order to buy a macro lens. I wasn't interested in doing any portrait work then either, and frankly didn't have the skill to really maximize and use each one effectively, so my memory of them is both flawed and hazy.

My reasoning for the 28 and 85 combo is that the 85 would be great for tighter shots. The 28mm would be used for tighter indoor shots ( low light in restaurants or homes etc. ) as well as some wider group shot type stuff. I would still have my 17-40mm in this case to fill the void between the two. I know the 85 is good. I can remember that much, and I have read enough to know. However, the main problem lies in the 28mm. I have heard it has bad CA. This is the lens that would be used more often by me, for personal snapshot shooting as well. I am sick of having to ramp the 17-40 up to ISO 800 or 1600 to take shots at a restaurant or at family gatherings etc.

As of right this second, I am considering grabbing the 85mm and a hood, and then holding off on the 28mm while I mull it over some more. I may give the 50mm another whirl, but the lack of true ring USM is detering me, since there is a rumor of a mark II coming soon. I think if I don't go with the 28, I may just hold the cash and wait for some lens announcements early next year. I think the 28-70 is out, simply due to it being a heavy brick and hearing that for its price and status, it really has focus/sharpness issues at times also. The 85mm is discounted at B&H right now (so is the 24-70 for that matter)

 

[Derrel]

Here are three Canon 85mm f/1.8 shots. Each is a little bit larger than a normal web-sized image, so at Original view size, you can get an idea of the lens's detail and rendering abilities. It's a good-quality lens.

IMG_3931_Jenni EOS 5D 50pct sample_orange.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
IMG_3924_Jenni_69CROP_1600_her selects.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
IMG_3959_Jenny-CROP_1600_Monochrome.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

 

[gsgary]

And 24-70 and a certain person better not say he is ugly

 

[bentcountershaft]

I have the 24-70 L and the Canon 85 1.8 and they're both great for different things. If you're concerned that 2.8 won't be fast enough for low light you're right, especially since it isn't all that sharp at 2.8 although it's pretty good at 3.2. The 85 is okish at 1.8, better at 2.2 and 2.5 and outstanding by the time it hits 2.8.

 

[unpopular]

And 24-70 and a certain person better not say he is ugly

Ahh yes! The rare Kinky Sheephound! :lmao:

 

[Crollo]

And 24-70 and a certain person better not say he is ugly

What an ugly dog.

 

[Derrel]

What an ugly dog.

Oh, come on now, Archie's a good-looking pooch!!!

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Thanks guys. Nice shots all around. Bentcountershaft confirms what I have pretty much accepted. 2.8 will not be fast enough, even if the lens, overall, is better. I often find myself wishing my 70-200 f/2.8 was an f/2. So I atleast have some reference with the f/2.8 in low light. Even shooting the 85mm at f/2, I would gain a stop as well as better low light focusing and fast focusing. So I think I am almost settled on that decision.

The hard part will be deciding if I want to get a 50mm 1.4 as well, a 28mm 1.8 or hold out in hopes of a revamp of one of those two lenses next year.

What an ugly dog.

Oh, come on now, Archie's a good-looking pooch!!!

He meant Gary, not the dog (I kid )

 

[gsgary]

And 24-70 and a certain person better not say he is ugly

Ahh yes! The rare Kinky Sheephound! :lmao:

Lakeland Terrier :x

 

[gsgary]

Thanks guys. Nice shots all around. Bentcountershaft confirms what I have pretty much accepted. 2.8 will not be fast enough, even if the lens, overall, is better. I often find myself wishing my 70-200 f/2.8 was an f/2. So I atleast have some reference with the f/2.8 in low light. Even shooting the 85mm at f/2, I would gain a stop as well as better low light focusing and fast focusing. So I think I am almost settled on that decision.

The hard part will be deciding if I want to get a 50mm 1.4 as well, a 28mm 1.8 or hold out in hopes of a revamp of one of those two lenses next year.

What an ugly dog.

Oh, come on now, Archie's a good-looking pooch!!!

He meant Gary, not the dog (I kid )

We are both very good looking

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Gary, did you ever own the 85mm? Any shots or thoughts on it?

 

[Big Mike]

How about, instead of the Canon 28mm, you consider the Sigma 30mm F1.4? I had that one, and just recently sold it, as it only for crop sensors.

The focus was possibly spotty, but I still think that it may have been the sharpest lens I've ever owned.