# What Lens to rent this weekend?



## sactown024 (Oct 24, 2012)

I am doing a portrait session of Mom and daughter this weekend and I am going to rent a lens from glassandgear.com. I will be shooting in a park with lots of shade, any reconmedations? I was thinking the 85mm L but would a zoom lens such as the 24-70 L be better?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2012)

Honestly? Skip the 85/1.2-L....it is a massive beast, and it has only ONE length. For outdoor portraits, I would rather have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM model either the original, or the newer Mark II variant. With the 70-200, you will still have great optics, but you will also have focal length flexibility, and focal length variation and variety. Any 85mm prime forces you to work within a fairly narrow range of distances. Many times, it's more comfortable for subjects if the photographer is not "breathing down their necks"--which is what an 85mm prime can lead to many times. Moving BACK, and using focal length, gives subjects more "space", and you are NOT INSIDE of their "personal space". This can be very helpful, as you direct the mom and daughter to interact with one another, and you capture the shots from just outside of their "space bubble".

I'm not that keen on the 24-70 lens because of the working distances it imposes. The bottom end of the zoom range is very dubious.


----------



## sactown024 (Oct 24, 2012)

thanks man! as you were writing this i was looking at the 70-200 2.8. I do like the wide angle shots buit i guess those are more apropriate for weddings and not so much mom daughter....? 

is the 70-200 2.8 wicked heavy?


----------



## sactown024 (Oct 24, 2012)

is the 70-200 II much better than the original?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2012)

No, it's not wicked heavy. You ought to be able to shoot it for a 90-minute session and not be pooped out. It's not "light weight", but it's also not wicked heavy...a 300/2.8 is wicked heavy, and demands a monopod. A 70-200/2.8 is easily hand-holdable. As far as the Mark II being "much better than the original"...yes, for landscapes and high-resolution imaging, I think the Mark II is the better lens. For "people pictures"...I do not think the Mark I is in ANY WAY a "bad lens", and it is PLENTY sharp for people pictures.

50 inch plasma TV versus 53 inch plasma TV...ya know???


----------



## sactown024 (Oct 24, 2012)

thank you again, and the mark II, will it fit on any canon eos? like my t2i?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2012)

The Canon T2i can accept any and all Canon EF mount lenses made since 1987 to the present year, and all EF-S lenses.


----------



## sactown024 (Oct 24, 2012)

Huge help Derrel, thank you, wish me luck!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 24, 2012)

don't rent the 70-200. you'll end up purchasing it


----------



## JaronRH (Oct 24, 2012)

I have to agree with the above - rent the 70-200 for this shoot.  I have both an 85 and 70-200 (for Nikon though!) and I've found that the 85 works best for single-person portraits but the 70-200 makes a better all-around lens when shooting multiple people.  However, I must admit that the 85 is definitely my favorite lens!


----------



## kathyt (Oct 24, 2012)

I really like the 70-200 as well but I super BIG puffy heart love my 135L for portraits.  The 85L is super, duper dreamy too but I tend to use that for one person or wedding couples.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> don't rent the 70-200. you'll end up purchasing it



Yes, this is very true.  Same goes with the 85!


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2012)

Many that have little experience don't understand that a shallow DoF can be obtained using longer focal lengths.
When using longer focal lengths the camera just has to be somewhat further from the subject to maintain subject scale in the image frame.
The longer focal length magnifies the background which can provide 2 pluses -
1. Fewer background distractions.
2. Making OOF background elements seem even more OOF.

It will take a couple of days of practice to get used to using a lens you have not used before.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 25, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > don't rent the 70-200. you'll end up purchasing it
> ...




I agree with both. I only took about 3-4 pictures with the 85mm and two days later was wishing I would have gotten it.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 25, 2012)

KmH said:


> Many that have little experience don't understand that a shallow DoF can be obtained using longer focal lengths.
> When using longer focal lengths the camera just has to be somewhat further from the subject to maintain subject scale in the image frame.
> The longer focal length magnifies the background which can provide 2 pluses -
> 1. Fewer background distractions.
> ...



Yes, this is true if I only had the 70-200L to use I could manage (if I really, really had to) and still get some nice shallow DOF shots but the results are never the same as with my quality primes.  They don't have that same creaminess as I call it.  It's like butter!


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2012)

True. My favorite was Nikon's 200 mm f/2 prime ($6000 new, about $4000 used, if you can find one to buy)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800887177-USE/Nikon_2150_AF_S_VR_NIKKOR_200mm.html


----------

