Lens Recommendations?

[CGR]

I'm looking for some Canon lens recommendations for portraits and candids of active children. I have a 5D Mark III. I am not a professional with no plans to be. I've just been disappointed time and time again in utilizing professionals to take photos of my children. So, for the past couple years I've been learning all I can. Recently made the leap to full frame. Just started using Lightroom. Photography is the one thing I do for myself so while cost is always a factor, I'm willing to pony up $2,000 if I have to. I'll sell all my clothes for the right lens (not my childrens clothes! don't worry!).

I'm looking specifically for a portrait lens to capture photos of my kids. Mostly outdoors. They are very, very active (read- running all the time). I'm thinking about the 85mm 1.8 (because it is a good value and faster/lighter than the 1.2). But I currently have a 50mm 1.4 and feel this might be too similar? I also have a 24-105mm f4, which also overlaps this range. I just really don't like the f4. I thought it would be ok and it is a very versatile lens but I really want at least a 2.8 or lower.

I'm also thinking about the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, which sounds awesome in every way. Except it is so obtrusive. Honestly, I would be embarrassed to have this lens at a party (I even changed my camera strap because I didn't want people knowing I have a Mark III). Of course it is also heavy and expensive. But is it worth the weight, expense and "embarrassment"? For my purposes, I'm thinking it might be.

I'm also thinking about the 135mm F2 just to go beyond my current range- but I feel that might be too close in. I rarely feel like I need length beyond my 105mm. I currently tried the 100mm macro 2.8. I thought this might be the a great portrait lens, unobtrusive and give the fun benefit of macro. But I found the focus very poor in low light. And I found the full focus range painfully slow and the focus limiting switch annoying. Maybe I could get used to it, but portraits and action/play shots are my priority, not macro.

Do you all have any experienced recommendations? I'm so torn between zooms and primes. I adore primes. But I rarely carry a bag and usually just bring the lens on my camera so a zoom might give more versatility. I still have a lot to learn. I thought playing around with the 100mm macro was very helpful- anyone know any other good place I can try lenses? Or is it same to buy them at, say, Amazon and return them good as new after a day?

 

[Derrel]

I have the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 Canon primes, and EACH ONE is very,very DIFFERENT. I can assure you of that! A 50 and an 85 are decidedly not duplicate focal lengths, and there is very,very little overlap. I suggest the 85/1.8 as a value proposition/high-utility prime choice to many people. I'm not enamored of a massive, slow-focusing 1.2 lens for people pictures...the 85/1.8 is small,light, unobtrusive, non-intrusive, and performs very well on full-frame. I too am opposed to big, obnoxious lenses in social photography situations; I have long felt that "big lenses" are counter-productive when taking pictures of many people. Now, as far as the 70-200/2.8...yeah, it IS BIG. It is that awful, white, "Look at ME!" color that Canon chose years ago in an effort to get its lenses to stand out like sore thumbs...buuuut...it does take great pictures....and yeah, the 100/2.8 macro...mine is not the best focuser in poor light...macro lenses are best as macro lenses, and NOT as field telephotos or portrait lenses!!!

What about the Canon EF 100mm f/2??? Now THAT lens *is* small, and is reputed to be a stellar performer. I have seen some wonderful FF work done with the 100/2 by Dirk Vermierre (look on pBase). ZOoms versus primes....ahhhhhh, yes...a bag full of primes versus one handy, good zoom...the old debate!!! Anyway, as an outdoor portrait lens for kids, the 135/2-L is somewhat selective in its angle of view, and it forces you outside of the action. It puts you "outside", and makes you be an observer...it cretes a very tele-centric "look" to its images...this is why the lens is so well thought of; it produces a large background size, and has shallow depth of field, and the focus drops off rapidly behind the plane of focus, in a very fast, and very pleasing way. The 135/2-L has a very,very decided "visual impression" which it imprints on its images, and that is why it is so,so well-liked. it *is* a bit close-in, to use your words...but then, that's what that lens is all about...

 

[MLeeK]

I use my 70-200 f/2.8 for portraits a LOT!!! It's my go to lens for nearly everything.
The 50 and 85 derrel mentioned are the ideals for prime lenses for portraits and on a full frame it's perfection. If I had to choose between the 70-200 and the primes and I were only doing portraits and not what I do? I'd go for the primes. Then I'd sell my soul to add the 70-200 later.

 

[CGR]

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I'm sure this debate has been hashed out millions of times! With the overlap I just meant that the 50 and 85 are both in the range of my 24-105mm zoom. Darrel, I'm so glad I'm not the only one that feels that way about the white lens! Other than being ostentatious, I'm so sick of everyone saying "your CAMERA takes such great pictures"... I'm worried I'd get more of THAT with a white lens (and perhaps it would be justified). Maybe when my skills have advanced to a pro level I wouldn't mind it, LOL.

MLeeK, I appreciate your input. That is what EVERYONE says about the 70-200mm. That once they get it they hardly ever take it off. Maybe I could get that and just use the 50mm when I don't want white lens stares (I shot for 2 years with that lens alone on a crop sensor- one reason why I think the 85mm on ff might be good for me). I do see so much flexibility with that lens and most of the time it is just me and the kids - and priceless everyday moments to capture.

I'm thinking my dream line-up would be a 24mm 1.4 to go with the 50mm- then maybe sell the zoom and get a 70-200mm and an 85mm. I think that would well cover all my needs. Something to work towards. SIGH- still undecided on what to get right now.

 

[MLeeK]

The 24-105 won't hold a candle to the 50mm and the 85. You'll be blown away with the quality difference from that to the primes.


As far as the "your camera takes such great pictures..." Just ask them if they'd like to try it out. Then skim the shutter speed into orbit as you hand it over and let them have at it.
When they get all flustered and hand it back say "oh, you mean it doesn't take amazing pictures for you?" "Must be magic!"

 

[CGR]

LOL Too funny! Yeah another artist friend of mine once said it was sort of like telling a chef that his pots make a really wonderful meal!

I've only had the 24-105 for a couple months (came with my MarkIII). Before that I ONLY ever shot with my 50mm. So yeah, I got spoiled with a prime. But it is nice to know that you get so much use out of the 70-200, even respecting primes the way you do. I guess it is the fixed 2.8.

 

[Derrel]

Gotta chime in with MLeek on the 50 and 85 Canon primes. I have the 24-105/4 L IS USM....both the 50 and the 85 are sharper and focus better in sketchy light...AND are MUCH smaller and handier...on crop-body the 85 is "tight", but the 50/1.4 Canon EF is, I think, the best standard 50mm lens from Canon or Nikon...it just shoots "nice" images....to Canon 50/1.4 has very good bokeh for a normal focal length....much,much prettier than the Nikkors, which are really quite ugly. The 70-200 2.8 Canon is a big, honking, white tube!

The difference between FF and APS-C was discussed last week by Thom Hogan. To simplify what he said: 85mm on FF is almost perfect for portraiture at 8 feet; 50mm on DX (aka 1.5x Nikon) produces what he describes as "an awkward crop", and forces the photographer to make some compromises that are, basically, undesirable. If I had the lovely 5D-III, I would shoot it with whatever lenses I had! On FF, to me, the 85/1.8 is a wonderful,wonderful lens...I have like a SMALL, light, compact, unobtrusive 85mm lens since the early 1980's...I still prefer a SMALL LENS, or a SMALLER lens, or a SMALLISH lens (see where I'm going with this?) for "people pictures" in social photography scenarios...it's one thing to shoot events and assignments where you need to use a 70-200 for speed and efficiency, but when shooting one on one, and moving around, and trying to be "casual", the 70-200's are counter-productive. Just..too...damned...big..and...obvious...almost...pervy...

I like 24,35, 50,85,135. 24mm on FF is nice! My favorite wide. I also like 28, but NOT as much as 35mm as my "semi-wide". I gave away my only 28mm prime to the son of a friend who was getting into photography. The kid got a hand-inscribed 28/2.8 Ai Nikkor with the hyperfocal setting distances all hand-scribed by me!

 

[CGR]

Hahahah! Yeah, for sure! When I was playing with the 100mm 2.8 macro IS (and it's ENORMOUS lens hood) that was about as long as the 70-200mm with no hood- my kids were afraid of it! Maybe also because I was trying to macro them while I had the chance! LOL

I think the 85mm is what I'm missing. Because my 50mm on the crop sensor was just about the same. I'm finding I want the 50mm longer on the ff. So yeah, it is what I need. Now will I forever lust after the "magic" of the 85mm 1.2. Honestly I'm happy with my 1.4 (of 50mm 1.2) so I guess not? But then I don't want to upgrade later (hence my Mark III purchase- because I KNEW I would eventually)

I have been enjoying the wider angle of the 24-105. If I sold that- what would you get to cover the wider view?

 

[CGR]

WOW! Lucky kid! Just saw that lower comment. Humm 24 or 35.

 

[Dubaiian]

I have to agree with almost everything stated above as I currently have and regularly use a 70-200 f2.8 II which always attracts attention. I have tried using the 50mm 1.2 for portraits and always feel intrusive as I am in people's faces. I have the 24-105 and its not in the same ball park as the above. I am currently trying to sell my 24-105 f4 so hat the wife will let me invest in the new 24-70 f2.8II as all of the reviews have given it such glowing recommendations. Herein the Middle East there are no buy and return policies so we need to be very sure before we buy something.

I also tried the 85mm 1.2 lens once and felt that if you were in a studio type environment it would be the master of portraits but the slow focus put me off for my regular snap&see type photography.

If you can seriously stretch the budget(and find one available) the new 24-70 may be the answer for you.

Like you I am a serious hobbyist with a 5DMKIII with no professional aspirations but I am also a bit of a perfectionist.

 

[CGR]

Oh good, another hobbyist with a 5DMKIII. I feel better now

Yeah I've been thinking about the 24-70 but I think I want something on the longer end for now. So with the 70-200, the question is are the photos worth it (worth it all, the "pervy" white, the cost, the bulk)? For the longer range is the quality, IS and flexibility THAT much better than a 85mm 1.8?

I wonder why the 24-105 gets such rave reviews? I mean it's ok, but nothing special. I fear the used market will be flooded with them.

 

[CGR]

Just thought I'd update to say that I got the 85mm 1.8 and my first speedlite. This fit the budget that I had allotted. I couldn't be happier with them both at the moment. Felt once or twice that I wish I could zoom out. But I never really felt like I wanted to zoom in, so I'm guessing the 70-200mm would be too much for me right now (my kids don't get too far from me at this age). This combo takes me back to how I'm used to shooting (with the 50mm 1.4 on crop sensor), but the autofocus is, indeed, faster. The images also seem sharper, maybe it is the improved AF with the Mark 3. But I'm thrilled with the lens It is all I need right now and to add a speedlite is likely a good call before the winter months. That as an add on after an epic fail on night shooting despite ridiculously high ISO. I found a great website if you are new to flash photography 04 – bouncing flash « Neil vN – tangents

 

[jmanc]

The 85 1.8 is a great lens. Friend of mine recently bought one for his 60D and has taken some amazing pics with it.

 

[bledererphoto]

Also heard some nice things about both 85 1.8 and 100 F2. Some say that 85 has a lot more CA and that overall the 100 gets a much more consistent picture without need for fixing anything in post. Anyone have both that experienced this differrence?

 

[CGR]

I don't notice a lot of CA with the 85 1.8. In fact I hardly feel a need to post process- other than for fun (because I'm just learning to play with Lightroom and shoot raw). I haven't tried the 100 f2. I did try the 100 2.8 marco and didn't like it at all. The focus issue just drove me batty, and using the focus limiting switch was a pain. But anyway, in trying that, I found I'm more comfortable with the 85mm rather than the 100mm (and that is even on a fullframe). Plus I liked the relatively short focus distance of the 85mm (compared to 85 1.2 and 70-200mm lenses). Maybe others who have tried both could add more.