Lens for 7d

[ConfusedChicca]

I'm upgrading in a few weeks to a lovely new 7d, and I'm wanting some new glass too. I've got an 18-55 kit lens (never gets used), a 28-105 & 15mm fisheye.
I shoot mainly portraits (in a studio) but the lens will also be used for nightclub work. For these reasons I'm thinking either a 17-85 (new) or second hand 17-40L.
Any recommendations?

 

[Dave Stone]

I would go for the 24-105 F4L if you can stretch to it. The 17-40 will be a bit wide I think.

 

[ding76uk]

17-40L on a crop is not going to be wide. 24 is equivalent of 38mm IIRC, which is no good for night club shooting. You thought about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? Decent priced, and very shapr although not USM. Other than that 17-55 canon f2.8 which is meant to be the best lens on a crop body.

Also you should look at changing out your fisheye for a 10mm one to get the full effect.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

17-40 may be fine as walkabout but a no-no for portraits. For that I would recommend either any 70-200, 85mm f/1.8 or 24-105 (use the long end).

 

[Dave Stone]

17-40 way too wide for portraits even on a crop. In a studio the 24-105 is very well suited and as daugirdas says a 70-200 can come in handy too if you have the room.

 

[ConfusedChicca]

The 28-105 I have serves me very well for portraits. The fisheye is perfect for clubs. Just need something to sort of bridge the gap. I can't hold a 70-200 or anything heavier, tried before but I have MS and I manage about 5 shots before I have to put it down.
I'll read up on the Tamron 17-50 & Canon 17-55.

 

[ding76uk]

17-40 may be fine as walkabout but a no-no for portraits. For that I would recommend either any 70-200, 85mm f/1.8 or 24-105 (use the long end).

Again on a crop the equivalent portrait lens to the 85mm is the 50mm.

50x1.6= 80mm which is as near as needs be.

85mm best portrait length for FF, 50mm is best for portrait on crop.

17-50 Tamron or 17-55 Canon would be perfect for the needs. Wide enough for club use, yet still correct length for a portrait.

 

[lauy]

For crop body, definitely get a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, since you have already splashed out on the body, don't be stingy on the glass! It's an amazing lens

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Again on a crop the equivalent portrait lens to the 85mm is the 50mm.

50x1.6= 80mm which is as near as needs be.

85mm best portrait length for FF, 50mm is best for portrait on crop.

17-50 Tamron or 17-55 Canon would be perfect for the needs. Wide enough for club use, yet still correct length for a portrait.

I couldn't disagree more. As you get closer noses and hands grow longer and ears get smaller. On FF 85mm can't be used for headshots, not a chance. I have it so I know. If you do that you may as well stick a fisheye to their nose.

Oh and 70-200mm f/4 is just as light as most other 'lightweight' lenses.

 

[joescrivens]

17-40 way too wide for portraits even on a crop. In a studio the 24-105 is very well suited and as daugirdas says a 70-200 can come in handy too if you have the room.

17-40 definitely not too wide for portraits on a crop. 40mm is 64mm eqivalent

 

[Dave Stone]

I agree the 40mm end is usable in a studio, but a large part of the focul range will not be of much use. If you are happy with the 28-105 then i would be tempted with the 50mm 1.4.

 

[Spiritflier]

17-40 may be fine as walkabout but a no-no for portraits. For that I would recommend either any 70-200, 85mm f/1.8 or 24-105 (use the long end).

I use the 24-105 for the majority of my portrait work but I also have an older Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for when I need a bit of extra light gathering. I've owned a 17-40L and whilst it's a lovely lens, I agree that it's not the best choice for portraiture.

The fact that the OP is shooting gigs as well would probably mean that F4 will be a bit on the slow side unless they're happy upping the ISO.

Si

 

[mastertrinity]

i'd say a 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and a 24-105mm for versatility.

 

[ConfusedChicca]

For club stuff, given how bright the lights tend to me, I usually shoot at f/5.0 or higher, it's mainly about slower shutter speeds and ISO 400.

 

[Deckard]

How about the 15-85? It normally comes as a kit bundle option with the 7D and is a step up from the 17-85. Having said which, the 17-55 might be a better bet with the 2.8 aperture for portraits and low light work.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I've got the 17-40L, it is a great landscape lens, but wouldn't use it for portraits, also with the lenses you already have it won't really do much different to your existing lenses, the 17mm end will be close to your fisheye, although with less distortion (but there still will be some) and the 28mm+ range you already have covered.

Something like a 50mm prime will do something different, plus they're cheap too!

 

[redmonkee]

Hi I have just sent you a PM

cheers

Phil

 

[ding76uk]

I couldn't disagree more. As you get closer noses and hands grow longer and ears get smaller. On FF 85mm can't be used for headshots, not a chance. I have it so I know. If you do that you may as well stick a fisheye to their nose.

Is that why the Canon 1.2L version is known as the best portrait lens ever made?

Close up portrait the ideal lens length is 105mm. But you cannot get this in a prime lens.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Is that why the Canon 1.2L version is known as the best portrait lens ever made?

Close up portrait the ideal lens length is 105mm. But you cannot get this in a prime lens.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

105mm (or 100mm) looks very nice on APS-C, not so much on FF. 135mm starts to look much better. Perhaps you could show some references why 85mm is the best portrait lens. Surely it is great but not may not be the best for absolutely everything to do with portraiture. I know people use supertelephotos for portraits, but perhaps they are just being arrogant?!

 

[Spiritflier]

...Close up portrait the ideal lens length is 105mm. But you cannot get this in a prime lens...

Of course you can! There's the EF100mm f2.8 macro for a start!

When I started using film over 25 years ago, the Zuiko 135mm was described as a 'perfect' portrait lens for my OM2n... To that end an 85mm on a crop sensor works out nicely and is a cracking lens for head and shoulders portraits.

Si

 

[joescrivens]

I couldn't disagree more. As you get closer noses and hands grow longer and ears get smaller. On FF 85mm can't be used for headshots, not a chance. I have it so I know. If you do that you may as well stick a fisheye to their nose.

Oh and 70-200mm f/4 is just as light as most other 'lightweight' lenses.

but what you are describing with perpective on noses etc doesnt happen at 85mm thaf happens at 40 and below.

 

[alastairb]

technically it still happens at any length, but as the lenses get longer difference in focal length starts to have less and less effect

 

[Les McLean]

I'd go for a 17-55 f/2.8 IS also, thinking about your nightclub shooting, while you probably won't be shooting at f2.8, a faster lens like a F2.8 (rather than say a f4) will find and hold focus better in low light situations.

It would also double up as portrait lens, with the ability to provide relatively narrow DOF if needed.

You could always back it up and have a 50mm F1.4 also.

 

[ding76uk]

105mm (or 100mm) looks very nice on APS-C, not so much on FF. 135mm starts to look much better. Perhaps you could show some references why 85mm is the best portrait lens. Surely it is great but not may not be the best for absolutely everything to do with portraiture. I know people use supertelephotos for portraits, but perhaps they are just being arrogant?!

I never claimed it to be the best for everything, and I think you were being arrogant towards me when you said

I have it so I know. If you do that you may as well stick a fisheye to their nose.

Scott Kelby (not the best source, but a guy who knows his stuff) says shooting in the 85-100 mm range is best for portraits because it "eliminates the unflattering facial distorition wide-angle lenses are notorious for, while avoiding the compression long telephoto lenses give.

This was my point. Compression from longer zooms can be as unflattering as that from a wide lens.

Here are a cpl examples for you of a full frame and 85 combo (random net shots)

Taken on 85mm. You see distortion?

The fisheye. A subtle difference from the 85mm

Of course you can! There's the EF100mm f2.8 macro for a start!

And the rest? Plus cannot get the depth of field possible with a 1.8 lens, let alone 1.2.

When I started using film over 25 years ago, the Zuiko 135mm was described as a 'perfect' portrait lens for my OM2n... To that end an 85mm on a crop sensor works out nicely and is a cracking lens for head and shoulders portraits.

Si

I agree you can also get a nice portrait on a 135, but in terms of practical use (ie. non studio, smaller spaces) the 85 makes more sense.

 

[joescrivens]

technically it still happens at any length, but as the lenses get longer difference in focal length starts to have less and less effect

well technically yes but what i mean is at 85mm it doesnt happen to a detrimental amount. its not an issue at this focal range

 

[joescrivens]

And the rest? Plus cannot get the depth of field possible with a 1.8 lens, let alone 1.2.

you don't need 1.2 at 100mm on that macro, here are some taken with a mix of 2.8 and 4 on the 100mm 2.8L. Why would you need less dof than this? I'm lucky enough to have the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2,8 and the 100mm wins hands down on the 85, not because of it's length though, just to quality of the glass, I'm sure the 85 1.2 is similar to the 100mm 2.8L in terms of quality, if not better.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Here are a cpl examples for you of a full frame and 85 combo (random net shots)

Taken on 85mm. You see distortion?

Thank you for showing me examples as my photos and memory went blank a moment ago . Yes I can see some distortion, particularly in the 2nd one. It is not massive, but definitely present. The point is if you don't look at someone from 40cm distance, why would you take a photo in that way? The normal distances are about 1.5m and over. This makes 85mm great for APS-C for that kind of shot, not FF.
Perhaps you should get permission before reposting random photos 'off the net'

The fisheye. A subtle difference from the 85mm

It is not a fisheye, just a normal wideangle (24mm?). There is no fisheye distortion.

I agree you can also get a nice portrait on a 135, but in terms of practical use (ie. non studio, smaller spaces) the 85 makes more sense.

135mm may mean an extra 1/2m you have to step back. Does it make it so impractical? Perhaps dSLRs are also too heavy and bulky and we should be shooting Leica, Panasonic GF1 or even compacts following this logic.

 

[joescrivens]

Thank you for showing me examples as my photos and memory went blank a moment ago . Yes I can see some distortion, particularly in the 2nd one. It is not massive, but definitely present. The point is if you don't look at someone from 40cm distance, why would you take a photo in that way? The normal distances are about 1.5m and over. This makes 85mm great for APS-C for that kind of shot, not FF.
Perhaps you should get permission before reposting random photos 'off the net'

135mm may mean an extra 1/2m you have to step back. Does it make it so impractical? Perhaps dSLRs are also too heavy and bulky and we should be shooting Leica, Panasonic GF1 or even compacts following this logic.

I don't think you'll find many people agree with you there, If you can see distortion then you have a better eye than most of the rest of the world.

I use a crop and I love the 85 and 100mm but I don't get to use them much at all indoors because of the distance needed to be away from them. The 85mm on my crop is effectively 136 whch s what you are saying is the best length but I have way more photos taken with my 30mm and 50mm which are effectively 48mm and 80mm. Space is an issue and indoors you rarely get that 1/2m.

Outside and thats a totally different matter, I'll be reaching for my 85 or 100 for sure

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Space is an issue and indoors you rarely get that 1/2m.

A typical lounge is around 4mx5m, and the rooms are like 3x3-5m. I don't see where that 1/2m comes from unless in a bathroom. Please enlighten me. I live in a not too big house just for a record.

 

[joescrivens]

A typical lounge is around 4mx5m, and the rooms are like 3x3-5m. I don't see where that 1/2m comes from unless in a bathroom. Please enlighten me. I live in a not too big house just for a record.

So you live in a house where there are no sofas? no tv cabinet or wardrobe? It matters not how big the room is, rooms are filled with objects that get in the way.

if you think the 85mm range has distortion and the 135 range not take a look at these too and you tell me which one was from effective range of 80mm and which was from an effective range of 136 based on the level of distortion.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

So you live in a house where there are no sofas? no tv cabinet or wardrobe? It matters not how big the room is, rooms are filled with objects that get in the way.

if you think the 85mm range has distortion and the 135 range not take a look at these too and you tell me which one was from effective range of 80mm and which was from an effective range of 136 based on the level of distortion.

The 1st one looks longer, but you picked a pretty hard subject:bang:! As for sofas and tables they can be moved to a side if really needed. I didn't see that as a problem.

 

[ding76uk]

It is not a fisheye, just a normal wideangle (24mm?). There is no fisheye distortion..

That is where your eye lets you down. That is shot on a full frame fisheye. Distortion from a fisheye is only noticeable to the eye on an extreme level where verticals are present. The photo you look at has no verticals, therefore the eye is fooled, and the distortion is not seen as extreme as it is. Sorry to rain on your little parade there!

Thank you for showing me examples as my photos and memory went blank a moment ago . Yes I can see some distortion, particularly in the 2nd one. It is not massive, but definitely present. The point is if you don't look at someone from 40cm distance, why would you take a photo in that way? The normal distances are about 1.5m and over.

Again your eye must be weird if it functions like an 85mm at 1.5 metres from someone you see more than just a headshot in terms of your vision.

I am sorry as you were not posting up examples of you I'm sure heavily distorted 85mm shots. Note you do not make comment on what Scott Kelby says either? Maybe you know more than him, I don't know you so cannot comment, obv. Faces do not need to be squashed flat all the time. Maybe rather than me post images off the net, which seems to upset you so much, then maybe you could post an example shot on your 85mm showing this terrible distortion you talk about.

Others have answered the point about shooting and why 135, although half a metre back from 85, is not always practical in many situations, so will not bother pointing out your mistake on that.

 

[ding76uk]

The 1st one looks longer, but you picked a pretty hard subject:bang:! As for sofas and tables they can be moved to a side if really needed. I didn't see that as a problem.

Why a really hard subject, is it not a portrait?

Average room size is 15.8 m square, which is 4m by 4m, you pull your subject away from a background to get separation, then space is very short. Also to take a portrait, you don't always want to rearrange the furniture.

 

[woof woof]

Working distance, composition and framing are all that matter, anything else is personal preference and optical illusion.

 

[joescrivens]

The 1st one looks longer, but you picked a pretty hard subject:bang:! As for sofas and tables they can be moved to a side if really needed. I didn't see that as a problem.

Before I reveal the exif and show you whether you were wrong or right, what exactly makes you think the first one is longer?

And with regards to moving things out the way, come on thats scraping the barrel and hardly practical now is it

 

[LongLensPhotography]

That is where your eye lets you down. That is shot on a full frame fisheye. Distortion from a fisheye is only noticeable to the eye on an extreme level where verticals are present. The photo you look at has no verticals, therefore the eye is fooled, and the distortion is not seen as extreme as it is. Sorry to rain on your little parade there!

That guy on the right looks pretty straight to me, but I could be wrong. I don't get to see fisheye images very often.

Again your eye must be weird if it functions like an 85mm at 1.5 metres from someone you see more than just a headshot in terms of your vision.

I don't know what you are on about. You see faces differently from different distances, and so does the camera. (ie. the distance ratio of camera to nose vs eyes vs ears grow as the distance shortens - simple?).

I am sorry as you were not posting up examples of you I'm sure heavily distorted 85mm shots. Note you do not make comment on what Scott Kelby says either? Maybe you know more than him, I don't know you so cannot comment, obv. Faces do not need to be squashed flat all the time. Maybe rather than me post images off the net, which seems to upset you so much, then maybe you could post an example shot on your 85mm showing this terrible distortion you talk about.

I guess horses for courses. Some people benefit from shorter lenses (short noses, less distinct facial features), some need long teles (long noses, very strong cheek lines and so on). It you want examples then here they come (all FF):

85mm. He doesn't really look like that.

Still @ 85mm but I am much further away. This looks fine.

180mm. That looks good to me.

35mm. Good for special effects like in this case, otherwise it would be too wide and too high up.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Before I reveal the exif and show you whether you were wrong or right, what exactly makes you think the first one is longer?

I may be fooled by the way he bowed his head in the 2nd shot and the fact the 1st is slightly closer. My guess is based on how his ears and forehead appear, and also the background in the 2nd shot. Baby faces are much less familiar to me though.

 

[joescrivens]

I may be fooled by the way he bowed his head in the 2nd shot and the fact the 1st is slightly closer. My guess is based on how his ears and forehead appear, and also the background in the 2nd shot. Baby faces are much less familiar to me though.

sorry you got the wrong way round, here are the files with exif if you want to check. The background was closer in one than the other because they were stood a lot closer is all, and for the 85mm I was in the hall shooting through the doorway.

and also it's a she not a he

ok so babies aren't your thing, try it with an adult instead, and just so it's not a 50:50 these two are either one at effective 80 and one at effective 136 or both at 80 or both at 136, but if you think there is such a difference in the perspective you should be able to tell though right? Also they are both almost identical shots in terms of the subject and what she is wearing so this should make it easier for you

 

[LongLensPhotography]

and also it's a she not a he

apologies

ok so babies aren't your thing, try it with an adult instead, and just so it's not a 50:50 these two are either one at effective 80 and one at effective 136 or both at 80 or both at 136, but if you think there is such a difference in the perspective you should be able to tell though right? Also they are both almost identical shots in terms of the subject and what she is wearing so this should make it easier for you

The 2nd looks like 50mm, not sure about the 1st one (a little soft focus and busy background?). The light is better on the 2nd one. Did you crop it at all? Landscape format obviously helps a lot with the distortion by bringing the subject further . My no 1 is a little more distorted.
She is very pretty by the way.

 

[joescrivens]

apologies



The 2nd looks like 50mm, not sure about the 1st one (a little soft focus and busy background?). The light is better on the 2nd one. Did you crop it at all? Landscape format obviously helps a lot with the distortion by bringing the subject further . My no 1 is a little more distorted.
She is very pretty by the way.

lol, you're way off. It's 100mm effectively 160mm actually. I thought it was with my 85 but actually it was with my 100mm 2.8. Exif attached. Small amount of cropping

The 1st was at 85mm effectively 136mm

I think it's fair to say that your theory doesn't work great, would you agree?