| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2011 08:49:19 PM · #1 |
| I've heard this lens is tack sharp. But is it useable on a 7D for portraiture or is it too long? |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 09:06:05 PM · #2 |
| Personally I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent equivalent on the 7D and it's less than 1/2 the cost. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 09:27:57 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Personally I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent equivalent on the 7D and it's less than 1/2 the cost. |
Already going to get that. But sometimes I'm wondering if I'll ever need a little more length and I don't wnt to lug around the 70-200 I've decided.
Perhaps the 100mm f2? Would I notice much of a focal length difference between 85 and 100? |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 09:45:16 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Personally I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent equivalent on the 7D and it's less than 1/2 the cost. |
Already going to get that. But sometimes I'm wondering if I'll ever need a little more length and I don't wnt to lug around the 70-200 I've decided.
Perhaps the 100mm f2? Would I notice much of a focal length difference between 85 and 100? |
No... They are relatively close. The 135 is a better complement to the 85...
R. |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 12:38:02 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
I've heard this lens is tack sharp. But is it useable on a 7D for portraiture or is it too long? |
Too long? Heh, not at all, I've gotten some pretty good portraits @ 400mm on my 1.6 crop - my guess is that the 135 should be just great, actually this is on my short list along with the 200 f/2.8 (another lens I think you should consider). |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 03:22:59 AM · #6 |
Buy it, send it my way, I'll let you know lol...
I've got the 100mm 2.8 and it works very well for portraits. On a crop my camera that's close to 135 (130...on yours it would be 160). As long as you can move around, there should be no issues IMO. |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 06:54:11 AM · #7 |
It's not too long, if you have room to use it. Actually, it'd be a great lens to use if you had a subject with an exceptionally large nose.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2011 09:42:30 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kgeary:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Personally I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent equivalent on the 7D and it's less than 1/2 the cost. |
Already going to get that. But sometimes I'm wondering if I'll ever need a little more length and I don't wnt to lug around the 70-200 I've decided.
Perhaps the 100mm f2? Would I notice much of a focal length difference between 85 and 100? |
No... They are relatively close. The 135 is a better complement to the 85...
R. |
Ok...I shoot some sports stuff SOMETIMES so I think the 135 might be useful even if I find it to be a little too long for portraits. |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 12:00:45 PM · #9 |
The 135 is an awesome lens. And I hear the newer version has an anti-blown highlight feature built into it! :D
I wish Nikon had a great lens in that length. |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 12:07:17 PM · #10 |
I'll second the quality of this lens, I have an 85mm f/1.2L MkII as well but I often use this instead. It's amazingly good at focusing quickly and accurately and I have no worries at all about focus at f/2 in fact I would say that over 95% of my shots from that lens are taken at f/2.
It's a great wedding candid lens as it doesn't stand out as much as a 70-200 f/2.8L IS but it's faster and the quality of the contrast, sharpness, colours are excellent.
I wouldn't ever get rid of mine.... But I use a 5d MkII so full frame
|
|
|
|
04/17/2011 12:09:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's not too long, if you have room to use it. Actually, it'd be a great lens to use if you had a subject with an exceptionally large nose. |
HEY, I resemble that remark, LOL!
I agree with Leroy, it's certainly not too long, but you do have to have the room to use it. The cool thing on a crop body is that it gives a very 200mm-like FoV (well, 216mm-like, but who's counting) so you have the equivalent of a 200/2.0 in a compact and (relatively) inexpensive package. |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 12:12:54 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
so you have the equivalent of a 200/2.0 in a compact and (relatively) inexpensive package. |
Sorry but the 200F2.0 has no equivalent. :D |
|
|
|
04/17/2011 02:26:17 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kirbic:
so you have the equivalent of a 200/2.0 in a compact and (relatively) inexpensive package. |
Sorry but the 200F2.0 has no equivalent. :D |
The old 200 1.8 maybe? :P
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 01:22:53 AM EDT.
