Ok..back to lenses, need opinions...

I know we've talked about it before, but I've decided I want to purchase just one L lens and rather than try to distill what is in that other thread, I figured I'd just start a new one. ; I've given it alot of thought, looked at alot of photographs, listened to all of your advice, and I think it's really what I want to do.

I want just one for now and I want it mainly for portrait and landscape photography. ; Eventually, I'd like a good zoom lens for wildlife shots, but I think, given the cost, that is going to have to wait.

If you were going to buy just one Canon L lens, which one would it be and why? ; If you have any good photo examples also, that would be awesome.

Thank you.

 

Oooooo Roger. ; That is pretty.

If I had to pick one over the other, I'd probably pick a great portrait lens, and continue shooting landscapes with what I've got, then. ; I'll go take a look at the 85/1.2L. ; Thanks!

 

Ok...here is what one review on Amazon said. ; What does "ultra-thin DOF images" mean?

Landscape: yep this works, and this the area other than portraiture that the 85mm f/1.2 functions well in, but only if your objective is to produce ultra-thin DOF images. Otherwise other L lenses fulfill this role with much better satisfaction. Exposures of flowers and foliage work well, along with anything that features an interesting main subject and a background suitably beatiful for being blurred into a wash of color. Once again however, the 135mm competes as a contender in the DOF catagory. All things considered, the 135mm produces better image quality while the 85mm produces a somewhat stronger DOF with a more surreal/dreamy feel to its images.

Portraiture: the main enchilada. No other lens performs portraiture as well as the 85mm f/1.2 under $4000. Female subjects will especially appreciate the dreamy DOF this lens can produce. If you do portraits or wedding work, this lens MUST be in your bag. Mark it up as a necessary business expense and start saving now. If you actually happen to have the $4000 previously mentioned, you may wish to consider the 200mm f/1.8L or the 300mm F/2.8L. They yield an equivalent DOF at their longer focal lengths and deliver superior image quality, but require much more working room and more ambient light.

 

So maybe I should consider the 50/1.2 AND the 17-40L? ; That would only be a little more than the 85/1.2L.

Also, is it ridiculous to think about putting this kind of glass on an XSi?

 

I'll throw in my two cents on the 17-40. I use it and I love it. It's my primary lens, is small enough to be a good walkaround lens and the results are very nice. If you check out my flickr page all of those shots are with the 17-40 on a 30D.

Heck yes it's worth putting good glass on your XSi.

 

bmitch...how do I get to your flickr page?

 

One question I have is what your plans are for going either full frame or a pro body. If you stay with either the XXXx or XXD series then the best lens for your money is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It is L grade optics in an EF-S mount and I would pit it against a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM any day of the week. The lens makes a heck of a portrait and landscape lens on the 1.6 crop bodies like your Xsi.

If you then also wanted to explore shallow depth of field, I would then add the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as your ultra depth of field lens. The 50 f/1.4 will allow you to get used to practicing with shallow depth of field all the while providing a good low light lens as well.

The 85 f/1.2 is really in a league of its own, but I love my 300 f/2.8 for portraits almost as much. I also do not pretend not to love L glass, as it truly is an addiction once you shoot with it. However, you really do not need ultra depth of field for a great portrait lens. That is unless you want to stop down past f/2.8 then the L lenses will provide the sharpest pics at these wide apertures. Almost any fast prime at F/2.8 and above is going to be sharp.

If I was forced to buy just one L lens then it would be either the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for their general walk around capabilities. However, I still believe the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the best option on the 1.6 crop bodies.

Below are a few examples from the 85 f/1.2 and the 17-55 f/2.8 respectively. ;

EF 85 F/1.2 L examples

f/1.2 @ 85 mm, 1/200, ISO 100, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v0/p1070359320-4.jpg[/expando]
f/1.8 @ 85 mm, 1/60, ISO 1000, No Flash
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v4/p245872965-3.jpg[/expando]
f/2 @ 85 mm, 1/80, ISO 1000, No Flash
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v3/p83731256-3.jpg[/expando]

EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 examples

f/2.8 @ 55 mm, 1/800, ISO 800, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p677633630-3.jpg[/expando]
f/2.8 @ 37 mm, 1/125, ISO 400, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p859219949-3.jpg[/expando]
f/4 @ 43 mm, 1/20, ISO 800, Flash fired
[expando]http://www.redskynight.net/img/v1/p552113384-4.jpg[/expando]

 

Zeagle...my future plans are to win the lottery and buy your wonderful camera. ; I love love love your portraits. ; Absolutely beautiful, candid shots that show the best in people, always. ;

Seriously, though, my dream camera is the 5D Mark II. ; I was looking at the 50mm f/1.4. ; Is it really a marked difference from the 1.8? 17-55, hmm? ; Ok..off I go to look at that one.

Thank you for the wonderful examples.

 

The EF-S lenses will not work on the pro series and full frame mounts. Although, the high quality lenses almost always will retain their resell value and you could always sell the 17-55. Then put the money towards another lens when you do migrate to the full frame body.

The build of the 1.4 is better than the 1.8. It has a USM motor for focusing, better quality materials, better bokeh compared to the 1.8, and is sharper at the faster apertures up to f/2.8. Keep in mind either lens will be incredibly sharp at f/2.8 and above.

 

Sorry I couldn't answer until now. The computer folks at work just wait for somebody to post to an online forum. I think so they can make examples of us...and I don't want to know what that means.

Here's the link to my flickr:

flickr.com/bemitchell

 

Thank you, Brian. ; There are some beautiful shots there. ; I especially like the lighted castle photo. ; SO pretty.

No closer to a decision, guys. ; I've only complicated it more. ; ; I read a good deal about the 7D today and paired with Jason's 17-55...wow. ; Seems like an awfully nice set-up.

Ah well. ; I will happily keep shooting with the XSi while I digest it all.

Oh...and Tim. ; Those galleries are just gorgeous. ; I really want to try Victoria and Albert's someday soon. ; What an elegant, special occasion that would be.

 

Hi Hulagirl!
; Just last year I was in your shoes...what to buy what to buy. I just purchased the 24-105L and it really is a great walk around lens. I used it for an outdoor photo session and the results are clear and sharp. I also use the 50mm f/1.4 and it is incredible. The 50mm 1.8 is good for the money, but there is such a difference in build and photo quality, if you have the cash go for the 1.4. Luckily for me I can write them off as business expenses and my side job/hobby pays for it. Onecall.com has phenomenal financing deals, well worth checking out.

 

Hi James! ; I sure enjoyed looking at your website. ; I love shots of people (especially children) in a more natural, unposed environment. ; Did you take some of those portraits with the 50mm f/1.4? ; Very nice!

Thanks alot for telling me about Onecall.com. ; Twelve months no interest and now I'm obsessing again. ; ; Buy now, pay later gets me every time!!!

The 24-105L comes up alot. ; I think I'm gonna look really carefully at that lens...

 

Thanks Hulagirl! A lot of those photos were taken with the 1.4, if you go into the headshots gallery the close up shots of the girl with the brown curly hair was taken with the 50mm 1.4
I don't have anything on there yet with my 24-105 as I just got it a couple of weeks ago, but the session I did this past weekend was done with only the 24-105 and they should be up there in the next week or so.
Have fun shopping and shooting!

 

Justin...I didn't know about keh! ; Thank you for the wonderful tip! ; There's a 24-104L there for $850. ; It has the lower rating you mentioned, but there are a few others for about $70.00 more with much higher ratings. ; I appreciate that you explained that. ; Gives me options for saving money, should I choose...

James, wow. ; Portraiture is definitely your strength. ; Love how you capture the eyes. ; I bookmarked your site for later viewing. ; I look forward to seeing what you do with the new lens!