Since this camera comes with the 24-85mm lens. Would it be wise to buy the 35mm 1.4 lens. I take family, children, &amp; newborn portraits.
48831
The 35mm 1.4 would be way better than the kit lens for this type of photography.
1463261
Did you ever get a lens? I'm making the same decision now. If so, what did you buy? Are you happy with your decision? Is there anything else you would add that would help me make a decision. Thanks!
622726
I see that you already have an answer to the aperture question. I bought a 17mm prime lens which is awesome. The 18 - 55mm lens that came with the camera kit is adequate. Great for snapshot pictures, probably falls a little short for advanced amateur photo enthusiasts.
433204
I have both, but use the 50mm more (for portrait). Now that I have a tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 35mm won't be used as much, but I did get some good shoots from it.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
751818
i hear alot of good things about the sigma 17-35 1.8 all though it would depend on what sort of photography you do!i like to keep in the family,so thats why i went with canon 85 1.8 witch is a vary good lens,also its a prime lens and would work well on your t4i and most other canon cameras.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
48834
Why not get used to the camera with the zoom lens and after finding out what work bests for you buy another lens that fits your needs, I can't imasging using a 35 mm lens as my main portrait lens, I rarely get that cozy with my subjects. I'd look at the 85 mm 1.4 lens, the 105 lens as more desirable for portraits.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
408569
85mm 1.4 would be an amazing lens. It IS a great lens for portraits. It would be a great addition to any camera. One caveat to keep in mind. It is FX format lens so if you use it on a DX sensor like the D5000 or D7000, D7100 etc, then it no longer is 85mm it is around 127.5mm. Just so you know. If you are upgrading to a D600 or any other full frame then you are good. Hope this helps.
1402682
It is a great lens. Focus can be touchy so i will switch to manual when photographing people so as to get exactly what I want crisp. The 1:4 gives gorgeous depth and beauty to the photos although with my profession ( newborn photography) I will try and shoot around a 2 to get a bit more in focus
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
944171
hi, I have a question.... I'm not a professional photographer and not want to be, but I would use as a hobby and will go to photography classes.... to take a good photos in the future... soooo... What should I choose... the kit with those lens (18-55mm and 75-300mm ) or only the body with 18-135mm lens ??? and another question... I want to take photos to my brother's surfing. its necessary to buy a 500mm lens??? thanks a lot!
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
464454
To be honest, unless you need 1.4 or the DOF scale, or minimum distortion at 23mm, the 18-55 is going to be better simply because of the IOS. I own this lens and I love it, but it really doesn't provide much over the 18-55, and I actually keep the 18-55 on most of the time unless I am going to do street photography in daylight.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.