EOS 70D (APS-C) - LENs advice

[bubbawny]

HI folks:

I just purchased an EOS 70D. I'm an amateur, enthusiast, not a pro, but not a novice either.

I understand the 1.6 multiplier effect of APS-C cameras and wish I had an FF. But alas, Bubbawny is a poor boy and does not have the $ for what he wants: Canon 5d Mark III!

Right now, I have just the kit lens. But I'm looking to find a new lens. I want a lens that first and foremost that will bring out the best image quality I can get. Second, I'm looking for a general purpose lens. I'm torn between a prime I've done a lot of review on (EF 85mm f/1.8 USM). Portraiture and bokeh looks fantastic! Bokeh-licious!

Sample images I've seen with this lens look friggin awesome! But the thing is, 99% of the image sample's I've seen are done with FF cameras. I'm afraid of buying this lens for two reasons:

1. On my APS-C, I bet I have to stand a million miles away from a subject just to fit it into the scene.
2. I'm afraid image quality will be quite poor in comparison to what I've seen with this lens on FF.

I'd like to start experimenting with a little bit of portraiture, but a lot of general walking around. I was looking at 50MM lenses, but all the ones in my budget seem to be quite inferior in terms of image quality vs. this lens.

I was also looking at something like a Sigma Art lens, non-prime (zoom).

I've been spending the day at another site (won't mention it) that does technical reviews of lenses, comparing a few 50MM from Canon, a Sigma Art lens. What happened today is that in looking at the Sharpness charts (MTF-50), I'm just stunned to see how the lens can be so much sharper on a FF camera.

Truly stunned.

I guess a part of my question is whether anyone has this lens on a APS-C and would you recommend it. Second, how far would you have to stand from a subject to fit their torso/head in the shot? Would you have to stand so far back with an APS-C camera that you lose bokeh?

HIstorically, I have done landscape photography using wide/ultrawide lenses. I want to tinker around with a little portraiture / people shots as well as some all around urban and suburban photography where background blur and shallow DOF give me new things to use to try to get creative with my photos.

Today, the kit lens I have, and the ultrawide I used to do photography on a Canon T4i are all that I have done.

I'd really like to get the best image quality my camera can produce, fantastic background blur/bokeh. I'm not looking really to do landscapes with this. Just people. Objects, Flowers, dogs/cats, etc. where the subject/object is in focus, but with shallow DOF and good bokeh.

Again, sorry to ramble here, just asking if this lens would be a mistake. If I have to stand four million miles away from the subject with an APS-C just to get the subject in the frame, there goes my bokeh and shallow DOF.

Truly looking for some advice and maybe recommendations for alternate lenses.

But I'm also curious of anyone has this lens on an APS-C body and what you think.

Thanks in advance.

[Donald]

Hello and welcome to CiC.

First thing - So that you don't continue to get people asking you what your proper name is, because most us use that on here, you can go to Edit Profile (under 'Forum Actions' on the Menu Bar), or you can just press on 'Settings' on the menu bar right up at the top right of the window. Once there you can enter the name by which you wish to be addressed under 'Real Name'. Then it will appear underneath your Username in all your posts. You can also enter your location so that it does the same, just as in my details alongside this message. Then we all know where everyone is in the world.

Second thing - You have just bought the 70D. Why do you want a new lens already? Does the kit lens not give you the quality you want? Are you planning printing your pictures to quite a large size?

Why do you desire a full-frame body?

These are rhetorical questions.

A full-frame body and a much more expensive lens will NOT make you a better photographer. YOU will make you a better photographer.

Time for the Lee Trevino story again - I think the first question we need to ask ourselves when we decide that something isn't performing as well as we expected and we want to replace it with somethig better is - Am I good enough at getting the very best out of what I've got already?.

The story is told that former top-flight golfer Lee Trevino, when at his height and winning majors, told of how his way of learning and improving was to go out with one golf club. He would practice, practice and practice with that one club until he was confident that he knew he could make it perform to its absolutely highest level. He knew what the club should be able to do and that the only problem in getting it to do that was him.

So, if you're satisfied that you have practiced, practiced and practiced until you know you are getting the very best out of that body and lens combination then fine, go for the new equipment. But, if you haven't ....................!

[bubbawny]

Hi Donald:

Thanks for the reply!

I have had the EOS 70D Since September of last year with just the kit lens. I know enough to put it through it's best paces, and it falls short for what I am looking to do. The F-stop isn't wide enough to get shallow DOF/bokeh I'm looking for and with 5-blades, the bokeh is just awful. Image quality is OK, nothing to write home about.

There's a reason this lens should be left in the box.

My question really has to do with how much shallow DOF and Bokeh may suffer with the EF85MM on an APS-C camera, not with whether I'm practiced or proficient in using the kit lens.

As I said, I'm reasonably skilled in landscape photography, but have not done portraiture. What I have experimented with the kit lens on the 70D in different lighting conditions (outdoor indoor fill light) using a tripod to get shallow DOF and good bokeh are deeply disappointing.

So I'm looking for something appropriate for this type of photography to get the results I desire. I'm not running from the kit lens simply to just spend money. I've put it through it's paces and it's unable to produce the results I desire. This isn't a matter of my lack of practice or understanding what settings it takes to get shallow DOF and bokeh. It's a matter of the lens (the kit lens) being unable to produce the shallow DOF with good bokeh that I desire at an image quality level that is acceptable.

My concern is with the 1.6 crop factor with the 85mm F1.4. As I mentioned above, the images on FF with this lens look stunning with very few who seem to use this lens on APS-C.

FWIW, I'm also looking at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG HSM, or *Maybe* the Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC HSM.

Canon's 50mm lenses in my budget (the "nifty 50") seem ok, though I've researched the 85mm enough to know it is superior to those, and even far superior on FF cameras.

Just concerned about putting it on an APS-C. For the price, the image quality looks spectacular, so does the bokeh. Just not sure whether I should put this on an APS-C.

(And, FWIW, this isn't a whining post about me not being able to have a FF camera. I made my choice. the 70D is a very good camera, and I'm happy with it. ) (y)

What I want to do this summer is take photos where a dog playing frisbee is in shallow DOF with good bokeh (isolating the subject). Or a flower (rose, peony) being isolated (sharp in focus) with shallow DOF and good bokeh so that it pops out of the blurry background. Or my grandkid's holding up a fish they caught, torso/upperbody shot with shallow DOF /bokeh blurring the rest of the dock/pond (deep enough DOF to get the fish and the smiling angler!)

As I said above, I put the kit lens through it's paces on the 70d. Not even close to what I'm hoping to be able to do.

I love golf, BTW. There's a huge difference in equipment. You play with cheap clubs where shafts can twist, the sweetspot is too small to connect with, etc., and it degrades your game.

I'm also an oil painter (http:www.facebook.com/artistrobertpbrittonjr) (I apologize if putting that link there is against site rules). Using student grade oil paints in comparison to professional grade oil paints is a *HUGE* difference. Student Grade: Dull, grainy, low pigment, lots of filler. Pro-grade: High quality pigment, great color, no fillers. just a huge difference.

In either case, having the best equipment doesn't make you a master. But there's no doubt about using the right equipment to get the right results.

[dem]

As you know, the crop factor of your camera is 1.6. This means that with the same lens you will need to step 1.6 times further back to achieve the same framing of your subject as with a full frame camera. The depth of field of this image will be 1.6 times wider and the background will be more compressed (1.6 times if it is far away) compared to full frame.

Another useful thing to remember is that depth of field is roughly proportional to the f-number: if you have about a foot in sharp focus at f/4.0, you will get about half a foot at f/2.0.

[Donald]

Hi Bob.

It is a delight to have someone coming on asking the questions you have who has done the work and really knows why they are asking the questions about equipment that they are. I hope you didn't find my post insulting, but so many people, as you obviously well know, want advice about what to buy next before they've even tried to master what they already have. Clearly, that is not the case with yourself.

I am no portraitist and have no first-hand knowledge of the type of lenses that you want to look at/think about. So, I'll let others who do know what they're talking about come in and offer their views and suggestions.

[Stagecoach]

What I want to do this summer is take photos where a dog playing frisbee is in shallow DOF with good bokeh (isolating the subject). Or a flower (rose, peony) being isolated (sharp in focus) with shallow DOF and good bokeh so that it pops out of the blurry background. Or my grandkid's holding up a fish they caught, torso/upperbody shot with shallow DOF /bokeh blurring the rest of the dock/pond (deep enough DOF to get the fish and the smiling angler!) :

Hi Bob,

Dogs and children do not stay still and a fixed FL may not be the best solution for capturing them well framed. Have you considered a decent zoom around that range?

[bubbawny]

Not at all, Donald. No offense taken.

I'm not a portraitist either. I don't really usually even put people in my photos! I love landscapes without any people! Sometimes, I will put a person in to help give a sense of scale. I've got some cool shots of Moran Point (South Rim Grand Canyon, USA) that I have people in to give a sense of the vastness and size.

I really don't want to be the people guy. But I would like to experiment with natural / general photography with some people and objects (dogs, cats flowers). Heck, I'd like to even get some better shots of my Honey Bunny!



I was reading on another post where a guy said he had to stand 4m away from a man to get him in the frame. It was a full body shot. I suppose I could live with that as I really don't do much indoor photography. I know with a prime, I'm going to have to use my feet as the zoom!

[bubbawny]

Thanks for that Dem!

[bubbawny]

Hi Grahame!

I am. There's a zoom Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 I'm looking at.

I've never owned a prime before, and I have read that for the price you can get great image quality vs. a zoom.

I think right now the thing that concerns me the most, outside of how lenses are affected by APS-C bodies, is that a lot of the "fast" lenses (F1.4, F1.8, F2, F2.8) are soft wide open. They don't get sharp until F2.8 maybe or even F4).

So, as someone who's never had a lens faster than F4, I find it interesting to think about spending $ on a "fast" lens that may give good bokeh and shallow DOF only to trade-off image quality. I mean, what's the point of spending the extra $ on a fast lens if the image quality gets so reduced at wide open apertures?

At least with the EF 85mm, It's only $350. It's cheap.

But one of the sigma zooms is looking interesting. The thing is, the review said that autofocus on the Sigma is incredibly inconsistent even between the same two shots. I've never bought 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tokina, etc.). But at this point, I'm trying to get a decent general purpose lens ~35mm-85mm with the best image quality and bokeh i can get.

ATM, I am really fascinated with the possibilities with shallow DOF. I love isolation shots where the subject is isolated from their surroundings!



The thing is, it seems that to get good image quality and bokeh on a zoom I really have to drastically increase my budget (far above $1,000 USD). I think my wife would kill me right now if I did that!

[Polar01]

Bob you really seemed concerned about an 85mm being to long with a cropped sensor, well a great lens used by a number of people is a 70-200mm f/2.8 bokeh is great. Now your 85mm fast math 85mm x 1.6 = approx. 135mm still short of 200mm. A longer reach lens will give a nicer look to a face. Now that nice boken has more to do with the distance the subject is from the background, a person separated by 8ft. from the background will look nicer than one only 2ft. So it is not just the lens that is important it is how the shot was setup at is just as important.

Cheers: Allan

[Stagecoach]

The thing is, it seems that to get good image quality and bokeh on a zoom I really have to drastically increase my budget (far above $1,000 USD). I think my wife would kill me right now if I did that!

Bob,

The Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is another option you could investigate, good IQ and a good all rounder that is a reasonable price.

[bubbawny]

Hi Allan:

Thank you.

As I mentioned, I was practicing with the 18-55 Kit lens on my 70D with my wife. I figured out pretty quickly that bokeh is as you say a lot to do with distance of subject from background!

I will look in to the 70-200 F2.8. TYVM!

[bubbawny]

TYVM, Grahame!

[Polar01]

Bob you would not believe the number of people that have not figured that one out yet.

Cheers: Allan

[bubbawny]

I take my photographic practice and learning seriously. Sometimes, you can learn a lot by reading. But really, you have to get out there and frankly put all that info to practice.

I took some photos of my wife in front of a beautiful rose of sharon bush. Setup the camera for bokeh, but had her to close to the bush (behind her). Took me a bit to figure out she was too close to the background element!



I do want to practice more subject isolation. I know a fast lens will help with that. The differences in bokeh between F3.5 or F4 and say even F2.8 are quite dramatic. Going to F2, F1.8, or F1.4...wow.

BUt I also learned the shape and the # of blades matter a lot, too, for getting nice round shapes out of the bokeh.

I think I'm just going to roll the dice for now and grab either the EF 50mm 1.4 USM or the EF 85 1.8. Maybe the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM (but concerned about the autofocus issue).

I'd love to get the 70-200mm F2.8L that Allan recommended. But my wife would kill me! Then Bob would be a lonely boy without his woman to love!



P.S. Trying to stay around $500, definitely <$1000 total. By the time I get the lens, hood, shipping & tax, I need to make sure the wife doesn't kill me!

[rpcrowe]

The two lenses that I most often use with my 7D cameras are the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. IMO, these lenses are the best combination I could use with any cameras. NOTE: I am stating that they are the "best combination I could use" for my style of shooting, not necessarily that they would be the best for every photographer.

I get excellent image quality using these lenses and, although I purchased a full-frame 5DII last year, I do not consider that camera miles above the crop cameras FOR MY USE...

The 17-55mm provides a focal range from quite wide to mid-range. The f/2.8 aperture, combined with the wonderful Image Stabilization makes it a great general purpose lens, even in lower light levels. The constant f/2.8 aperture also makes this a very viable lens for flash. The image quality, even wide open, is excellent. In fact, except that the lens maxes out at 55mm I could use this as my only lens.

I compensate (very well) for the relatively short ,maximum focal length by pairing this lens with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which is one of the absolute sharpest lenses I have ever used. The round iris blades provide great bokeh and the longer focal length provides an ability to use selective focus at f/4 or even at f/5.6 I far prefer this lens over the f/2.8 versions of the 70-200mm because of the weight. I have a 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II lens which weighs about the same as the f/2.8 versions of the 70-200mm lenses and it is not the lens that I select for a full day of walk around shooting.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is my favorite lens for portraits of people and dogs. The IS capability frees me from the requirement that I shoot in bright light that I needed when shooting the non-IS version of this lens.

I shoot 90% of my imagery with this combination of the above two lenses at a general ratio of 2/3 of my imagery with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 1/3 with the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Note: I shoot all of my portraits (except environmental portraiture) with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens...

I do shoot with a pair of cameras which gives me instant access to the focal range of either lens...

[William W]

. . . I just purchased an EOS 70D. . . Right now, I have just the kit lens. But I'm looking to find a new lens. I want a lens that first and foremost that will bring out the best image quality I can get. Second, I'm looking for a general purpose lens. I'm torn between a prime I've done a lot of review on (EF 85mm f/1.8 USM). . . I'd like to start experimenting with a little bit of portraiture, but a lot of general walking around. I was looking at 50MM lenses, but all the ones in my budget seem to be quite inferior in terms of image quality vs. this lens . . . I guess a part of my question is whether anyone has this lens on a APS-C and would you recommend it. Second, how far would you have to stand from a subject to fit their torso/head in the shot? Would you have to stand so far back with an APS-C camera that you lose bokeh? . . . I'm not looking really to do landscapes with this. Just people. Objects, Flowers, dogs/cats, etc. where the subject/object is in focus, but with shallow DOF and good bokeh.

I use the EF 85/1.8 and the EF 50/1.4 on APS-C Format cameras.

For an Half Shot Portrait (Vertical Orientation) you will be as about 12ft (4m) SD using the 85mm and at about 8ft (3m) SD using the 50mm. (SD = Subject Distance, Distance from Camera to Subject)

I don’t understand “Would you have to stand so far back with an APS-C camera that you lose bokeh?”

Bokeh will change depending upon several factors, but we do not “lose” or “gain” it – Bokeh is a subjective quality, we don’t have more or less of it is better or worse (and that’s according to one’s personal taste

If your question means something like this:

“If I use an 85mm lens on an APS-C Format Camera for an Half Shot Portrait I will be at about 12ft SD, but, on the other hand, if I used the same 85mm lens on a 135 Format Camera for the same FRAMING of the Half Shot Portrait in the same situation and same lighting conditions an used the same Aperture will the Bokeh be the same? And if the Bokeh is not the same, will the Bokeh be better or worse?”

Then the answers are:
> Using the APC-S camera you will be at SD about 12ft
> Using the 135Format camera you will be at SD about 8ft
> Assuming (as an example) you use F/2.8, the two Depth of Field measurements will be about 6 inches (APS-C Format) and 4 inches (135 Format).
> Yes, in theory the Bokeh will be different in the two images, but you might not ever notice that difference.
> In most cases the main consideration as to whether or not you will notice the difference in the Bokeh will be: when you moved closer to the Subject to make the shot with the 135 Format camera, how radical is the change in the RATIO between -
Subject to Background Distance :: Subject to Camera Distance

*

. . . I do want to practice more subject isolation. I know a fast lens will help with that.

"Bokeh" is not THE element which defines Subject Isolation.

It is SUBJECT’S PLACEMENT relative to the DEPTH of FIELD which does that.

The subjective quality of the out of focus background is the Bokeh - and yes - depending upon the subjective quality of that out of focus area, which is often described using adjectives of texture, the Subject may appear more nicely rendered on the background platter, hence the DoF and Bokeh both contribute to making the image more or less pleasing and more or less successful as to what the Photographer wanted to achieve.

A fast lens, by virtue of the fact that a SHALLOW DEPTH of FILED can be created by using a large APERTURE will often assist in more easily creating Subject Isolation – HOWEVER a fast lens is NOT an absolute necessity for that – because it is NOT ONLY the SHALLOWNESS of the DoF which creates Subject Isolation – it the is where the SUBJECT is PLACED within the DoF.

E.g. there is no doubt that that this Subject is ‘isolated’, yet the lens used was an F/4 lens and it was set at F/5.6 for this shot (FL = 105mm):



The reason the Subject appears 'isolated' is because the Subject is placed wholly within the DoF and the Background is a good distance away from the far limit of the DoF.

Often this is relationship is simplified by considering the ratio –
Subject to Background Distance :: Camera to Subject Distance.

If you want Rule of Thumb Formulae - if we can make that ratio about 5:1, or greater, and we keep the far limit of the DoF a good distance from of the Background, then the Subject will always be well ‘separated’.

Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will ‘like’ the Bokeh in the image.

***

The differences in bokeh between F3.5 or F4 and say even F2.8 are quite dramatic. Going to F2, F1.8, or F1.4...wow. I also learned the shape and the # of blades matter a lot, too, for getting nice round shapes out of the bokeh.

There are many factors, APART FROM the PHYSICAL NATURE and APERTURE SETTING of the lens which contribute to Bokeh.

The main factors, but not limited to these and in no order of priority, are:
> Subject to Background Distance
> Texture and (less often) the Colour of the Background, especially the reflective nature of it
> Position of the Light relative to the Background
> Type/Quality of light illuminating the Background

The number and contour of the Aperture Blades means zip, in regard to any affect on Bokeh, if the lens is used wide open.

***

One of the elements that I suggest that you consider is how the SD changes the PERSPECTIVE of the Image.

This is important in regard to Portraiture and is one reason why many Portrait Photographers use one or two (sometimes three) Zoom Lenses and do not not carry a large cache of Prime Lenses.

Typically (and as an illustration) – a Newspaper Photographer's kit (though few exist now) which was essentially used for a broad range of Portrait Photography, would comprise 135 Format Cameras and three zoom lenses: a 16 to 35 or 20 to 35 or 17 to 40 and 24 to70 and 70 to 200. The most used for a wide range of the genres of Portraiture, would typically be the 24 to 70. The same logic applies to a typical kit for the wide range of Portraits made at Weddings and Social Events and Family / Studio / Location Portraiture

A 24 to 70 would translate to a lens like a 17 to 55 (F/2.8) zoom on your APS-C camera.

Obviously the faster the Zoom Lens the more versatile it will be - and there are rational and good reasons for choosing a NON varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lens especially for Portraiture. Also, arguably, mots Portrait Photographers will tend to use the Wider FL's LESS often for than they would use the Normal and Telephoto FL's - so considering those points - a Zoom Lens which is a bit longer and not as wide will probably be more useful to you - and in that regard the already mentioned Tamron 28 to 75/2.8 should be under serious consideration.

When considering a Prime Lens as a "general" or "walkabout" the wider range of usefulness would be had by buying a 'normal' or 'slightly wider than normal' Prime Lens - this would translate to a Prime Lenses from about 24mm ranging to 35mm on your APS-C Format Camera - noting that Prime Lenses such as 50mm and 85mm are short and medium telephoto Lenses when used on an APS-C Format Camera - a Telephoto Prime Lens is generally not the best choice to be used as 'alkabout Prime Lens'.

Note I have mentioned “a wide range of the genres of Portraiture” – if you know that you what to only make a specific style/genre of Portraiture and you know that you will always require a specific Focal Length Lens to achieve that, then buy that Prime Lens: but if you want venture into Portraiture and discover the breadth and depth of the many facets and genres within that very broad brief, then I think you will be severely limiting your scope by choosing only (or two) Prime Lenses in your attempt t achieve that goal.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[DanK]

You've received some excellent feedback, but let me try to summarize some points and add a few.

First, I shoot with both FF (a 5D III and a 7D first generation), so I have a good feeling for what FF gets you. Given what you wrote, I suggest that at least for now, you forget about FF. To simplify, this is what FF gets you:
--somewhat better low-light capabilities
--greater detail that you will only notice if you print large or crop severely
--very roughly, one stop narrower DOF at any given aperture
--including lenses, considerably larger and heavier gear
--including lenses, considerably more expensive gear.

I think you need to choose, as you say that you want both a general-purpose lens and a portraiture lens. One lens can do both, but if you were only choosing for one of these purposes, the optimal would be different, IMHO.

My concern is with the 1.6 crop factor

Then if you want something that will perform on an APS-C camera similarly to how an 85mm performs on FF, you have to go shorter, 50-55mm. As William points out, you will want to keep the ratio of distance to the subject and to the background similar, and that will require the shorter focal length. In addition, if you use the same focal length and therefore have to stand farther away, that will change the perspective in faces a bit. Telephoto distances (which is what an 85mm would get you on an APS-C) will flatten faces a bit. It's all a matter of taste, but for reasons of perspective, a lot of people like lenses close to 90mm FF for portraiture, which would be 56mm for you.

You mention both people shots and portraiture. If by the former you mean candids, then there is a big difference. In posed portraits, the subject is reasonably still, and you can control the focus point carefully, which let's you use a very narrow DOF if that appeals to you. In my experience, that doesn't work with candids. When I shot candid with an APS-C, I never shot wider than f/3.5. You may do better.

I have the 70-200 Richard recommended, and when I shot only APS-C, the Tamron 28-75 Grahame recommended was my go-to lens for candid people shots. However, here again, I think you have a choice. The 28-75 is an ideal focal length range for shooting people with an APS-C. However, it is long on the short end for a walk around lens. My walk around was an EF-S 15-85. The particular 70-200 Richard recommends is the one I have, and I agree that it is a spectacular lens. However, IMHO, it is not a general-purpose lens, and on an APS-C, its short end is already on the long end for portraits. In shooting people, I generally use it when distance is an issue--e.g., if I want full-face images from a distance, or if there is some reason not to get too close.

[bubbawny]

William, I can't thank you enough for this post.

I am trying to learn what goes into being able to do upper torso portraits as well as some general candids and general walkabout object / subject photography. Truly, I know that I have a lot to learn and practice yet. I expect that when I get the lenses and begin the actual application, the knowledge will be deeply made real.

I've done a ton of landscape photography and some night photography, but I've never owned a fast lens, and I know my budget really doesn't get me in the class of great glass. However, the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 are two lenses that I've read up on that seem to give outstanding image quality and low-light capabilities for the price. Sure, I'll have to be careful with the lenses given their quality and lack of weather sealing. But my hope is that one (or both) of them will allow me to start the next chapter of my studies in photography.

If I had the money, I'd definitely go 70-200mm (the L-glass recommended above). FWIW, I've also never had a prime, either, but I've used one. I know I'm going to be tested using a lens without even basic zooming capabilities other than zooming with my feet!

But I am willing to trade off the zooming for now to keep the image quality up with choosing one of these two lenses.

Before I sold my T4i and lenses to get my EOS 70D, I had an EF 17-85mm F3.5-4.0). It was a good lens and I have thousands of shots on it.

It is true that I desire to do both general purpose and some people right now, and I do need a good landscape lens.

I was thinking of picking up the 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 for now to do my studies, even though I consider myself primarily a landscape photographer. I'm looking to study and expand my capabilities. I need some time to save up the $ for the landscape lens (zoom) that I have my eye on. That's going to take me some time to save up for.

In the mean time, for about $300 plus tax and shipping, plus a filter or two and a lens hood, I can get one of those lenses and practice for a few beans. Then I save and save until I can get the landscape glass I desire.

I think ideally, I'd almost prefer to pick up EF lenses exclusively, maybe even the best glass I could (L-glass et al), knowing one day I will pick up a 5D Mark III. I'm loathe to buy EF-S lenses because I know those will be short lived.

Your examples above truly helped me understand the implications a bit of the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 in terms of camera to subject distance (SD) and subject distance to background (which I kind of already had partly figured out).

My current kit lens goes down to F3.5 or F4 (can't remember right now. It's early AM and I haven't had coffee). When I was practicing to get bokeh, i was placing my subject about 6 feet from me, and was having them stand near a rose bush (large) for the background. I wanted the bokeh to be large circular patterns of red (roses) and green (leaves) and blue (sky holes) colors. With that lens, I could not go lower in F-stop. I was at the lowest. And moving the subject away from the rose bush helped a little. but the bokeh achieved was not satisfying at all. At F3.5, the shapes of the roses and the leaves only just began to diffuse. So I don't think there's anything else I can do with this lens, given it's inability to go wider than F3.5/F4.

Like I've admitted several times, I'm not a pro. An enthusiast trying to study, practice, and grow. Once I get more knowledge, I'll equip myself with the right gear (and better gear) when I know what I'm doing. Sure, I could spend a bazillion dollars and brag about how I have ten thousand US dollars of gear (like my brother who has a 5d Mark III with $6,000 tied up in two lenses who doesn't really know how to use the equipment well). I don't want to spend thousands on a piece of great glass only to find out that it stays in my bag because it doesn't meet my needs for the type of photography I'm interested in.

But at the same time, I have seen what a difference good optics can do for a photo in terms of color, clarity/quality, and bokeh. I'm sure my 70D can do better than I've seen. I have to get some glass that does what I want, but that also gives me a bit better quality than I've presently experienced.

The 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are bargain basement priced with outstanding optics. I'm drawn to them because they are in the price point I'm looking for and because they give me (I hope) the kind of optics (quality, bokeh) that I'm looking for.

As I said, Had I the money, I'd try to get three zoom lenses covering the gamut as you noted. I truly would. The EFS 18-85mm I've had before. I may check out the tamron others recommended. THe 70-200mm F2.8 is out of my price range today, but will likely make it into my bag one day.

For now, I guess I just want to find a lens that gets me more in to natural/general photography including candids and a little bit of portraiture. I'm not going to do weddings. I'm not going to do head shots. ANd I don't know if this is going to be "my thing" when I'm truly in love first and foremost with landscapes. But I desire greatly to get to know what candids/potraiture is about and need a lens to explore that for now.

With your awesome info, I feel much safer really about choosing either of those two lenses.

However, I think I'm going to research that Tamron a bit more. I am wondering if having a prime only will quickly become a pain in terms of composition (having to zoom with feet).

I used to have that EFS 17-85mm f3.5/f4 as my all day walk around lens. It was pretty good.

I'd like to say thank you to all of you who've given me input. I'm just a traveller on the road, trying to study and learn. I take my studies seriously and put in to practice what I study to gain knowledge. I'm not a gear guy, always jealous of other people's gear. As Donald noted above, it's not always a problem with the gear, but with the person behind the camera. I take my studies seriously, just need a lens to study with and explore.

God bless, friends. I thank you so much for all of you taking the time to share some of your knowledge and advice.

[bubbawny]

Thank you, Dan. I'm going to check out that Tamron. William made some good points about perhaps not going prime and going zoom instead. But I wonder if I can afford a good quality fast lens that covers the focal length for candids and a little potraiture. It's not something I've been researching. I've only looked at primes because from what I read, they are far less expensive and can give far greater image quality for the price. the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 produce some stunning images!

I had owned the EF-S 15-85 when I had my T4i. I sold both a bit ago to move to the EOS 70D with the Kit lens. I thought the 15-85 was actually a good all around walk around lens. I wonder how it would perform on my 70D. It gave some pretty good shots!

I do need to pick up a good landscape wide or ultra wide. But I think what I'd like to do is just practice and study a little portraiture for now. It's not likely to be my thing (people). I think more what I'll end up doing is looking to do various subject isolation shots (cars, urban candids, kids on bikes, dogs playing in the park) and a little upper torso or full body candids.

I have over 6,000 landscape photos from my travels: Hawaii, Sedona, Grand Canyon, Big Sur, Rockport, Catalina Island, etc. I just LOVE travel photography. That's my main passion. I use those photos to do landscape oil painting (http://www.facebook.com/artistrobertpbrittonjr). But as I said above, I want to continue my photography studies and learning by experimenting with candids, subject isolation shots, portraits. Who knows? Maybe it'll be as fun and enjoyable as landscapes.

(For me, there's just something about God's awesome beauty seen in big landscapes. It just fills my soul! Screaming kids, business head shots, wedding photography with bridezilla...I'm pretty sure that's not full of tranquility and peace!)



But like I said, I do want to get a lens that allows me to explore the mid range / natural photography.

Thanks for your help, my friend. You and William truly helped me along with the others here!