Improve my lens line up.

[powers_brent]

• Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
• Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens
• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens

Minus a telephoto this is what I want.


Is this a good line-up?


Currently have

• Canon Rebel XS
• Kit lens
• 50mm f/1.8
• 75-300 f/4-5.6

FYI, I like to shoot portraits, events, macro, and wildlife.

[Benjamin]

That looks good.


In this case it's better to tell what you're intended to be doing along with your choice of lenses, that way we can help more effectively.


If you're looking for something that does portrait, the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are good choices. I think once you had the 85/1.8, you may want to look at something longer for macro purposes. According to my experience, working distance is critically important to macro photography as sensitive objects are hard to get close to (i.g. a butterfly) and lens shade will present when the lens is too close to the object depending on the lighting condition. I once owned the Sigma 150/2.8 lens, it's a very capable macro lens, I have nothing negative to say regarding what it's meant to do. The Canon 180/3.5L is even better, both on IQ and price... Longer macro lenses can also serve as normal prime lenses, in that way 85mm and 100mm are too close in functionality. I'm by no mean saying the 100/2.8 macro is a bad lens, it's good for what it can do and it's at a reasonable price.

[Colin]

I like the 180mm f/3.5 Macro for a portrait lens, if I can get the space..

[Daniel Browning]

85mm and 100mm have a very similar angle of view, but since one of them is a fast-focusing low light event lens and the other is a slow macro, there really isn't any overlap.


Are you sure that you're willing to give up wide angle completely? Maybe you should doublecheck the shots you've already taken with your kit lens and make sure that most of them are at 24mm or longer. Personally, I much prefer to have a wide angle lens such as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but I've shot a wedding with the 24-70 f/2.8 on a crop body before and made it work, and if your style is mostly telephoto then the 24-70 would make sense.

[JJphoto]

powers


I have all four lenses that you mentioned. I don't use the 24-70 very often, it's slower and heavy, 85mm and 100mm are my favorite non L lenses and i agree with Daniel, it's not overlap. i also think these two lenses produce near L quality images.the 50mm is a good fast lens it's sharp too, but I don't like the colur it produces,and I don't use it any more since i got my 35mm1.4, and for wide angle, I use Tokina 12-24mm4.0.I used to have a 17-40mmL4.0 and I think it is only slightly better than the kit(for IM), so I think, the 35mm will do the 50mm 's job and almost cover the wide angle end of the 24-70mm and the price is as same as the 24-70mm's, and the kit lens will pretty much do it's job for genaral purpers.it' just my opinion based on my experience of using these lenses.

[markcoons]

I have a similar line up to what you list:

• Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens - my walk around prime lens
• Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens - I seldom use this lens, the FL does not work well for me
• Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens - my favorite lens
• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - a great portrait lens, especially when paired with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8
• Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens - this is my wide angle prime but to my eye the color is off just slightly with this lens.

Generally when I need to go wide I use my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens as it has great optics and color reproduction.

[Dallasphotog]

Nothing wrong with your choices. I have to mention my favorite lens is the EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM. It's reallya good lens for head shots and great from the back of the church. I never leave home without it and the EF24-70mm F/2.8L USM.

[Keith B]

I second the idea of a wide angle. Throw in the 17-85 or the 17-40L.


I think you'll find a lot of the times 24 just isn't wide enough especially if you are on a crop.


My 2 lenses I couldn't do with out are the 16-35 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS.


I consider the 16-35 more valuable that the 24-70. Wedding photogs will probably disagree though.


For me and what I generally shoot, the range between 35 and 70 is easily sneaker zoomed.

[moldovamark]

I'm in a similar situation--wanting to expand from the kit lens and 50 f/1.8.


I tried the 17-85, and though I liked the reach of the lens, it just wasn't fast enough. (I never really thought of Mother's Day as a stopping motion sort of event, but when you're trying to get nice candids of animated dinner table conversation, it is.) So I swapped it (and a lot more cash) for the 17-55 f/2.8 and really like it. It lets you get wider than the 24-70, which I borrowed from a friend for a day, and it's lighter, which was also important to me.

[Rob Gardner]

I once owned the Sigma 150/2.8 lens, it's a very capable macro lens, I have nothing negative to say regarding what it's meant to do. The Canon 180/3.5L is even better, both on IQ and price... Longer macro lenses can also serve as normal prime lenses, in that way 85mm and 100mm are too close in functionality. I'm by no mean saying the 100/2.8 macro is a bad lens, it's good for what it can do and it's at a reasonable price.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm a HUGE fan of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro - both as macro and as portrait lens - and for the money, you cant go wrong. It's just about the sharpest lens I own (even over several L lenses, though mostly tied with my 24-105 f/4 L - which is amazingly sharp at all apertures - I got lucky!) Here's a few shots from the Sigma 150:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/monique_2D00_headshot_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/flower_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/ladybug_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/insect_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img]