Lens for Canon 5D Mark II

[MBPhotography]

I currently have the 50mm 1.4 for my Canon but I am looking for something else since the 50mm is not very versatile. I am doing newborn and child photography professionally and would like a versatile yet professional quality lens.

I am also open to suggestions on your favorite lenses for the 5D Mark II.

Thank you!

www.MonicaBlancoPhotography.com

 

[subscuck]

24-70L?

 

[D-B-J]

24-70L seems like the best idea, but for portraits and such you want a 80mm or longer. I don't know much of canon's lenses but maybe this?Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II

 

[subscuck]

If we're talking 85's, then even the 85 1.8 would be outstanding on a 5D. IMO, it's a much better lens optically than her current 50 1.4. It's also $400 vs. $2000, and delivers "L like" IQ.

I suggested the 24-70 because she said versatility. For me, versatility = zoom.

 

[Derrel]

24-70 f/2.8-L or 24-105 f/4 L IS would be my suggestions. Even an older 28-70mm f/2.8-L Canon lens. Like subscuck above, to me, versatility means a top-grade zoom lens.

 

[kzhlin]

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L.
Amazing glass. My favorite lens if I had to pick one.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II
Amazing. The previous Version I is fantastic too.

Canon 135 f/2 L
Great for portraits. But not as versatile as the 70-200.

 

[MBPhotography]

Thank you all so much for your feedback!

www.MonicaBlancoPhotography.com

 

[o hey tyler]

I currently have the 50mm 1.4 for my Canon but I am looking for something else since the 50mm is not very versatile. I am doing newborn and child photography professionally and would like a versatile yet professional quality lens.

I am also open to suggestions on your favorite lenses for the 5D Mark II.

Thank you!

www.MonicaBlancoPhotography.com

By the "50mm lens is not very versatile", you mean the "50mm lens is one of the most versatile and best walkaround lens on a full frame body" right?

 

[tyler_h]

I currently have the 50mm 1.4 for my Canon but I am looking for something else since the 50mm is not very versatile. I am doing newborn and child photography professionally and would like a versatile yet professional quality lens.

I am also open to suggestions on your favorite lenses for the 5D Mark II.

Thank you!

www.MonicaBlancoPhotography.com

By the "50mm lens is not very versatile", you mean the "50mm lens is one of the most versatile and best walkaround lens on a full frame body" right?

An incredibly subjective statement. I find 50 (equiv) fairly useless - less than 1% of my keepers at at ~50 (even if I call it 40-60 it wouldn't be more than ~2%).

 

[o hey tyler]

I currently have the 50mm 1.4 for my Canon but I am looking for something else since the 50mm is not very versatile. I am doing newborn and child photography professionally and would like a versatile yet professional quality lens.

I am also open to suggestions on your favorite lenses for the 5D Mark II.

Thank you!

www.MonicaBlancoPhotography.com

By the "50mm lens is not very versatile", you mean the "50mm lens is one of the most versatile and best walkaround lens on a full frame body" right?

An incredibly subjective statement. I find 50 (equiv) fairly useless - less than 1% of my keepers at at ~50 (even if I call it 40-60 it wouldn't be more than ~2%).

You are not on a full frame body.

 

[tyler_h]

By the "50mm lens is not very versatile", you mean the "50mm lens is one of the most versatile and best walkaround lens on a full frame body" right?

An incredibly subjective statement. I find 50 (equiv) fairly useless - less than 1% of my keepers at at ~50 (even if I call it 40-60 it wouldn't be more than ~2%).

You are not on a full frame body.

Read where I wrote 50 (equiv).

 

[o hey tyler]

An incredibly subjective statement. I find 50 (equiv) fairly useless - less than 1% of my keepers at at ~50 (even if I call it 40-60 it wouldn't be more than ~2%).

You are not on a full frame body.

Read where I wrote 50 (equiv).

Two different beasts. Not really able to compare the two. Looking at your lens selection, unless you have a 35mm, you don't have anything that's "equivalent" to a 50mm FoV. And if you did have a 35mm, it wouldn't give you images that look similar to 50mm on a full frame body. To frame a shot the same way on an APS-C vs a FF sensor would render bokeh completely different, as well as have a different degree of corner sharpness. I think you'd find that the majority of people shoot with a 50mm a lot (perhaps more than any other focal length, but this isn't true for everyone). 50mm is IMO too limited of a field of view indoors when used on an APS-C camera, but then again, this depends on the size of the room as well.

 

[tyler_h]

You are not on a full frame body.

Read where I wrote 50 (equiv).

Two different beasts. Not really able to compare the two. Looking at your lens selection, unless you have a 35mm, you don't have anything that's "equivalent" to a 50mm FoV. And if you did have a 35mm, it wouldn't give you images that look similar to 50mm on a full frame body. To frame a shot the same way on an APS-C vs a FF sensor would render bokeh completely different, as well as have a different degree of corner sharpness. I think you'd find that the majority of people shoot with a 50mm a lot (perhaps more than any other focal length, but this isn't true for everyone). 50mm is IMO too limited of a field of view indoors when used on an APS-C camera, but then again, this depends on the size of the room as well.

Because the 18-55 doesn't pass past 31.25 right?
And of course there is a difference in rendering (~1.5ish (cant remember the exact) stops more DoF (to have same framing at the same f-stop) etc etc) but the point is on you making a blanket statement on the usefulness of a focal length just to contradict the position held by OP.

And to get the thread back on track; 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and 135 f/2 are all lenses to consider if you want something a little faster than 2.8 at the expense of zoom.

 

[o hey tyler]

Read where I wrote 50 (equiv).

Two different beasts. Not really able to compare the two. Looking at your lens selection, unless you have a 35mm, you don't have anything that's "equivalent" to a 50mm FoV. And if you did have a 35mm, it wouldn't give you images that look similar to 50mm on a full frame body. To frame a shot the same way on an APS-C vs a FF sensor would render bokeh completely different, as well as have a different degree of corner sharpness. I think you'd find that the majority of people shoot with a 50mm a lot (perhaps more than any other focal length, but this isn't true for everyone). Using a 50mm lens is IMO too limited of a field of view indoors when used on an APS-C camera, but then again, this depends on the size of the room as well.

Because the 18-55 doesn't pass past 31.25 right?
And of course there is a difference in rendering (~1.5ish (cant remember the exact) stops more DoF (to have same framing at the same f-stop) etc etc) but the point is on you making a blanket statement on the usefulness of a focal length just to contradict the position held by OP.

At 31.25mm the EF-S 18-55mm has a max aperture of f/4.5. That's 3 1/3 stops. You really have no frame of reference. You have nothing that performs like a fast prime in that focal range.

 

[o hey tyler]

Also, you said it's a blanket statement? Not a huge population to pull from, but they're all photographers.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...243355-whats-your-most-used-focal-length.html