# Which lens to buy (EOS 500D)



## Chocoholix (Dec 3, 2009)

Hello!
I'm new here 
Photography is my hobby but I do make money out of it  I photograph babies/kids/people in general 

I would like your opinion on which lens to get for my Canon 500D *that is suited for this kind of photography subjects*... (kids/babies/people)

I am also looking for an external flash, I need something strong and fast. I always use a difusser when I am photographing outside (I have studio lights for indoors)...

What would you recommend? I shop eBay a lot so if you can give me models and brand names, it will make things easier for me 

Thanks in advance!!
Tina


----------



## mdruziak (Dec 3, 2009)

My favorite lens for portraits is the Canon 85mm f1.8.  The lens is sharp wide open and it provides nice bokeh (background blur).

If you want the flexibility of a zoom, you can't go wrong with a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS.


----------



## JLEphoto (Dec 3, 2009)

I agree...  For portraits consider the 85mm f1.8 if you can.  I am a Nikon user but the basic are the same.  If they offer it in 1.4 you could go that route but it would be WAY more expensive.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 3, 2009)

Welcome to the forum.

Check out:
the EF 24mm F1.4 L
the EF 35mm F1.4 L
the EF 50mm F1.2 L
the EF 85mm F1.2 L
the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS
the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS

For a flash, look at the 580EX II.


----------



## iolair (Dec 3, 2009)

Incidentally, what's your budget, and what lenses do you already have?



> the EF 85mm F1.2 L


If you can afford it, that's maybe king of the canon portrait lenses.


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 3, 2009)

OMGosh!! I WANT THAT LENS!!! 
Is says it works GREAT in low light conditions and since I HATE using a flash, this might be IT for me...
I can't really afford it though  I suppose if I were a professional I probably SHOULD get it but I am not...

What is the second best lens after this one you reckon? Something fast that works good in low light conditions and is less than $1000? (am I asking too much? lol)
Thanks guys!


----------



## iolair (Dec 3, 2009)

The budget alternatives ... the 50mm 1.8 (which has a similar field of view on your camera to the 85mm on a full-frame camera) - if you don't already have one.  I think you can get one for about 100$, maybe a little less.  It's still pretty good at low light - at its maximum aperture it lets in four times as much light as most zoom lenses.  Going a bit more expensive - is the 50mm 1.4 - a little faster than the 1.8, but with significantly better quality on the out-of-focus sections of the photo.  That's around 370$.  A little more money still (500$) gets you the Sigma 50mm 1.4, which most reviews reckon beats the Canon by a comfortable margin.

There's a korean (I think) 85mm 1.4 which you can find under assorted brand names (e.g. Rokinon, Bower, Opteka) but is the same lens in all cases.  The image quality is not very far behind the Canon lens according to assorted sample images I've seen online.  The BIG drawback (for most people) is that it's manual only - no autofocus.  This is about 250$.

Canon's 85mm 1.8 is a bit more - again around 370$ - but way less than the 1.2, and still has a reputation for amazing image quality.  It's not quite as fast as the Rokinon, but it does have autofocus.

Having JUST a 50 or JUST an 85 most people would find too limiting for portraits, so if you go for prime lenses instead of zooms, you may well want both lengths (and to add others in the future).  If I had 1000$ (or the euro equivalent, anyway) to spend on lenses right now, I'd be getting the 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and the 85mm 1.4 from Rokinon.  (I can live without autofocus on one lens).   Any change would go on another flash.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 3, 2009)

> Something fast that works good in low light conditions and is less than $1000?


Ah...a budget.  Now we can give you some real suggestions.

The 85mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.4 would both be decent low light lenses that won't break the bank.  In fact, they are both priced very well, considering the good quality they give you.


----------



## William Petruzzo (Dec 3, 2009)

Find a used 2_8_-70 f/2.8L. It's the older version of the 24-70. It's an excellent portrait lens. Fast and durable. Plus, it's usually in the $700 - $900 range. I bought mine a few years ago from Keh.com. I'd bet you'd still find one there.

As for flash, can't go wrong with a 580ex. They usually run $375 and worth every penny.


----------



## mdruziak (Dec 4, 2009)

> What is the second best lens after this one you reckon? Something fast that works good in low light conditions and is less than $1000? (am I asking too much? lol)
> Thanks guys!



Check this out:  Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens - Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

My 85mm seems sharper than the one tested here but maybe not,


----------



## Dao (Dec 4, 2009)

The 85mm F/1.8 lens is really a great lens especially for taking portrait type photos outdoor. What lenses do you currently owned?


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks everyone!
I think for now i might for for an Opteka manual focus 85mm 1.4...
I don't own any other lenses (gasp) because this if my first camera with the ability to change lenses. My previous one, the Sony R-1, don't get me wrong, took excellent photos *outdoors* but was a horrible camera indoors withouth the use of a flash or studio lights and i hate using a flash and with my spontaneous photos, well there is no time to set up studio lights. It served me well for 3 years while i was getting to know basic settings and took my first steps in photography but lately I found myself wanting MORE. More freedom, I didn't want a point and shoot camera... not that the R-1 was that but it could be used like that. The 500D certainly offers much more control that the R-1 didn't allow. And OMGosh, it's SO fast compared to the R-1... as I started making some money off my photographs, well I thought it was best to move up but not too high up... I don't think a $3000 camera is for me just yet  I got a good for the Canon and I am glad I bought it  don't get me wrong, I've taken AMAZING photos with my cell phone camera  so it's not always the camera that matters, right? but I would not sell these lol 

Sorry to babble..



I have been playing with my brand new 500D for a few days now, testing it and I just love love love it... I can't wait for a sunny day so I can take the boys to the park and see how it does under natural light with moving subjects!! 
Now all I need is a flash so I will go with the speedlite 
and then book a couple of photoshoots to try it out 

Thanks again!!!!


----------



## mdruziak (Dec 7, 2009)

I have to ask the question:  Why would you opt for a manual focus lens when you can get an auto focus lens for about the same price?

Here is a review for the Nikon version, but it should give you some idea: Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 



> so it's not always the camera that matters, right?



In my opinion, the lens matter SO much more than the camera.  It is prudent to buy the best lenses you can afford.  Especially if you are selling your photos!

EDIT:  I just re-read and saw that the dSLR thing is all new to you.  You may want to consider just using the lens you have for a while and see where you find it lacking.  You may find that you needs something completely different that an 85mm.  It is all about YOUR style of photography.


----------



## jeffgdp (Dec 7, 2009)

Total noob here. Auto-focus lenses are manual enabled aswell right? I would want the option to manually focus obviously.


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 7, 2009)

Thanks  
I think what I found lacking at least with my Sony was, it was not fast enough. There had to be some very specific conditions for the camera to capture very clear images, namely, VERY bright light (under the sun for instance I took photos of water drops falling and they were crystal clear). 
My problem was always low light so I need a lens that will work in low light *even without a flash* and stop time if you will. 
I need for wiggly babies to be still but I can't do that. With my Sony I ended up with a LOT of motion-blurred photos sometimes even with the slave flash AND the studio lights.

As I became more familiar with the basics of photography and how to use the settings (although I am still learning obviously ) things got a little better but it got to a point recently, the light was going but it wasn't dark at all and my Sony didn't take ONE still image properly  that's when I realized I needed something faster for low light conditions.

so if I had to make a list it would be:
A lens that captures good detail in macro mode (because I photograph small items as well)
A lens that is fast and works good even with low light
And it wouldn't require me selling a kidney to buy it 
I wouldn't mind another brand, it doesn't have to be a "Canon", as long it was good quality 

Does this help at all?


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 7, 2009)

> I think what I found lacking at least with my Sony was, it was not fast enough. There had to be some very specific conditions for the camera to capture very clear images, namely, VERY bright light (under the sun for instance I took photos of water drops falling and they were crystal clear).
> My problem was always low light so I need a lens that will work in low light *even without a flash* and stop time if you will.
> I need for wiggly babies to be still but I can't do that. With my Sony I ended up with a LOT of motion-blurred photos sometimes even with the slave flash AND the studio lights.


Even very fast lenses will be limited in low light.  It's your responsibility to keep an eye on the shutter speed.  You can also turn up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds, at the expense of digital noise, however.  



> Total noob here. Auto-focus lenses are manual enabled aswell right? I would want the option to manually focus obviously.


Yes, pretty much every interchangeable auto focus lens, can be manually focused as well.


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 7, 2009)

> Even very fast lenses will be limited in low light. It's your responsibility to keep an eye on the shutter speed. You can also turn up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds, at the expense of digital noise, however.


 
Absolutely! But I've already found my Canon to be by FAR superior and faster to the Sony. I've taken the same photo with both camera (on tripods, side by side) and I am already happy


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 7, 2009)

Ok people I am down to 3 lenses... which one of the three?
Remember, fast, good with low light, mostly portraits or photos taken outside of children running, moving etc.
Opteka 85mm f/1.4 IF Portrait Lens for Canon EOS SLR 85 - eBay (item 370299606227 end time Dec-07-09 16:45:59 PST)

Canon EF 85mm 85 mm f/1.8 F1.8 USM 50D/450D/500D-0303 - eBay (item 370258201550 end time Dec-08-09 19:44:50 PST)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 F1.4 USM Lens for EOS 50D 5D 7D NEW - eBay (item 200409850694 end time Dec-23-09 13:34:07 PST)

A local photographer friend suggested the 50mm one...
So what do you think? (if I can sell my Sony, I might actually get two lol )


----------



## mdruziak (Dec 8, 2009)

> A lens that captures good detail in macro mode (because I photograph small items as well)


Neither the non of the lenses you mentioned are Macro lenses.  



> A lens that is fast and works good even with low light


By this I assume you mean fast focusing in low light?  Since the Opteka is manual focus this lens is eliminated.  But if you mean that it has a large f-stop (ie f/1.4 or f/1.8) either the 50mm or the Canon 85mm will do.  I own both and my 85 is sharper wide open than the 50mm wide open.

However, you may find any of these lenses difficult to use wide open until you get a lot of practice with them.  At 5 feet, the Depth of Field wide open, on the 85mm is only about 1/2" and 2" on the 50mm.  With moving babies, even if you nail the focus initially, the baby may move and be out of focus.  Or you may sway back and forth a little and move the camera out of focus.  I always use AI-Servo mode when using either of these lenses wide open.

If you really want a macro, Canon makes a 100mm and Sigma makes a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens that are great for portraits also.

As you might be noticing, the purchase of any lens is a trade off.  It might be great for one type of photography and horrible for another.


----------



## Chocoholix (Dec 8, 2009)

Oh boy!! lol 
You are SO right!!! Ugh... Well MOST of the photographers I've spoken to and love their work, told me to get the 50mm one... for the outdoors, general variety photos, the lens the Eos came with (the 18-55) is quite decent and I know loads of people don't use this one much as soon as they get another one but it works for me so far with no complaints.. but I do need a portrait lens...

I've found that with the studio lights and my two flashes, even when babies moved (while I was using the Sony that is) the photos were still good... at least MOST of them 
But only (obviously) when I used the flashes... 
I think I might go with the 50mm one for starters and see if I can pop around some studios locally to test some other lenses before I decide!
In any case, I am buying from the US because I just checked out the prices here in Athens, Greece and OH BOY! About x2 as much!! (i.e. the lens I wanted costs 2000 EUROS here which is $2700!!! whereas in the US you can get it for $2000 or less!!) yikes!


----------

