Reading mode: Light Dark

Question for Great Bustard

Go to last post
T

Teosax

Veteran Member
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
9
Location
NY, US
Hi James

i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?

Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?

Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits

matteo
 
i guess you should read the whole message before answering

i specified that anyone who uses these lenses can share his/her thoughts

so what is your point?
 
He has the 24L, 50L and 100/2, I think. I'm a 35L and 85/1.8 guy myself (on full frame). He and I go back and forth on that score a bit. ;-)
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Teosax said:
Hi James

i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?

Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?

Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits

matteo
Click to expand...
if you need a 50mm, get the 1.4 instead of 1.2L, there are many pros who thinks this way too. one of them is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYHyCv3oH8
1.4 is even sharper wide open:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Camera=453&CameraComp=453&Sample=0&SampleComp=0
 
btw, i would get a longer focal length if i were you.
maybe 100L IS 2.8 Macro
its a great lens for portraits and street photography. and ofcourse! macro
 
thanks
i agree, i forgot to include i have the 100 2.8 macro (old)
and it is a great lens, super sharp, light

probably the mark2 is a better all around lens, but if i have to spend more money i ll probably go for the 135L, which is awesome

matteo
milimo said:
btw, i would get a longer focal length if i were you.
maybe 100L IS 2.8 Macro
its a great lens for portraits and street photography. and ofcourse! macro
Click to expand...
 
Teosax said:
probably the mark2 is a better all around lens, but if i have to spend more money i ll probably go for the 135L, which is awesome

matteo
milimo said:
btw, i would get a longer focal length if i were you.
maybe 100L IS 2.8 Macro
its a great lens for portraits and street photography. and ofcourse! macro
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
yeah 135 is awesome! i always forget to mention it! maybe because its 1600$ here:(
 
wow that s expensive in usa it costs around $950
where do u live?

matteo
milimo said:
Teosax said:
probably the mark2 is a better all around lens, but if i have to spend more money i ll probably go for the 135L, which is awesome

matteo
milimo said:
btw, i would get a longer focal length if i were you.
maybe 100L IS 2.8 Macro
its a great lens for portraits and street photography. and ofcourse! macro
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
yeah 135 is awesome! i always forget to mention it! maybe because its 1600$ here:(
Click to expand...
 
I assume you are talking FF.

Though Bustard takes some great pics, I'm sure he has way too many misses for event shooting where one must get the shot ;)

The new 100L - 4 stop IS is absolutely insurance for getting the pj shot.

The 50 f1.4 is very good F2 + -- do you really only want 1 eye in focus with f1.4 -f1.8 and be a bit blurry as well?

Then my next lens will likely be the 35 f1.4

Therefore, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 100L on FF
Teosax said:
Hi James

i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?

Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?

Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits

matteo
Click to expand...
 
Thanks MAC
yeah i forgot to specify, i use a 5d2

i definitely have more than few misses using 35L and 85L wide open when photographing kids

but the one that come up right, are in a different league compared to the one i would get at 2.8

it is always a trade off, maybe with a 1d4 i would have a little better keeper rate...(not by much i suspect, since the center point of 5d2 is very good), but that is wishful thinking...i have not the cash for the monster...

matteo
MAC said:
Though Bustard takes some great pics, I'm sure he has way too many misses for event shooting where one must get the shot ;)

The new 100L - 4 stop IS is absolutely insurance for getting the pj shot.

The 50 f1.4 is very good F2 + -- do you really only want 1 eye in focus with f1.4 -f1.8 and be a bit blurry as well?

Then my next lens will likely be the 35 f1.4

Therefore, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 100L on FF
Teosax said:
Hi James

i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?

Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?

Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits

matteo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Teosax said:
Hi James
Click to expand...
Hey! I was on vacation in Southern Utah. Freakin' awesome, as always!
Teosax said:
i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?
Click to expand...
It does if you find that you need 50mm on occasion and cannot "make do" with 35mm or 85mm, or if "making do" requires compromises you are unwilling to make.
Teosax said:
Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?
Click to expand...
When I first got the 5D (from the 20D), I already owned the 85 / 1.8 and 135 / 2L (loved them both). On a whim, I bought a 100 / 2 to compare. Over a couple of months or so, I noticed I was always grabbing the 100 / 2, so I sold off the 85 / 1.8 and 135 / 2L for no reason other than I didn't use them.

My lenses are the following (used with a 5D):

15 / 2.8 FE, 24 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 70 / 2.8 macro, 100 / 2, 200 / 2.8L

and I use them all. None suffer from "lack of use" (although the 24 / 1.4L and 50 / 1.2L see the most use, by far). If I had a 35 / 1.4L, 85 / 1.4, and 135 / 2L, would I actually use them?

Well, as it turns out...
Teosax said:
Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits
Click to expand...
Eventually, I will add a 35 / 1.4L, and the Sigma 150 / 2.8 OS macro will be my next lens. Why? Well, in the case of the 35 / 1.4L, sometimes 24mm is too wide, and 50mm too long. Can't I just move? Well, quite frankly, no, sometimes I can't. But even when I can, it often changes the perspective in an undesireable manner (perspective is a function only of the subject-camera distance -- focal length has nothing to do with it).

Why the Sigma 150 / 2.8 OS macro over the 135 / 2L? Well, OS and macro mean more to me than the extra stop at this focal length.

Why not the 85 / 1.4? I don't really have a "need" for that one at this time -- the 100 / 2 does nicely (I could use IS on it, however, and, no, I wouldn't trade it for the 100 / 2.8L IS macro -- the extra stop and smaller size matter more to me, which is ironic, as that is exactly opposite the situation between the 135 / 2L and 150 / 2.8 OS macro!).

Interestingly, however, there is one zoom I'd really be interesting in -- a 24-50 / 2L IS. Wouldn't I miss f/1.2 and f/1.4 of the primes in the range? Absolutely. But I think I'd give that stop up for the zoom and IS in that range.

Hope all this helps.
 
ahh, but...

with the 100 f2 vs the 100L one is missing out on "keepers". For those doing event shooting, "keepers" is what it is about ;) 4 stop image stabilization and faster to focus with the new macro lens versus the old macro -- generates "keepers". I'll take the 100L over the 100 f2 any day for "image stabilization insurance"

Everyone should read the DPReview of the lens for FF. Some of the highest MTF's they've ever seen on FF.

I'm loving my 50 f1.4 and 100L without flash at iso 1600 and iso3200 on my 5di ...

last three pics with the 100L in post below-- final two at iso 3200, next to last at iso 3200 and sliders for sharpness and NR both set to zero ;)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=37345739
Great Bustard said:
Teosax said:
Hi James
Click to expand...
Hey! I was on vacation in Southern Utah. Freakin' awesome, as always!
Great Bustard said:
i really love your work, i have a question for you since you have a lot of experience in using canon primes.

I know this matter is very personal, and everyone may have a different opinion, but since i love your work and respect your opinion i would like to know what you think.

i have canon 35L and 85L, which i love

Looking at your pictures of the 50L i am very tempted... (well, of course i know you are the main factor and could take amazing pictures also with less expensive lenses)

In your opinion/experience does it make sense having the 35 and 85 adding the 50?
Click to expand...
It does if you find that you need 50mm on occasion and cannot "make do" with 35mm or 85mm, or if "making do" requires compromises you are unwilling to make.
Great Bustard said:
Do you have all 3?
if so when and in what situation do you decide to use which one?
Click to expand...
When I first got the 5D (from the 20D), I already owned the 85 / 1.8 and 135 / 2L (loved them both). On a whim, I bought a 100 / 2 to compare. Over a couple of months or so, I noticed I was always grabbing the 100 / 2, so I sold off the 85 / 1.8 and 135 / 2L for no reason other than I didn't use them.

My lenses are the following (used with a 5D):

15 / 2.8 FE, 24 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 70 / 2.8 macro, 100 / 2, 200 / 2.8L

and I use them all. None suffer from "lack of use" (although the 24 / 1.4L and 50 / 1.2L see the most use, by far). If I had a 35 / 1.4L, 85 / 1.4, and 135 / 2L, would I actually use them?

Well, as it turns out...
Great Bustard said:
Of course this is a question open to everyone in this forum that has used those lenses
and that has an opinion about it.

Thanks for your thoughts

Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits
Click to expand...
Eventually, I will add a 35 / 1.4L, and the Sigma 150 / 2.8 OS macro will be my next lens. Why? Well, in the case of the 35 / 1.4L, sometimes 24mm is too wide, and 50mm too long. Can't I just move? Well, quite frankly, no, sometimes I can't. But even when I can, it often changes the perspective in an undesireable manner (perspective is a function only of the subject-camera distance -- focal length has nothing to do with it).

Why the Sigma 150 / 2.8 OS macro over the 135 / 2L? Well, OS and macro mean more to me than the extra stop at this focal length.

Why not the 85 / 1.4? I don't really have a "need" for that one at this time -- the 100 / 2 does nicely (I could use IS on it, however, and, no, I wouldn't trade it for the 100 / 2.8L IS macro -- the extra stop and smaller size matter more to me, which is ironic, as that is exactly opposite the situation between the 135 / 2L and 150 / 2.8 OS macro!).

Interestingly, however, there is one zoom I'd really be interesting in -- a 24-50 / 2L IS. Wouldn't I miss f/1.2 and f/1.4 of the primes in the range? Absolutely. But I think I'd give that stop up for the zoom and IS in that range.

Hope all this helps.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks so much for your time James

It was really helpful to understand the process that lead to the choice of your primes

Please share some pictures from your trip, i m curious
those places are some of my favorite places on earth!

best

matteo
 
MAC said:
ahh, but...

with the 100 f2 vs the 100L one is missing out on "keepers". For those doing event shooting, "keepers" is what it is about ;) 4 stop image stabilization and faster to focus with the new macro lens versus the old macro -- generates "keepers". I'll take the 100L over the 100 f2 any day for "image stabilization insurance"
Click to expand...
The term "keepers" is relative, of course. I would rather have one pic with the look that I wanted than ten pics that didn't have that look. Others feel differently, of course, but I imagine that they wouldn't shoot all primes.

The 100L will not produce the same pics as the 100 / 2:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34218087

Will it produce pics that are "close enough"? Depends on the person viewing the photo. Will it produce pics that are "better"? In many circumstances, absolutely it will (the advantage of IS and the ability to focus closer).
MAC said:
Everyone should read the DPReview of the lens for FF. Some of the highest MTF's they've ever seen on FF.

I'm loving my 50 f1.4 and 100L without flash at iso 1600 and iso3200 on my 5di ...
Click to expand...
An excellent combo that I would not recommend against. It's just that, for me, I prefer the 50 / 1.2L + 100 / 2 over that combo.
MAC said:
last three pics with the 100L in post below-- final two at iso 3200, next to last at iso 3200 and sliders for sharpness and NR both set to zero ;)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=37345739
Click to expand...
In my opinion, you should present photos to look their best, not with "sliders for sharpness and NR both set to zero". First of all, not all RAW converters are equal, and secondly, I never do a RAW conversion at defaults or minimums.

That said, I wouldn't choose between the 100 / 2 and 100 / 2.8L IS macro on the basis of IQ, but on the basis of speed, size, weight, cost, AF, and MFD (minimum focusing distance). For most, I think the 100L would suit them best (I'm waiting for the Sigma 150 / 2.8 OS macro, myself). For others, such as myself, the 100 / 2 is the better option (I use the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro when I need closer focusing).
 
Teosax said:
Thanks so much for your time James
Click to expand...
To whom do I send the bill? ;)
Teosax said:
It was really helpful to understand the process that lead to the choice of your primes
Click to expand...
Glad to be of service. I cannot stress enough that, unless you take pics like mine, you're probably better off with different choices, and, even if you do take pics like mine, you may well be better off with different choices.
Teosax said:
Please share some pictures from your trip, i m curious
those places are some of my favorite places on earth!
Click to expand...
Bryce and Zion are two of my favorite places that I've been. However, I'm notoriously slow at processing. In fact, not only have I hardly processed any of my pics from my last trip there (last December), and haven't procecessed one of the 100 GB of pics I took on my vacation to Japan over the summer!

But, here are a few from last year's trip:

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/800, ISO 100



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/250, ISO 100 (check out what the CPL does to the sky!):



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/500, ISO 100



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/50, ISO 100



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 3200



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/640, ISO 100 (same road in the pic above, and almost the same stretch of road, but different day, obviously!)



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/400, ISO 100



Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100

 
MAC said:
ahh, but...

with the 100 f2 vs the 100L one is missing out on "keepers".
Click to expand...
No. The 100L will not produce more keepers, nor does it have the focus speed of the 100 f/2. It is a stunning macro lens that can double as an event lens, sure, but is not as well-suited to that purpose.

For general event/people shooting, 1/100s is a good speed to use to minimize the effect of subject movement. IS won't help there.
 
graphikal said:
MAC said:
ahh, but...

with the 100 f2 vs the 100L one is missing out on "keepers".
Click to expand...
No. The 100L will not produce more keepers, nor does it have the focus speed of the 100 f/2. It is a stunning macro lens that can double as an event lens, sure, but is not as well-suited to that purpose.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it will produce more keepers when the subject is static in lower light, especially when a deeper DOF is more desireable. In addition, while the AF of the 100 / 2 is the best of any lens I've ever used, I've heard (but don't know from experience), that the 100 / 2.8L IS macro has wicked fast AF as well.
graphikal said:
For general event/people shooting, 1/100s is a good speed to use to minimize the effect of subject movement. IS won't help there.
Click to expand...
But the subjects are not in motion often enough to where IS would be much more useful than a one stop wider aperture in many circumstances. For example, the 100 / 2.8L IS macro would have killed my 100 / 2 for this shot:

Canon 5D + 100mm / 2 @ f / 2, 1/15, ISO 3200



The question is if that type of shot comes up more often than the extra stop of the 100 / 2 would be more useful. For me, the answer is "no". For others, the answer may well be "yes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top