Canon lens for outdoor portraits and location shoots

[Delko]

Hi everyone.

Im an in the market for a low light lens.
But its for a crop camera 60D.
I am looking to spend around 10K .
I am looking at these lenses.
Canon 100mm L 2.8 macro.
Canon 135L f2.0
Canon 70-200 f2.8 non IS.

If i use most of these lenses outdoor as where i ussually shoot, it will be with an off camera flash, so on the hotshoe perhaps just a st-e2 transmitter.

Unfortunately the 70-200 IS is to expensive even a mkI.
I am afraid the 135 f2 will be too long for portraits amd shooting models,as i am using a crop sensor.please help me decide . I love the 70-200 but the weight and No IS is bothering me so much i cant decide.If i really shoot often with the 70-200 will my accuracy increase?

Currently i want atleast a f2.8, so the 70-200 f4 is out of the question amd i really want to buy good glass this time, recently sold my canon.

Please any help.

At the moment i am shooting with my 50 f1.8, will i get pretty sharp images with the 70-200 without an IS?



Please help me thank you

[Thndr_strck]

I'd choose the 70-200 f2.8. You need to be shooting in very low light for shake to be a problem, especially if using a flash

[AlexMasu]

I'm currently using a 70-200mm f2.8L non IS on a 60D very good lens for outdoor, its not as expensive as the IS versions and does a very good job, as Thndr_strck says it would have to be super low light for shake to be an issue. Even when low light was an issue i've always managed to be able to work around it
I personally don't think the IS version is worth the extra R12K

If your open to a wider lense maybe have a look at EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, very sharp lense just as sharp as my L-series lens

[EttVenter]

Honestly, I'd get the 135 out of all of those. In fact, I wouldn't even consider the other two if I could get the 135. Here's why:

I'm a portrait photographer, and I don't own a single zoom lens. All my lenses are primes - because primes are sharper. Heck, even that little 50 1.8 of yours would be sharper than a 20K zoom lens. In fact, I've compared a 50 1.8 at f/2.8 for a 24-70 at 50mm f/2.8, and the 50mm lens was way sharper. So sharpness is the one factor, and definitely one to consider, in my opinion.

Second - speed. It's only one stop, but the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is certainly visible. So that's another selling factor.

3rd - the 135 f2 lens has often been said to be the King of portrait lenses. Both on the Nikon and Canon platform.

If you do a lot of portraits, you need a fast, long, prime lens. Faster than F/2.8.

That's just my 2c

[Dave_]

Heck, even that little 50 1.8 of yours would be sharper than a 20K zoom lens.

Overall I would agree, although this statement is not necessarily true, I have a 70-200 f4 and that is sharper for sure than my 50mm 1.4. I would love to own the 135mm, but I can vouch for the 100mm L, very nice with IS and less than 10k. Although not so great in a tight spot with a crop frame body.

The 24-70mmL is not a great lens to compare sharpness with, this lens is a love/hate relationship although it is my most used lens.

[AlexMasu]

Maybe this will help you decide on sharpness

pics using 70-200mm f2.8L USM http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/can...0200mmf28lusm/
pics using 135mm f2L http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/can...ef135mmf2lusm/

[Jaco de Klerk]

Honestly, I'd get the 135 out of all of those. In fact, I wouldn't even consider the other two if I could get the 135. Here's why:

I'm a portrait photographer, and I don't own a single zoom lens. All my lenses are primes - because primes are sharper. Heck, even that little 50 1.8 of yours would be sharper than a 20K zoom lens. In fact, I've compared a 50 1.8 at f/2.8 for a 24-70 at 50mm f/2.8, and the 50mm lens was way sharper. So sharpness is the one factor, and definitely one to consider, in my opinion.

Second - speed. It's only one stop, but the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is certainly visible. So that's another selling factor.

3rd - the 135 f2 lens has often been said to be the King of portrait lenses. Both on the Nikon and Canon platform.

If you do a lot of portraits, you need a fast, long, prime lens. Faster than F/2.8.

That's just my 2c

Ditto. It was a 50 prime that got me off zooms.. as it was sharper than my 70-200/2.8.
I second 135mm.

[Delko]

Do i have to worry about the crop on the 135?

And how does the 70-200 f2.8 IS compare?


Thanx for all the help im so confused abou getting a prime or a zoom.

[bomtek]

Heres your answer..

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=23

[Delko]

Some people say 135 f2 on 1.6 crop is like 200mm ...

And they find that they need to really stand very far away from the person they are taking a photo of....

Anyone have a 135L on a 1.6 crop

216 mm f2 on crop camera accordingly to the link. That even worth it? If i had a FF yup no questions, i mean its a awesome lens....

[bomtek]

216mm actually

If you're shooting outside, as you stated in your original post, then this shouldn't be a problem = besides, you have the 50mm if things get really close quarters!

Some people say 135 f2 on 1.6 crop is like 200mm ...

And they find that they need to really stand very far away from the person they are taking a photo of....

Anyone have a 135L on a 1.6 crop

[peterah]

Personally I think that 135mm on a crop body is too long except for head and shoulders portraits. Looking at my portraits they are all shot at around 80mm - if you are keen on a prime then I would look rather at the 85mm. I am however using a 70-200mm f2.8 for my portraits which gives a lot more flexibility while shooting.

[EttVenter]

Yeah, if you can buy a lens outside of the 3 you've listed, hit an 85mm for sure. Like I said above, I'm a portrait shooter, and my primary lens is an 85mm f/1.4. If it gets too long, I use a 50. 85mm lenses aren't all that expensive either (unless you start going towards 1.4 and 1.2) - the 85mm 1.8 (Nikon) is something like $500, isn't it? That's a flippen bargain for such a great portrait lens.

[camerasaurusrex]

For 10K you can get 2 primes that will do the job better than a 70-200 zoom. I use a 50mm for full body and a 100mm macro for head and shoulders.