What is a good lens for taking Portraits and Landscape?

[chalib]

easy, 24-105 is all you need!

landscape: 24mm f/8

portrait: 105mm f/4

Yup

That's all u need

 

[Snoweagle]

Actually, there really isn't such a thing as 'too wide' in landscape! :bsmilie:

But unless you're very specialised, the 14mm f/2.8 L is way, way overpriced. The net returns would be very little if you use it only occasionally. I would think the 17-40 f/4L would suit most people's needs. However, for about the same (slightly less) money, you can go the Ultra-wide on a FF.... the Sigma 12-24mm EX DG HSM! :bigeyes: Allows for some very nice alternative perspectives picture framing I never thought possible! :lovegrin:

To round it off, if you don't want to spend too much money, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Very good value for the sharpness. But if budget is not an issue, for a general purpose lens, the 24-105mm f/4 IS USM L or the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. With the right technique, they both can produce great portraits!

For me, i feel the 14mm is slightly too wide. On 17mm sometimes i feel like that too sometimes, but just nice. ;p

 

[calebk]

Canon 16-35 f2.8 L MII has it advantage taking both landscape and indoor event or group photo. But how's about 14 f2.8 L MII for landscape or dynamic effects? :think: Not many members talk about it, I guess it is not one of the favourable lens among us. May I know why? Too expensive? Picture distortion? Can't fit with any special filter? Or...? Care to comment? :sweat:

My personal feel is that it's too pricey, and not versatile enough. You can't do a lot else with just a fixed 14mm, like you can with a 16-35 or 17-40, where you can still zoom in to make things look less crazy, especially when shooting people.

 

[frankchn]

I think landscape the best is either 14 f/2.8L or 16-35 f/2.8L (though some reviews say 17-40/4L is better on the wide-end). Nothing beats the 85/1.2L II for portraiture - though if you are using full frame and want more reach, a 135/2L is a good choice too.

 

[Snoweagle]

I think landscape the best is either 14 f/2.8L or 16-35 f/2.8L (though some reviews say 17-40/4L is better on the wide-end). Nothing beats the 85/1.2L II for portraiture - though if you are using full frame and want more reach, a 135/2L is a good choice too.

I find 85mm a bit too long for portraits, so i went with the 50mm.

 

[longkangman]

the 24-70mm cover most of what TS need but a little price up.

 

[charlesleong]

if TS was originally considering a 50L, i suspect $$$ is not a concern.

 

[KangS]

Its never too wide for landscape, in fact, its often not wide enough ..... ;p

I do not think you can do anything like this for a 16mm .... and a 14mm would be barely squeezing it! :bsmilie:

 

[charlesleong]

ooh barrage. nice. going this saturday...

 

[sky76]

Guys, thanks for your suggestions and comments, good to find alot of helpful people in this forum. I ended up getting the 50mm f1.4 USM. Tried taking some night scenes and it turn out really nice except some noise when i set ISO at 6400, camera problem i reckon. Thinking of getting the 16-35mm f2.8L for landscape but looking at the price tag, on second thought maybe not now.

 

[calebk]

Guys, thanks for your suggestions and comments, good to find alot of helpful people in this forum. I ended up getting the 50mm f1.4 USM. Tried taking some night scenes and it turn out really nice except some noise when i set ISO at 6400, camera problem i reckon. Thinking of getting the 16-35mm f2.8L for landscape but looking at the price tag, on second thought maybe not now.

If you're not expecting noise at ISO 6400, your expectations must be seriously flawed.

If your landscape lens does not usually also encompass available light photography, you may be better off with the 17-40L which is a lot more affordable. The slower f/4 aperture should not hinder you much, as you would shoot landscape with a sturdy tripod and have your aperture stopped down anyways.

 

[Snoweagle]

Its never too wide for landscape, in fact, its often not wide enough ..... ;p

I do not think you can do anything like this for a 16mm .... and a 14mm would be barely squeezing it! :bsmilie:

I've got a similar shot as yours, shot with my 17-40.

 

[Snoweagle]

if TS was originally considering a 50L, i suspect $$$ is not a concern.

It's an excellent lens for portraits, similarly for 85 f/1.2L II.

 

[KangS]

I've got a similar shot as yours, shot with my 17-40.

That is from the narrower perspective of the courtyard, the courtyard is oval though....

 

[Snoweagle]

That is from the narrower perspective of the courtyard, the courtyard is oval though....

Correct ah, but that's what i got from my lens.