Hi ya'll. New here. I am hoping with your expert advice you can help me make a decision. I am purchasing a canon 30d and an 85mm 1.8 to do indoor & outdoor portraits. Mainly children, families, and seniors. I am hooked on the 85 1.8 because of the hundreds of reviews and comments about it's excellent performance. However also need something wider for fuller shots mainly inside but outside also. I am not planning on doing any extremely low light shooting, but do want fairly fast to be able to stop down and get that beautiful bokeh. I was almost certain of also purchasing the 50 1.4. Again only great reviews and similar quality as the 85, but I started wondering if these focal lengths were just too close and the 50 1.4 would not give me what I need. I know I could go with the 50 as my tight shooter and have the flexibility to do more with it, but I really love the specialty look of the longer 85.
What I have looked at other than the 50 1.4
----35 f 2----cheap------but not the best glass I know
----28 1.8----cheap, prone to flare (so I've heard)
----24 2.8---cheap, but is this too wide for full portraits? Several people?Some background in the home? Or would this work
I would buy the 17-40 if I could afford it. I am also purchasing 580ex, CS2 and other accessories, so for now I need something to get me through. I would love to buy the 50 1.4 because I know it would always be of value and use (would rather invest in the best) but again, will It be wide enough indoors along side the 85 1.8?
I am hoping to hear from someone who shoots this type of work and knows from experience. Anything light you can shed on this would be much appreciated. I'll bake you some cookies or something.

Lisa

Lisa,

I'll be watching this thread closely. I have the 85 1.8 on my 10D and love the lens, but would like something a bit wider as well. I shot an engagement party in the bride's parent's house and she had candles lit in pretty much all the rooms. With the 85, I was always backing up as much as I could, and had to keep checking my coat to see if I was on fire. Something wider, would have saved some stress.

I would go for the 28. Or maybe the 24. But 24 is about as wide as I go for indoor portraits -- and it doesn't always work well. Don't worry about the flare on the 28. If I worried about how "bad" my lenses are (according to some guy on a Web site) I'd hate this work.

Then, if you really want a wide lens, get something around 17mm or so. That'll be plenty wide and still fairly easy to use.

Do you own any zoom lenses Lisa? Btw - Welcome to OSP, I'm still new here too, but talking more and more. (not a problem with me!)

I have and use daily for portraits, weddings, and events

Canon 28-70mm f2.8 L - not as wife (28 to 24mm) as it's newer brother, but still a steal for 600.00 used from Fredmiranda.com. A buy of the century if you ask me!

Canon 85mm f1.8 EF - For rougly 300.00 dollars used, you can't find a faster, better focusing portrait lens in the world probably.

Canon 50mm 1.4 EF- Just bought it, shows up tomorrow. I'll be sure to review it and let you know, but like you said. Great things are said about it! I needed a wider prime

Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 (groups)

Sigma 70-200mm f.2.8 EX HSM APO (awesome for headshots, beautiful bokeh, along with the 85mm 1.8)

Kenesis Shooting Belt w/ attachments (every lens I own in with me when I shoot, no fumbling around for the right tool. It's always there.

Hope this helped!

-tmiller
Tim Miller Photography
http://tmillerphoto.com

Welcome, Lisa!

I'd say it kinda depends on your shooting style. But with the 30D I'd recommend getting the 50 1.4 rather than the 85 1.8, due to the crop factor. I think you'll find the 85mm too close for portrait work. But again, it might depend on your style. Almost all of my work is portraits; I tend to be very interactive with my clients. I also like shooting down from standing over them (especially kids), and would find that hard with an 85. I also love that you can take images within about 6-10" with the 50mm. I'm guessing that probably more than 70% of the images on my website were made with my 20D+50 1.4.

If you've already purchased your 85, sorry that this won't be useful advice!

I use the 17-40, 50, and 85. As Dawn said, I'm finding that the 85 is a little too close for use indoors, especially considering the minimal focal distance. I'm usually shooting in small spaces. That said, it's a sweet lens and I prefer it over the 50. I also think it focuses better.

By the way, WELCOME!

-Jess

if money is an issue, I would get the Tamron 28-75... really close to the Canon version about 1k cheaper

some pics and words about it
http://imageevent.com/otto/digitalcameras/...s/tamronvscanon

Thanks for the welcome guys. Tmiller - no I don't have any zoom (unless you count the old canon 35-80 & 75 -300 that I used to shoot film with in college) Let's not count those ones. I was doing video but now going back to all digital photography.
Dawn & Jessica- I love both of your sites. Beautiful work.
Has anyone shot with the 35 2? I know it's a cheapie ($200) but on fredmiranda & several other sites it got totally rave reviews, especially for the price. It also has a pretty close focusing distance like the 50 1.4 but it's a little wider. I've ruled out the 24's and probably the 28. I have to have that 85. So it's down to adding the 35 2 or the 50 1.4 to the 85 1.8. For now anyway. I just wish I had more cash. Gotta start somewhere.

Lisa

I use Nikon, but Love my 85 lens. It has done a great job with some very tough situations.

cook- that is so funny- and scary! Can you imagine if your coat did catch fire and you're just standing there clickin' away?
Do you have anything other than the 85? I did a bunch more research on the wide primes and found the 35 2 & 28 1.8 to be pretty good value for the $. The 50 1.4 of course is as well. The 50 & 28 have USM but the 35 does not. Users didn't seem to care though. The 35 focuses really closely as well. Still not sure what I am going to do.
Lisa

I second the vote for the Tamron 28-75. I use that lens for so much!

However, I do have the 50mm and the 85mm 1.8 is supposed to be on it's way here... I did an entire session of 30 models in about 2 hours with my 100mm macro, but although that lens rocks the casbah, it also is a very slow focuser so it was a bit frustrating for me.

I don't like to go super wide for portraits, because it makes people's facial features look distorted.

Leann

Lisa-

Sometimes I think I am hired partly as photographer, and partly to see in what creative way I can meet my medical insurance deductible for the year.

It was a lose/lose situation. If I leave the candles lit, I run the risk of being the evening's entertainment, if I blow them out, even with a snuffer, the number of candles would have resulted in a lot of smoke.


My other main lens is wider (28-135) but was not fast enough to get the shots I really wanted. The location was fairly dark and small. I was using a flash with a Lightsphere and unless I really powered the flash down, I ended up with uneven light and hotspots. With the 85 1.8, I could shoot at a lower ISO and less flash. I still ended up using my 28, but the grain looks terrible with the ISo up high (800). My next purchase is going to a be a better website (to drive in business to be abel to afford the lenses) then probably either a 70-200 IS, 50 or 35. The jobs I land will partially dictate this. i'm trying to build the gear as I go and not get into debt starting out.

Personally, I think the 85 and the 50 would be great for what you're looking for. I shoot the 20D (same crop factor as the 30D) as one of my cameras and I have the 85 and the 50 and love that combo. Personally, I don't think the 50 will be too close for you and the 85 will give you a bit more reach, but I don't think it'll be terrible. Personally I really like it, but it's a matter of style and preference...

My 2 cents.

I would go with the 50 and 85 combo as well. I see way too many folks that try and use wide angle lenses for groups, and full length......sometimes close ups.....
This may be a great effect for some images but not so much in traditional portraiture.

Way too much distortion at the edges and objects close to the lens for me. Granted it will be less noticeably with a non full-frame camera. In the studio I am normally at 70-100mm but I have a deep camera room.

Tim - you mention that the 85mm f1.8 lens is an awesome lens. I am debating between getting the 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2. The 1.2 is A LOT more expensive. Do you think the 1.8 would be good enough? I would much rather spend $300 than $2000! (thank you in advance for any advise!)

***************

I have and use daily for portraits, weddings, and events

Canon 28-70mm f2.8 L - not as wife (28 to 24mm) as it's newer brother, but still a steal for 600.00 used from Fredmiranda.com. A buy of the century if you ask me!

Canon 85mm f1.8 EF - For rougly 300.00 dollars used, you can't find a faster, better focusing portrait lens in the world probably.

Canon 50mm 1.4 EF- Just bought it, shows up tomorrow. I'll be sure to review it and let you know, but like you said. Great things are said about it! I needed a wider prime

Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 (groups)

Sigma 70-200mm f.2.8 EX HSM APO (awesome for headshots, beautiful bokeh, along with the 85mm 1.8)

Kenesis Shooting Belt w/ attachments (every lens I own in with me when I shoot, no fumbling around for the right tool. It's always there.

Hope this helped!

-tmiller
Tim Miller Photography
http://tmillerphoto.com
[/quote]

I think the 17 - 40 is where you shouold go! I shot an entire reception with a 20D and a 50mm 1.4, and hated it. THe photographs are awesome, but the fact I had to step so far away and to shoot alot because of the focusing factor was not good. I will say that all the lenses that you like would work great on the 5D but yesterday I shot in tight places and the 50mm1.4 didn't give me the freedom I wanted. So a nice zoom lens I think is the way to go because of the crop factor. You can check out the slideshow I mentioned HERE


PS. Alot of my gear was at Canon and was borrowed from friends. I would never recommend doing this because of the crop factor. 17 - 40 is a better choice.

If you're wanting to use primes, a great basic kit would be a 24, a 50, an 85, and a 135. You can get fast versions of all of them (except maybe the 24). My normal kit is two cameras, one with a 17-55/2.8 and the other with a 85/1.8.

A good wide zoom is very handy at weddings and receptions.

Hey guys, thanks for coming back here. I haven't ordered yet, but will be tonight or tomorrow.

I am looking for fast lenses. Charles, looked at your slideshow and loved the 50, but I'm sure it was hard stepping back all the time. I know it wouldn't work well at that type of event all the the time. I'm planning on getting the 17 -40 or the 16-35 later when I move on to weddings & such. Available light shooting is the only thing that concerns me with the 17-40.
Mostly portrait type stuff right now so I'm definetly getting the 85 1.8. I just wanted to have some room to widen out if I'm in a home and want to get a few people in the frame, kids playing, that sort of thing. I of course wouldn't shoot anything wide close up. That's why I was looking at the 35 f2 ~ fast, cheap a little wider. Maybe not wide enough.
I'm going to get the 85 1.8 & the 50 1.4 for now and then most likely the 17-40 or 16-35 a little later. Or maybe the 28 1.8.

Kate~ I have done a ton of reading and I haven't heard one bad thing about the 85 1.8. I've only seen a few that have the 85 1.2. I'm sure it is awesome, but geez the $ difference is huge. I think most would agree the 85 1.8 is a steal for portrait work. I'll let ya know when I get it.
Thanks