I use a zoom nikon 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, both at f2.8. This can do almost everything. Perfect for the job. Group photo and events. I try sometimes to stay on a fix value and move myself more. As you say, a great way to improv your skill.
I only have two GoldMaster lenses: the 50mm f/1.2 GM and the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II. I feel like if the 20-70mm f/2.0 (!) GM will happen, then I won’t need anything else,
Similar to what I had in the 1970s with 35mm film - where FF senor name came from! 35mm, 55mm and 135mm. For 40 years I've used zooms instead. Crop in the viewfinder and save those post shot editing pixel loses! In 2012 I bought a Tamron 18-270. Did the job well. Currently RF 24-240. Astounding value for money v IQ v lightweight.
When I can only take two lenses, I usually take a 35mm and an 85mm. I prefer the 85 over the 50 for headshots, and having a 35 gives me an easier time when I want to include some of the environment with the subject. 35mm has been a street photography classic, because it's wide enough to put your subject into the context of its surroundings, without losing it in the background. Recently was shooting in a museum, and my 35mm f/1.4's FOV made it easier to shoot larger works without having to stand halfway across the gallery, and the f/1.4 made it easier to deal with crappy museum lighting.
@@johnwinter6061 Full frame. And a fast 85mm (f/1.8 or f/1.4) generally gives more bokeh than a 100mm f/2.8. 100mm is ok for portraits, but a fast 85mm is the classic pro portrait lens for FF. Sigma makes a 90mm f/2.8 for FF that's said to be a good option, if you need to pack light.
@@careylymanjones Who decides what's 'classic'? I come from the days of 35mm film. Two lenses were: 50 or 55mm F1.8 standard lens with 135mm tele as the 'professional portrait' lens. Of course comparing 85mm F1.4 v 100mm F2.8 can be different. That's comparing apples and pears. I swapped to zooms 40 years ago and never looked back. Got great shots all over the world. Years ago, zooms became competitive. I had a Canon 50mm prime (circa 2015?) which could not compete with my Tamron 18-270 from 2012! Today the gaps is decreasing very fast. These days, the loss of IQ using zooms is highly debatable. eg start cropping a prime image to what you could have had with a zoom and . . bingo . . my zoom image might have double the pixels of your cropped prime image. Which now has the better IQ? Who wants bokeh? Even for portraits? Remember all those National Geographic 'portraits'? Front pages of Time magazine? Lots of the best portraits AND prize winning portrait photos show the subject with something else - in focus. ie story telling portraits! I won the best portrait and best print in an annual state competition using a Ricoh Singles with 55mm lens at about F5.6 or F8 about 4 or 5 feet away. Broke all the rules, even back then! Didn't phase the judges one bit. They came up telling me how much they loved it. It told a story. The background was already blurry. Included a parking sign too! I went further in the darkroom by 'dodging' the background (exposed it for about half of the time of the portrait.) In focus was him, his cape and the magazine he was holding up for sale. Dimmed away was the background. No high bokeh needed. In fact high bokeh would have destroyed the story. Fixed isolating the subject matter another way. Besides, why do you want to use a lens at its worst setting? Most F1.8 primes are best closed down 2 stops. Most zooms are good at full open for middle range focal lengths or maybe one stop down. I'll let someone else explain why. I'm already packing light. RP + RF 24-240. Don't need a set of lenses. Don't like risking my camera to lens changes out in the open and losing a shot as I find that perfect lens and change to it. Zoom and I'm there in a second. This is an excellent zoom and puts a lot of 'primes' to shame. Want to see the pores of a face? Done! May not want that, but it can do it. Just look up some sample pics and reviews on line. Tip: Most critics forget that the R series Canons have in body lens corrections for jpegs and the jpegs are highly competitive with edited C/RAW. Oh and being mirrorless, I can see the actual 'to be recorded result' instantly. So I can adjust whatever. Can't do that with mirrored SLRs. Have to do post shot on a computer. There's far more to bokeh that just widest aperture. Go look at an old fashion zoom lenses (or some online scale cards) which have depth of field scales / lines on the barrel. The bit of the scale showing depends upon focal length set, aperture and . . drum roll . . . distance from subject! The last one can make a big difference! Finally, for passport photos I use an off white background board. No bokeh needed. Actually, it isn't even allowed. Must be plan color background! Another way to fix bokeh. If you don't like plain background, use a 'green screen' and edit your chosen background into that and get exactly the bokeh you want! Alternatively, have you background a long way away from your subject. There's another way. The point is you do not have to have a specific portrait lens to get good bokeh. There are plenty of other ways, IF you want bokeh. Go look at samples online: Simon d'Entremont Tony & Chelsea Norththup Side by side same bokeh produced using APS-C & FF with different lenses!
@@johnwinter6061 I shot film too. Shot medium format film, as well as 35mm. Tony Northrup is so notorious for his love of extreme bokeh that some people refer to extreme bokeh as "toneh". Simon frequently blurs out backgrounds. He doesn't always do it, but for a bird sitting on a branch, he'll open up the aperture and blur out the background, nearly every time. The question of whether or not to blur out the background comes down to how important the background is. If you're shooting an environmental or travel portrait, the background provides the context of the shot, and you don't want to blur it. If the background is just a cluttered mess that adds no context, blur it. You don't need a superfast lens, if you can get close enough to the subject. But you can't always get close without introducing distortion. One of the reasons I prefer 85mm over 50mm for portraits, is that 50mm can distort, if you get really close, and 85mm tends to compress perspective, including faces, just a little. That's why the 135mm f/1.8 was a popular portrait lens. But an 85mm f/1.4 is about 2/3 the weight of the 135mm f/1.8, and is almost an inch shorter. The 85 is usually cheaper, too. Pretty much every camera manufacturer does in-body correction, and provides correction profiles for post-processing software. I personally prefer to shoot raw, and spend a little time on my keepers. The better photo editors offer perspective correction (useful for architecture), better noise reduction, more control over sharpening, and let you make genuine artistic choices, such as local adjustments. JPG is for situations where you absolutely, positively have to deliver pics immediately. I have rarely, if ever, seen an out of camera JPG that I couldn't have done better with a RAW file. Studio backgrounds generally don't have much detail to blur, so you can shoot with almost any lens, from the standpoint of blur, Generally, for portraits, a long lens tends to compress perspective in a way that is flattering to most people. An exception to this rule, is if the subject has a small, flat nose, and doesn't NEED the compression. If you regularly shoot in harsh environments that make lens changes hazardous, a superzoom is a reasonable solution. But superzooms have relatively slow apertures that make low-light shooting difficult. Modern denoising software helps, but it's better to shoot a clean image in camera, if possible. Bottom line is that if your budget (and your back) can bear fast glass, it will give you more options. You can shoot moving subjects in low light. You have greater ability to blur backgrounds (and foregrounds). If there is a fence between you and your subject, and you can get close to it, you can often blur the fence out, if you're using a fast lens. Comes in handy, at the zoo.
this Sounds interesting for me, cause I want to change to Sigma 24-70 ii and a 85mm and thinking to give my Sony 35 1.4 GM away 🤔 what are you shooting mainly?
When I started photography for real i had no idea what kind of photoshoots i'll be in. I took a 24-70 gm II just to cover most common focal lenght and yeahh hell of a piece of equipment. But after year I see that for my needs f2.8 is not enough and I'm opting for 2 primes - 35 mm 1.4 and 105 1.4 from sigma. I think this can covers 95% of my shoots. Thanks for a good and informative video!
@@justinlaurens I do photos for websites, portraits and some weddings. I really enjoyed this last one do 1.4 will help a lot. I went also profoto way with flash and this stuff is good too
It would be better if there was a prime zoom lens 20-70mm F1.4!! But then, companies couldn't sell more lenses! Personally I have a sigma DG DN Art lens F2.8 24-70mm
Yes this sigma lens can be compared with prime lenses even though it is only F2.8. I do not know if it worth the upgrade of a prime lens at f1.4 The result wouldn't be so better in order to carry two lenses. Actually a prime lens can be slightly better only at portraits.
For what I shoot, the Canon RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS Z lens, an RF 100-500 L IS lens and an RF 1.4x extender are the only lenses I need. It covers from 24mm to 700mm. Mounting one lens on two camera bodies and I an set!
Bro your videos are so good and your photography is top shelf, I see some comments trying to challenge what your teaching never mind them, lots of us are here to learn and have no issues whatsoever
My current favorite is the Tamron 18-400mm for travel, wildlife, and general photography. I can use it on my Nikon D7500 and Z7 II with the FTZ adapter. That would be my only lens, but I took a 2nd lens, it would be the Tamorn 10-24mm for landscapes and architectural photos. I am an amateur. If I were a pro, I'd invest in better glass. I'm not too concerned with bokeh or low light performance since most of my shots are during daytime and I have a steady hand.
I also use a 35mm for events when shooting large groups and for wide shots of room layouts, or to get wider perspectives of event activity like dancing, etc. I’m surprised you don’t include 35 mm lens.
The 35mm is a beautiful focal length don't get me wrong but its a little bit closer to the wider angle side than the telephoto side for my liking (at least when it compares to the 50mm). I just love the depth & perspective of the 50mm - the photos are very immersive. Hope that helps - thanks for watching / leaving a comment. :)
Mirroless 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 are the best and perfect range for me. These 3 are much lighter, faster than f/2.8 zoom len, more compact, and much cheaper than f/1.4. For comparison f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 is negligible. 😅
After over 3 years of portraits, my two would be the Sigma 24-70 and Sigma 85 1.4. The being said, I also own the Sigma 35 1.4 & 2.0, 65 2.0 and 135 GM.
love the concept but for me those two are too close together, I'd go 50mm and 105mm or 24mm and 85mm or 35mm idk anymore but one thing for sure I love the 50mm focal length thanks for the video :D
Yeah I feel you! I find the 50mm works great for medium/headshots and the 85mm I love for slightly more full body shots so you get that environmental depth. I’d love to try the 105mm though. 🔥
@@justinlaurens thank you for explaining that, it makes more sense so you take a step back and get the compression and the 50mm is a portrait that helps more !
This is a well thought out video, and the examples used to support the points made are just excellent! Also, just an excellent production! Had to Subscribe.
I've noted that most of your shots involve posed situations. ie you have time to get things right. Not so for travel and 'grab' shots. I've found zooms better for that. Your argument against zoom lens are also spurious. 1. F1.4 to get Bokeh. Bokeh also increases with focal length. There are plenty of video presentations with sample photos showing how bokeh depends on f-stop, sensor size and lens focal length. Some show matching photos using different lenses and settings. ie F1.4 is not the only way to get bokeh. Also many lenses are at their worst fully open. Most are best a couple of stops or more closed down. Funnily some of the the newest zooms can be best at just one down! Finally the need for a f1.4 lens for focusing is becoming mute with mirrorless bodies and highly improved auto-focus systems. 2. F1.4 for low light. Noise at high ISO has greatly improved. Using an F1.4 setting with ISO 100 v say F5.6 with higher ISO? The sharpness you lost at fully open F1.4 v higher iso becomes debatable. 3. Primes are sharper. By definition this is correct. But the practical reality is changing. Just look at samples and reviews from Canon's R24-240 and R100-400. Canon cameras are also programmed to correct distortion etc in the camera. So the difference is slowly narrowing and disappearing. Also if you have to crop your prime lens image, you may lose a lot of pixels. Loss of image quality. Not so with a zoom. You can fill your screen and reduce post cropping to a minimum / little no loss of pixels. You can even take a set of images very quickly at different focal lengths and decide later. 4. Primes are inexpensive and lightweight in comparison. Hmm . . ten years ago that was contestable. Now it's just no longer true. Quality f1.4 primes costs way more. Say $USD1,000-2,000. The two Canon R series zooms above. Under $USD800 each. Tamron and Sigma? Similar story. Now the weight: Those cannon zooms are 745 grams and 635 grams. An F1.4 50mm - say 250grams. But here's the rub. The 24-240 can be permanently fixed to the camera. No extra weight for extra lenses! The couple of hundred gram differences becomes mute. That's the same as having had a big lunch OR having bought a heavy camera body. Go to a new mirrorless and you'll will save a few hundred grams on the body weight AND the lens. With identical specs, a mirrorless can be made much lighter. 5. Prime lenses encourage you to move around etc. That's great if you are shooting subject matter with the time available. No so with lots of subject matter. It's the quick or missed. Regardless you can still (and should) move around with a zoom when you can for the very same reasons. But the zoom has an added benefit - you can try different zoom settings in seconds. You can take multiple shots at different zoom settings rather than having to crop and lose pixels. Also you can zoom in for a focus and light setting on the important part and then zoom out with that setting held! In seconds! 6. Primes make you a more creative photographer. Simple rubbish. Just look at some great creative photos taken with phone cameras. There's far more to being creative than equipment. Far more. Just look at major movies. These days pretty much done on zoom lenses. 7. Second lens an 85mm. Great lens. I can do 24-240 all in one HIGH QUALITY lens at a LOW price. The game has changed. You've also cut yourself out of any photos which would be best done at 100mm or more. 8. Sharpness. Too sharp can make photos very clinical and lose all feeling. Hence the use of soft focus filters and soft focus editing! 9. FF v APS-C. How about a FF 24-240 zoom which works with both? It used to be an expensive option. No so anymore with mirrorless. 10. 24-70mm zoom Excellent lens. If you are happy with max 70mm. 11. For those who post online. All that cutting edge perfection just gets lost. Pixels disappear on posting (max size etc) and screen pixel count can reduce it further. I've used primes and zooms for decades. My choices have been based on what I shoot and not on the technical perfectness of either. Not once has someone looked at my shots and said, "Oh, that was shot with a prime. Good choice." or "That was taken with a zoom. Why?" Not once. I did comparison shots between my then 10 year old Tamron zoom and a cheap Canon 50mm prime. The Tamron set at 50mm won. People look at a photo and either liked it or not no matter what lens I used. The average person can't tell technical differences. They choose what they like - not what was used to shoot it. They like / love shots taken on a range of equipment. There is far more to a great shot than presumed pixel peeping technical perfection. There is far more to it than FF v APS-C. There is far more to it than the MP of the sensor. You can have great equipment and bad shots. You can have basic equipment (eg phone) and get excellent shots. You can STILL get excellent shots with an old Kodak box film camera (if you respect its limitations.) So please, don't tell me primes are always better than zooms. That's never been an absolute truth. Same for same a prime should be technically better than a zoom. But a good zoom will always be better than a cheap prime. On price, a single high quality zoom will be cheaper than a set of primes. The technical quality difference is the only difference and that's shrinking. All the other factors will decide which is best in a given situation. Now what you have chosen may suit you. That's great. If that applied to everyone, then why are there so many different primes and zooms in the marketplace? If people didn't buy them and didn't like them, they just would not be made. Years ago purist argued than manual shift cars were better than auto shifts. How's that argument looking today? It now only holds true in a limited number of situations. For the majority, auto is now better. And electric cars don't even have gear shifts! The electric cars can beat any comparable fuel car on performance. In fact the fastest drag car is an electric one. The only difference is price. For high usage, hybrids and electrics pay for themselves. Just ask a taxi owner. Just look at what they are buying. It's a horses for courses situation. The old simplistic chestnut arguments from 30 years ago were debatable back then. Now they simply no longer apply to so many situations.
Do not forget about 3rd party software for corrections and even chromatic abberation. RawTherapee actually searches for and integrates with the Lensfun library which is usually decently up-to-date for all but the latest and least owned lenses (volunteers submit sample images for correction, so the more a lens is used, the faster it gets added to the library). RawTherapee + Lensfun corrects distortion about as good as my body does... though I can't tell for sure since the corrections only really apply to JPG images and I only use RawTherapee for raw images... also my main lens performs shockingly well for a zoom even without much correction. I cannot tell by eye which image is corrected and which is not. Some premium zooms are fantastic. Nikon has an F2.8 full frame zoom lens that is really big and heavy but performs better than my body can use (I have a base model, the lens was designed for the top end body). Though for those who are absolutely nuts about maximizing image quality, it is possible to use the Lensfun tools to generate a correction profile for your specific lens rather than using the generic one for your lens model... not that the difference from unit to unit is all that much these days anyhow.
An excellent response to this meaningless video. The arrogance of this guy trying to suggest that what works best for him is best for every photographer. I could only bring myself to watch five minutes of this video before reading the comments. I commend you for suffering through the whole thing and then thoroughly shredding his video, point-by-point.
Yeap, those are my 2 fav focal length too since I'm doing portraits and weddings. But I cannot live without 35mm thought I don't really have any emotional attachement to it like I did with 50 and 85.
I have the 24mm 1.4 GM and 85mm 1.8 and I recently bought the 16-35 pz F4 with my new ZV-E1 which I’m using as « a no-compromise GoPro ». But I’m conscious that a 50mm GM is missing in my set. Not a priority at this time as I’m mainly shooting and filming outdoor where I need wider angles.
Started with the 50mm F1.8 for my Canon R6M2 and first got the 70-200mm f4.0 (budget reasons) Did most of my shooting with the 50mm. Got the 24-90mm F2.8 end of last year and it has become my go to lens (though I still frequently shoot at 50mm on it) as I love the versatility. But I highly agree: Using the 50mm Prime was a great starting lens to force myself to move and become more creative. Been thinking about either an 85mm or 135mm Prime or getting the 70-200mm F2.8 next, though now I am leaning more towards the Primes thanks to this video
As an APS-C user, I recommend the Viltrox-trinity with 13mm F1.4 (ultra wide angle astro/landscape), 27mm F1.2 Pro and 75mm F1.2 Pro and at the long end the Samyang 135mm F1.8. These lenses are incredibly sharp, affordable and excellent in low light conditions, where the APS-C sensor falls a f-stop behind full frame in terms of noise. Okay, I have a wonderful incredibly sharp zoom lens, the Sigma 60-600 DG DN OS, but it's only suitable for wildlife in bad weather when you don't want to change lenses at time-sensitive moments or in dusty conditions.
Out of my collection . My all time travel lense is the Sony 24-105mm, my all time favourite portrait is the 135mm gm . (I recall going into a camera shop with my wife and the manager said to her "I see your getting a new handbag " haha.) Ps set the focus hold button to toggle aps-c mode for that extra reach. Used this function a lot especially when the lense was on my A7R3.
The 24-105mm is vertualy bolted to my A9ii and is fantastic for travel. Totaly recomend it , in the past ive taken others with it namly the 55mm Zeiss but dint used .
Im agree for 85mm. I own sigma 85 DGDN. but for 50, I would substitute it with 35mm as sometimes I need to take a group of people which 50mm just doesnt cut it. My setup now is sigma 35mm & 85mm DGDN with sony 20mm 1.8G in the bag incase the group is too large that 35mm cant handle. these 3lens is enough for me now.
I agree I was "forced" to shoot an event with 50mm at a small pool party. It gave me 80% coverage. All of a sudden, they wanted to do group shots and it was way too tight. There was not enough room to backup. A 35 and 85 are the primes I normally carry now.
Hey Jerry, I have something even better - a full Photography and editing course called the Portrait Transformation masterclass. It comes with several PDF books inside! go.justinlaurens.com/portraitstransform
I need 3 lenses 1. 50mm F1.4 for prime 2. 24-70mm f2.8 zoom 3. 70-200mm f2.8 zoom I handle for portrait photography, wedding photography, wildlife photography, sports photography, street photography
The Sony GMII's lenses are so good, one cannot tell the difference in its rendering versus primes. I own the 50mm f1.2. Love, love the lens, but for 99% of what I do, it's tough not to leave the 24-70 GMII on my A1. The 70-200 GMII is truly in a leage of its own. I. have the 105 f1.8 and prefer the 70-200 GMII rendering for portrait and a host of other applications. The 70-200 GMII is stunning, saying the least. Don't sell those GMII's short!
I'm the same now, for years 90% of my photos were at 50mm, now my two lenses in my bag are a 35mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.4 If I could only have 1, it would be a 50mm F/1.2 F/1.4, F/1.8 F/2 depending on my budget
35 and 85 is all i need... With 35 you can take group photos and environmental portraits and with 85 you can get that tight portrairs... With blurred background
6:00 I think you should show the raws of these photos instead of the touched-up and edited photos. It gives a false illusion of what the lenses will produce.
Title is misleading. The choice is only from the viewpoint of a primarily portrait photographer. Even then, many would select a 35 1.4 instead of the 50 as a more versatile combination.
Its his opinion and preference. Thats not misleading. He’s giving you examples of why he uses it and how it looks. To be in this lead would be just to ignore what he has said.
на системе fujifilm мои два любимых объектива это viltrox 27mm 1.2 & 75mm 1.2 изображение превосходное оба великолепны иногда для разнообразия использую viltrox 13mm 1.4 так же он основной для видеосъёмки
I shoot mainly events. And by events I don't mean weddings. Among the most common events I shoot are dog agility and rally obedience, and (human) dance. I have an 85 1.4 but it doesn't get much use at these events. I'm more likely to use a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8. There are lots of kinds of photography. Not everyone shoots a lot of portraits and landscapes. I can't remember the last time I used a 50 1.4.
Old guy here with decades behind me, going back to film days before we had a ton of choices in camera brands, let alone lens options. To a point you are pretty much on target but only if you limit yourself to certain styles of photography. If you are a wildlife, action, sports, etc photographer these lens are useless. Your lens selection greatly depends on, one subject matter, two what camera are you using, micro 4/3rd’s, APSC, full frame, medium format, mirrorless, etc, etc. Stating these are the only two lens you will ever need in your bag is fine for your needs but not for everyone.
I use it mainly for photography but I do love it for video. That being said if you’re going to do a lot of gimbal work and even some social media (vertical) talking head videos - opting for a wider focal length like 35mm might be best. What type of footage will you be capturing?
@@justinlaurens The Sony 35mm f/1.8 has almost no focus breathing. Excellent lens for video work. Light and compact enough to balance well on a gimbal.
Thanks for the video. I have three inexpensive primes for my Nikon Z5 by Viltrox I like a lot: 20mm 40mm 85mm I have Nikon zoom lenses but don’t use them much because they are too heavy for my arthritis. Looking at the Vil 50mm to fill that out, can’t see a need for their 16mm. Regards
As for "human eye", I heard it's not 50mm is human vision, but a distance to object about 5m/15ft, and focus length is more about the required angle of view
Intersting choice. Almost every pro I've talked to or read advice from on all the photography forums, don't pair 50mm and 85mm lenses. They usually pair 24mm and 50mm together. If it works for you, then it's the right choice.
50 & 85 are far enough in focal length to make a big difference. Anything below 35mm is a bit too wide for my liking (you lose that cinematic telephoto/compression effect).
@@justinlaurens Based on your answer, it seems you're shooting more for portraits. Sorry for not watching the video...I didn't know what style you were suggesting the lenses for. There are 100s of videos of people suggesting the lenses they use but since you mentioned the 35mm and shorter like...say, a 24mm...for me, those are extremely essential lenses. You're right. They're not for compression. Then never were designed for that. I don't use them for the compression...I use them for context in tight quarters...like on the dance floor of a wedding. It seems that you are suggesting lenses for portrait photographers. Again, I didn't watch the video, so I'm just assuming...I only skipped to see what lenses you were addressing. I guess if the title of the video was the ONLY 2 Lenses you need for portrait photography, then we wouldn't be interacting because it would have made more sense because 50mm and 85mm are actually not the only 2 lenses people should have in their bag unless they're doing portrait photography, otherwise a different pair would be more practical for run and gun situations; in which case, you'd run with two bodies, and two prime lenses that would cover you for both scene and portrait...like may wedding photographers that are not only shooting portraits. Anyway, like I said...if it works for your, then it's the right choice. For me, I use all of them and then some for both photo and video. But yea...I shoot prime. I have the 70-200GM MK2 f2.8...and that is MAD compression. I still love my 85GM1.4 which lives on a body. Take care!
@@justinlaurens with wide angle lenses I really like to play with flash light. It's almost a must to add a strobe to the equation no matter if it's outdoors or studio 😉
your pairing lacks wide angle capabilities and long reach. While a nice set (not the best I think) for portraits, I strongly disagree this is the best setup "across multiple genres" as you state in the description.
I fully agree about prime lenses. But 50 mm and 85 mm are too close to each other. I personnaly use 3 lenses but not all together (I take with me either 2 lenses or only 1 versatile lens). For landscape : A wide angle needs to be sharp, no flare, nice sunstar, no subject separation needed. Tamron 24 mm F/2.8 is the perfect budget lens. Sony 20 mm F/1.8 G is needed only if focus on astrophotography (wider aperture) or architecture (wider angle and less distorsion). For portrait : A king's bokeh is needed for professionnal looking photos. Samyang 85 mm F/1.4 AF version 1 aspherical is amazing, very close to the Sony GM for a third of the price. For general purpose each time I take only one litle lens with me : Samyang 45 mm F/1.8 is incredibly light and versatile, even closer to human eye focal than a 50 mm, great bokeh.
Thanks very much 🙏 I don’t use flash no. I use primarily natural/ available light (check out my portrait transformation course if you’d like to learn exactly how) 😊
The 85mm & 35mm duo delivers beautiful results - if you're happy with those focal lengths then no need to go to a 50mm for now. But down the line it could be a good option - its my personal favorite - so versatile!
I am old school so the nifty fifties are overpriced kit lenses. The only fifty I owned was back in the 80s. For me, it is a weak wide-angle lens. Of the lenses I used the most was the original Holy Trinity the 300mm f/2.8, 28-700mm f/2.8, and 800-200mmf/2.8. Today I use the 17-35mm f/2.8, 200-500mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8, 28-700mm f/2.8, and 800-200mmf/2.8. My work is mainly, environmental portraits, portraits, people, commercial work, editorial, photojournalism, and sports. I have never understood where the none sense of you don't move and your feet are in concrete if you are using zooms, baka. I'm of the old school 'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough", said war photographer Robert Capa.
Great choices, definitely needed for business. You did leave out the 35mm though, and I can see how, yet, do know, this is literally a GRAVE mistake. The 35mm is literally a "Master's" lens. Anyone can grab an 85 1.4 and go out and come back and be pleased, the same absolutely does not hold with the 35mm. A newbie definitely won't be able to produce much of anything with the 35, but definitely can with the 85. I've learned that the 50mm, is a sweet spot lens, and that spot is at F2. With the 50 and especially the 85mm, you have to arrange the subject... With the 35, you have to arrange the background completely, or it just won't work well.
It will take a little while to get familiar with the tighter/zoomed in focal length but once you get used to taking a few steps back before taking each shot you will capturing stunning shots in no time.
Hey man love your work, you've got a new subscriber! Just wondering what Sony bodies you use? I just got hold of my first Sony (jumping off Nikon) and it's an A7RV, I hear that I really need top-shelf glass and wanting to know if these lenses you feature above are good enough?
Hey Michael, thanks for the kind words. Great camera to have. I have the Sony a7rii. I would highly recommend starting with the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4. Incredible quality photos with that lens and combined with the dynamic range of the Sony body you have the photos will be 🔥 🤩
I shoot with Fujifilm mirrorless. So my kit would be 3 lenses. The Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4, the Sigma 56mm f/1.2 DC DN, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN. That’s with the X-T5. When I use the X-Pro3, I carry 4 prime lenses; 16, 23, 35 and 50mm. These are from Fujifilm’s f/2 line of lenses. They are very small and more appropriate for a range finder style camera.
Lens preference is a bit of a personal thing but definitely good idea to settle on two for use 90+% of the time, although I don't think they can be the same two for every kind of occasion (e.g., tight spaces vs great outdoors). Also, a second camera body makes life so much easier; changing lenses sucks, especially at events.
Want to learn to take & edit stunning photos with the camera you already own? Check out my Photography Academy: go.justinlaurens.com
I use a zoom nikon 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, both at f2.8. This can do almost everything. Perfect for the job. Group photo and events. I try sometimes to stay on a fix value and move myself more. As you say, a great way to improv your skill.
Ditto; same setup as you. Gotta have the long reach. The only other lens I'm going to splurge on is the 85/1.2.
Sound good. I find my RF24-240 is great. Mirrorless technology body has been an important part of that. jpegs correct in camera. Lighter and cheaper.
I use Sony 35mm f1.4 and Sony 135mm f/1.8. These lenses cover 99% of my tasks.
Love it. The 35mm is a beautiful focal length and the 135mm focal takes pretty incredible shots. 👌
These are the sweet spots in my book as well. :-)
I only have two GoldMaster lenses: the 50mm f/1.2 GM and the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II. I feel like if the 20-70mm f/2.0 (!) GM will happen, then I won’t need anything else,
Similar to what I had in the 1970s with 35mm film - where FF senor name came from! 35mm, 55mm and 135mm. For 40 years I've used zooms instead. Crop in the viewfinder and save those post shot editing pixel loses! In 2012 I bought a Tamron 18-270. Did the job well. Currently RF 24-240. Astounding value for money v IQ v lightweight.
Please, stop the flashes between your wonderful images. They get people irritaded and make them stop watching ...
Ok noted, appreciate the constructive feedback, & kind words about my images.
When I can only take two lenses, I usually take a 35mm and an 85mm. I prefer the 85 over the 50 for headshots, and having a 35 gives me an easier time when I want to include some of the environment with the subject. 35mm has been a street photography classic, because it's wide enough to put your subject into the context of its surroundings, without losing it in the background.
Recently was shooting in a museum, and my 35mm f/1.4's FOV made it easier to shoot larger works without having to stand halfway across the gallery, and the f/1.4 made it easier to deal with crappy museum lighting.
Same here ... 35mm and 85mm are what I use the most.
On what body? FF or APS-C? Approx 100mm lens was considered a portrait lens in 35mm film days. No surprises there.
@@johnwinter6061 Full frame. And a fast 85mm (f/1.8 or f/1.4) generally gives more bokeh than a 100mm f/2.8. 100mm is ok for portraits, but a fast 85mm is the classic pro portrait lens for FF. Sigma makes a 90mm f/2.8 for FF that's said to be a good option, if you need to pack light.
@@careylymanjones Who decides what's 'classic'? I come from the days of 35mm film. Two lenses were: 50 or 55mm F1.8 standard lens with 135mm tele as the 'professional portrait' lens.
Of course comparing 85mm F1.4 v 100mm F2.8 can be different. That's comparing apples and pears.
I swapped to zooms 40 years ago and never looked back. Got great shots all over the world. Years ago, zooms became competitive. I had a Canon 50mm prime (circa 2015?) which could not compete with my Tamron 18-270 from 2012! Today the gaps is decreasing very fast. These days, the loss of IQ using zooms is highly debatable. eg start cropping a prime image to what you could have had with a zoom and . . bingo . . my zoom image might have double the pixels of your cropped prime image. Which now has the better IQ?
Who wants bokeh? Even for portraits? Remember all those National Geographic 'portraits'? Front pages of Time magazine? Lots of the best portraits AND prize winning portrait photos show the subject with something else - in focus. ie story telling portraits!
I won the best portrait and best print in an annual state competition using a Ricoh Singles with 55mm lens at about F5.6 or F8 about 4 or 5 feet away. Broke all the rules, even back then! Didn't phase the judges one bit. They came up telling me how much they loved it. It told a story. The background was already blurry. Included a parking sign too! I went further in the darkroom by 'dodging' the background (exposed it for about half of the time of the portrait.) In focus was him, his cape and the magazine he was holding up for sale. Dimmed away was the background. No high bokeh needed. In fact high bokeh would have destroyed the story. Fixed isolating the subject matter another way.
Besides, why do you want to use a lens at its worst setting? Most F1.8 primes are best closed down 2 stops. Most zooms are good at full open for middle range focal lengths or maybe one stop down. I'll let someone else explain why.
I'm already packing light. RP + RF 24-240. Don't need a set of lenses. Don't like risking my camera to lens changes out in the open and losing a shot as I find that perfect lens and change to it. Zoom and I'm there in a second. This is an excellent zoom and puts a lot of 'primes' to shame. Want to see the pores of a face? Done! May not want that, but it can do it. Just look up some sample pics and reviews on line.
Tip: Most critics forget that the R series Canons have in body lens corrections for jpegs and the jpegs are highly competitive with edited C/RAW. Oh and being mirrorless, I can see the actual 'to be recorded result' instantly. So I can adjust whatever. Can't do that with mirrored SLRs. Have to do post shot on a computer.
There's far more to bokeh that just widest aperture. Go look at an old fashion zoom lenses (or some online scale cards) which have depth of field scales / lines on the barrel. The bit of the scale showing depends upon focal length set, aperture and . . drum roll . . . distance from subject! The last one can make a big difference!
Finally, for passport photos I use an off white background board. No bokeh needed. Actually, it isn't even allowed. Must be plan color background! Another way to fix bokeh. If you don't like plain background, use a 'green screen' and edit your chosen background into that and get exactly the bokeh you want! Alternatively, have you background a long way away from your subject. There's another way.
The point is you do not have to have a specific portrait lens to get good bokeh. There are plenty of other ways, IF you want bokeh.
Go look at samples online:
Simon d'Entremont
Tony & Chelsea Norththup
Side by side same bokeh produced using APS-C & FF with different lenses!
@@johnwinter6061 I shot film too. Shot medium format film, as well as 35mm.
Tony Northrup is so notorious for his love of extreme bokeh that some people refer to extreme bokeh as "toneh". Simon frequently blurs out backgrounds. He doesn't always do it, but for a bird sitting on a branch, he'll open up the aperture and blur out the background, nearly every time.
The question of whether or not to blur out the background comes down to how important the background is. If you're shooting an environmental or travel portrait, the background provides the context of the shot, and you don't want to blur it. If the background is just a cluttered mess that adds no context, blur it.
You don't need a superfast lens, if you can get close enough to the subject. But you can't always get close without introducing distortion. One of the reasons I prefer 85mm over 50mm for portraits, is that 50mm can distort, if you get really close, and 85mm tends to compress perspective, including faces, just a little. That's why the 135mm f/1.8 was a popular portrait lens. But an 85mm f/1.4 is about 2/3 the weight of the 135mm f/1.8, and is almost an inch shorter. The 85 is usually cheaper, too.
Pretty much every camera manufacturer does in-body correction, and provides correction profiles for post-processing software. I personally prefer to shoot raw, and spend a little time on my keepers. The better photo editors offer perspective correction (useful for architecture), better noise reduction, more control over sharpening, and let you make genuine artistic choices, such as local adjustments. JPG is for situations where you absolutely, positively have to deliver pics immediately. I have rarely, if ever, seen an out of camera JPG that I couldn't have done better with a RAW file.
Studio backgrounds generally don't have much detail to blur, so you can shoot with almost any lens, from the standpoint of blur, Generally, for portraits, a long lens tends to compress perspective in a way that is flattering to most people. An exception to this rule, is if the subject has a small, flat nose, and doesn't NEED the compression.
If you regularly shoot in harsh environments that make lens changes hazardous, a superzoom is a reasonable solution. But superzooms have relatively slow apertures that make low-light shooting difficult. Modern denoising software helps, but it's better to shoot a clean image in camera, if possible.
Bottom line is that if your budget (and your back) can bear fast glass, it will give you more options. You can shoot moving subjects in low light. You have greater ability to blur backgrounds (and foregrounds). If there is a fence between you and your subject, and you can get close to it, you can often blur the fence out, if you're using a fast lens. Comes in handy, at the zoo.
24-70mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.4 this 2 lens need ❤
Nice that’s an awesome setup. What are you shooting mainly?
this Sounds interesting for me, cause I want to change to Sigma 24-70 ii and a 85mm and thinking to give my Sony 35 1.4 GM away 🤔 what are you shooting mainly?
When I started photography for real i had no idea what kind of photoshoots i'll be in. I took a 24-70 gm II just to cover most common focal lenght and yeahh hell of a piece of equipment. But after year I see that for my needs f2.8 is not enough and I'm opting for 2 primes - 35 mm 1.4 and 105 1.4 from sigma. I think this can covers 95% of my shoots.
Thanks for a good and informative video!
Amazing Kamil, love your lens journey. What kind of photoshoots did you end up doing finally?
My pleasure, thanks for watching 🙏
@@justinlaurens I do photos for websites, portraits and some weddings. I really enjoyed this last one do 1.4 will help a lot. I went also profoto way with flash and this stuff is good too
It would be better if there was a prime zoom lens 20-70mm F1.4!! But then, companies couldn't sell more lenses! Personally I have a sigma DG DN Art lens F2.8 24-70mm
That mid-range sigma Zoom lens must be very good. I love the sigma art lenses 🔥
Yes this sigma lens can be compared with prime lenses even though it is only F2.8. I do not know if it worth the upgrade of a prime lens at f1.4 The result wouldn't be so better in order to carry two lenses. Actually a prime lens can be slightly better only at portraits.
For what I shoot, the Canon RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS Z lens, an RF 100-500 L IS lens and an RF 1.4x extender are the only lenses I need.
It covers from 24mm to 700mm. Mounting one lens on two camera bodies and I an set!
Bro your videos are so good and your photography is top shelf, I see some comments trying to challenge what your teaching never mind them, lots of us are here to learn and have no issues whatsoever
I appreciate that! 🙏
My current favorite is the Tamron 18-400mm for travel, wildlife, and general photography. I can use it on my Nikon D7500 and Z7 II with the FTZ adapter. That would be my only lens, but I took a 2nd lens, it would be the Tamorn 10-24mm for landscapes and architectural photos. I am an amateur. If I were a pro, I'd invest in better glass. I'm not too concerned with bokeh or low light performance since most of my shots are during daytime and I have a steady hand.
Appreciate you sharing! 🙏
I also use a 35mm for events when shooting large groups and for wide shots of room layouts, or to get wider perspectives of event activity like dancing, etc. I’m surprised you don’t include 35 mm lens.
The 35mm is a beautiful focal length don't get me wrong but its a little bit closer to the wider angle side than the telephoto side for my liking (at least when it compares to the 50mm). I just love the depth & perspective of the 50mm - the photos are very immersive. Hope that helps - thanks for watching / leaving a comment. :)
Totally agree 50 and 85 are my favorites with portraits
Yes 🙌 absolutely love them
Mirroless 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 are the best and perfect range for me. These 3 are much lighter, faster than f/2.8 zoom len, more compact, and much cheaper than f/1.4. For comparison f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 is negligible. 😅
Thanks for sharing! 😊 Sounds like a great setup
Exactly what I've had in my bag since the turn of the century. Currently I´m using a Sigma L mount 24~70/2.8 and a Lumix 50/1.8.
After over 3 years of portraits, my two would be the Sigma 24-70 and Sigma 85 1.4. The being said, I also own the Sigma 35 1.4 & 2.0, 65 2.0 and 135 GM.
Love it. Thanks for sharing :)
I photograph everything and my RX10IV with 24-600mm range is simply awesome.
Love it! Today's zooms are under-rated. Many reasons. I've used zooms for 40 years (in the film days!) and never regretted it.
I am starting with mirrorless world with A7C ii + 50mm 1.4 GM
love the concept but for me those two are too close together, I'd go 50mm and 105mm or 24mm and 85mm or 35mm idk anymore
but one thing for sure I love the 50mm focal length thanks for the video :D
Yeah I feel you! I find the 50mm works great for medium/headshots and the 85mm I love for slightly more full body shots so you get that environmental depth. I’d love to try the 105mm though. 🔥
@@justinlaurens thank you for explaining that, it makes more sense so you take a step back and get the compression and the 50mm is a portrait that helps more !
@LouisLuzuka that’s exactly it! 🙏
This is a well thought out video, and the examples used to support the points made are just excellent! Also, just an excellent production! Had to Subscribe.
I've noted that most of your shots involve posed situations. ie you have time to get things right.
Not so for travel and 'grab' shots. I've found zooms better for that.
Your argument against zoom lens are also spurious.
1. F1.4 to get Bokeh. Bokeh also increases with focal length. There are plenty of video presentations with sample photos showing how bokeh depends on f-stop, sensor size and lens focal length. Some show matching photos using different lenses and settings. ie F1.4 is not the only way to get bokeh. Also many lenses are at their worst fully open. Most are best a couple of stops or more closed down. Funnily some of the the newest zooms can be best at just one down! Finally the need for a f1.4 lens for focusing is becoming mute with mirrorless bodies and highly improved auto-focus systems.
2. F1.4 for low light. Noise at high ISO has greatly improved. Using an F1.4 setting with ISO 100 v say F5.6 with higher ISO? The sharpness you lost at fully open F1.4 v higher iso becomes debatable.
3. Primes are sharper. By definition this is correct. But the practical reality is changing. Just look at samples and reviews from Canon's R24-240 and R100-400. Canon cameras are also programmed to correct distortion etc in the camera. So the difference is slowly narrowing and disappearing. Also if you have to crop your prime lens image, you may lose a lot of pixels. Loss of image quality. Not so with a zoom. You can fill your screen and reduce post cropping to a minimum / little no loss of pixels. You can even take a set of images very quickly at different focal lengths and decide later.
4. Primes are inexpensive and lightweight in comparison. Hmm . . ten years ago that was contestable. Now it's just no longer true. Quality f1.4 primes costs way more. Say $USD1,000-2,000. The two Canon R series zooms above. Under $USD800 each. Tamron and Sigma? Similar story. Now the weight: Those cannon zooms are 745 grams and 635 grams. An F1.4 50mm - say 250grams. But here's the rub. The 24-240 can be permanently fixed to the camera. No extra weight for extra lenses! The couple of hundred gram differences becomes mute. That's the same as having had a big lunch OR having bought a heavy camera body. Go to a new mirrorless and you'll will save a few hundred grams on the body weight AND the lens. With identical specs, a mirrorless can be made much lighter.
5. Prime lenses encourage you to move around etc. That's great if you are shooting subject matter with the time available. No so with lots of subject matter. It's the quick or missed. Regardless you can still (and should) move around with a zoom when you can for the very same reasons. But the zoom has an added benefit - you can try different zoom settings in seconds. You can take multiple shots at different zoom settings rather than having to crop and lose pixels. Also you can zoom in for a focus and light setting on the important part and then zoom out with that setting held! In seconds!
6. Primes make you a more creative photographer. Simple rubbish. Just look at some great creative photos taken with phone cameras. There's far more to being creative than equipment. Far more. Just look at major movies. These days pretty much done on zoom lenses.
7. Second lens an 85mm. Great lens. I can do 24-240 all in one HIGH QUALITY lens at a LOW price. The game has changed. You've also cut yourself out of any photos which would be best done at 100mm or more.
8. Sharpness. Too sharp can make photos very clinical and lose all feeling. Hence the use of soft focus filters and soft focus editing!
9. FF v APS-C. How about a FF 24-240 zoom which works with both? It used to be an expensive option. No so anymore with mirrorless.
10. 24-70mm zoom Excellent lens. If you are happy with max 70mm.
11. For those who post online. All that cutting edge perfection just gets lost. Pixels disappear on posting (max size etc) and screen pixel count can reduce it further.
I've used primes and zooms for decades. My choices have been based on what I shoot and not on the technical perfectness of either. Not once has someone looked at my shots and said, "Oh, that was shot with a prime. Good choice." or "That was taken with a zoom. Why?" Not once. I did comparison shots between my then 10 year old Tamron zoom and a cheap Canon 50mm prime. The Tamron set at 50mm won.
People look at a photo and either liked it or not no matter what lens I used. The average person can't tell technical differences. They choose what they like - not what was used to shoot it. They like / love shots taken on a range of equipment.
There is far more to a great shot than presumed pixel peeping technical perfection. There is far more to it than FF v APS-C. There is far more to it than the MP of the sensor. You can have great equipment and bad shots. You can have basic equipment (eg phone) and get excellent shots. You can STILL get excellent shots with an old Kodak box film camera (if you respect its limitations.)
So please, don't tell me primes are always better than zooms. That's never been an absolute truth. Same for same a prime should be technically better than a zoom. But a good zoom will always be better than a cheap prime.
On price, a single high quality zoom will be cheaper than a set of primes. The technical quality difference is the only difference and that's shrinking. All the other factors will decide which is best in a given situation.
Now what you have chosen may suit you. That's great. If that applied to everyone, then why are there so many different primes and zooms in the marketplace? If people didn't buy them and didn't like them, they just would not be made.
Years ago purist argued than manual shift cars were better than auto shifts. How's that argument looking today? It now only holds true in a limited number of situations. For the majority, auto is now better. And electric cars don't even have gear shifts! The electric cars can beat any comparable fuel car on performance. In fact the fastest drag car is an electric one. The only difference is price. For high usage, hybrids and electrics pay for themselves. Just ask a taxi owner. Just look at what they are buying.
It's a horses for courses situation. The old simplistic chestnut arguments from 30 years ago were debatable back then. Now they simply no longer apply to so many situations.
Do not forget about 3rd party software for corrections and even chromatic abberation. RawTherapee actually searches for and integrates with the Lensfun library which is usually decently up-to-date for all but the latest and least owned lenses (volunteers submit sample images for correction, so the more a lens is used, the faster it gets added to the library). RawTherapee + Lensfun corrects distortion about as good as my body does... though I can't tell for sure since the corrections only really apply to JPG images and I only use RawTherapee for raw images... also my main lens performs shockingly well for a zoom even without much correction. I cannot tell by eye which image is corrected and which is not. Some premium zooms are fantastic. Nikon has an F2.8 full frame zoom lens that is really big and heavy but performs better than my body can use (I have a base model, the lens was designed for the top end body).
Though for those who are absolutely nuts about maximizing image quality, it is possible to use the Lensfun tools to generate a correction profile for your specific lens rather than using the generic one for your lens model... not that the difference from unit to unit is all that much these days anyhow.
An excellent response to this meaningless video. The arrogance of this guy trying to suggest that what works best for him is best for every photographer. I could only bring myself to watch five minutes of this video before reading the comments. I commend you for suffering through the whole thing and then thoroughly shredding his video, point-by-point.
@@lensman227 Thanks. I felt sorry for anyone who also saw it all and adopted this bad advice.
Yeap, those are my 2 fav focal length too since I'm doing portraits and weddings. But I cannot live without 35mm thought I don't really have any emotional attachement to it like I did with 50 and 85.
Hey yeah I think adding the 35mm would really make my lens collection complete! The trifecta 📸
@@justinlaurens Or, the "Holy Trinity primes" that I've read somewhere. 😉
I have the 24mm 1.4 GM and 85mm 1.8
and I recently bought the 16-35 pz F4 with my new ZV-E1 which I’m using as « a no-compromise GoPro ».
But I’m conscious that a 50mm GM is missing in my set. Not a priority at this time as I’m mainly shooting and filming outdoor where I need wider angles.
Started with the 50mm F1.8 for my Canon R6M2 and first got the 70-200mm f4.0 (budget reasons)
Did most of my shooting with the 50mm.
Got the 24-90mm F2.8 end of last year and it has become my go to lens (though I still frequently shoot at 50mm on it) as I love the versatility.
But I highly agree: Using the 50mm Prime was a great starting lens to force myself to move and become more creative.
Been thinking about either an 85mm or 135mm Prime or getting the 70-200mm F2.8 next, though now I am leaning more towards the Primes thanks to this video
My pleasure thanks for sharing
As an APS-C user, I recommend the Viltrox-trinity with 13mm F1.4 (ultra wide angle astro/landscape), 27mm F1.2 Pro and 75mm F1.2 Pro and at the long end the Samyang 135mm F1.8. These lenses are incredibly sharp, affordable and excellent in low light conditions, where the APS-C sensor falls a f-stop behind full frame in terms of noise. Okay, I have a wonderful incredibly sharp zoom lens, the Sigma 60-600 DG DN OS, but it's only suitable for wildlife in bad weather when you don't want to change lenses at time-sensitive moments or in dusty conditions.
Great video, I shoot with a Nikon D750 and my 3 lenses are the 50mm F1.8, the 85mm F1.8 and for vacations i use the 24-120mm F4.
Very nice setup. Having a Zoom lens for vacations is a great idea, and that range is huge 👌
Out of my collection . My all time travel lense is the Sony 24-105mm, my all time favourite portrait is the 135mm gm . (I recall going into a camera shop with my wife and the manager said to her "I see your getting a new handbag " haha.) Ps set the focus hold button to toggle aps-c mode for that extra reach. Used this function a lot especially when the lense was on my A7R3.
Hahah that’s funny. But damn I need to get myself a zoom lens for vacation 🔥
The 24-105mm is vertualy bolted to my A9ii and is fantastic for travel. Totaly recomend it , in the past ive taken others with it namly the 55mm Zeiss but dint used .
Yeah having a zoom lens for travelling sounds like a really good idea.
@@justinlaurens oh I forgot to say , set the focus hold button to toggle aps-c mode for that extra reach.
Im agree for 85mm. I own sigma 85 DGDN. but for 50, I would substitute it with 35mm as sometimes I need to take a group of people which 50mm just doesnt cut it. My setup now is sigma 35mm & 85mm DGDN with sony 20mm 1.8G in the bag incase the group is too large that 35mm cant handle. these 3lens is enough for me now.
The 35/85 pairing works great too. I just love the 50mm - even for group shots...I just take a few steps back.
I agree I was "forced" to shoot an event with 50mm at a small pool party. It gave me 80% coverage. All of a sudden, they wanted to do group shots and it was way too tight. There was not enough room to backup. A 35 and 85 are the primes I normally carry now.
Understandable. For more close quarters a 35mm would probably be more ideal for group shots 👌
@@justinlaurens until you hit a wall
If you can write/produce a photography book, i will definately buy it.
Hey Jerry, I have something even better - a full Photography and editing course called the Portrait Transformation masterclass. It comes with several PDF books inside! go.justinlaurens.com/portraitstransform
It all comes down to what you are shooting. 50 and 85 for weddings is a bit to tight in most cases, the 35 85 combo si a bit better or 24 50
I need 3 lenses
1. 50mm F1.4 for prime
2. 24-70mm f2.8 zoom
3. 70-200mm f2.8 zoom
I handle for portrait photography, wedding photography, wildlife photography, sports photography, street photography
Very good explanations with examples. Well done!
Feels great to hear! Thanks for watching bud 🙏
I like the 50mm and 90mm primes. To save money I decided that F 1.8 to F 2.8 is enough.
The Sony GMII's lenses are so good, one cannot tell the difference in its rendering versus primes. I own the 50mm f1.2. Love, love the lens, but for 99% of what I do, it's tough not to leave the 24-70 GMII on my A1. The 70-200 GMII is truly in a leage of its own. I. have the 105 f1.8 and prefer the 70-200 GMII rendering for portrait and a host of other applications. The 70-200 GMII is stunning, saying the least. Don't sell those GMII's short!
That's amazing! Would never sell them short, in fact that exact lens is on my wishlist for traveling/adventures. :)
Sigma 85 F1.4 !!!! Portraits 😊
Let’s go!! What a lens 🔥
In reality, 35mm and a 85mm thats all i really need.
Walking into the camera store... thats when my wallet hates me.. everytime.
Those are really great options. A 35mm delivers beautiful results for portraits.
And yeah lol I know 😅
I'm the same now, for years 90% of my photos were at 50mm, now my two lenses in my bag are a 35mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.4
If I could only have 1, it would be a 50mm F/1.2 F/1.4, F/1.8 F/2 depending on my budget
same as I thought
35 and 85 is all i need...
With 35 you can take group photos and environmental portraits and with 85 you can get that tight portrairs... With blurred background
I have 24 1.4,50 1.8,70-200 2.8 and the 135 stf . I prefer the 50 1.2 .
Thanks for sharing :)
7:45 I'd argue it's also limiting especially at a wedding where you might need to swap lenses. It could hinder more than it helps.
Haven’t found it to be an issue in my experience
For my taste and use, I have a Canon EOS 5D MkII and a 28-135 USM IS Zoom lens, together with a Slik U-212 Tripod when needed, and that's it.
That’s quite the focal range 👌 nice setup
The way I enjoy your videos ❤❤
Thank you so much 😀
that would be very easy to work with only 2 lenses, I had fun
6:00 I think you should show the raws of these photos instead of the touched-up and edited photos. It gives a false illusion of what the lenses will produce.
Shows the potential
Hi, nice video! I’m a beginner photographer and got myself a Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM lens and an RF -S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM lens.
Thanks for sharing! What type of photography are you in to?
I use viltrox 75mm f1.2 lens for my sony a6400… best in image quality
Would love to try it
Title is misleading. The choice is only from the viewpoint of a primarily portrait photographer. Even then, many would select a 35 1.4 instead of the 50 as a more versatile combination.
The thumbnail has 2 lenses pointing to a portrait photo
@@justinlaurens yes, but yiu talk abiut using these for landscapes, etc
Its his opinion and preference. Thats not misleading. He’s giving you examples of why he uses it and how it looks. To be in this lead would be just to ignore what he has said.
Legend thank you 🙏
на системе fujifilm мои два любимых объектива это viltrox 27mm 1.2 & 75mm 1.2 изображение превосходное оба великолепны иногда для разнообразия использую viltrox 13mm 1.4 так же он основной для видеосъёмки
I shoot mainly events. And by events I don't mean weddings. Among the most common events I shoot are dog agility and rally obedience, and (human) dance. I have an 85 1.4 but it doesn't get much use at these events. I'm more likely to use a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8. There are lots of kinds of photography. Not everyone shoots a lot of portraits and landscapes. I can't remember the last time I used a 50 1.4.
Your editing is on point.. I love it
Thank you so much Anthony! 🙏 appreciate it 👊
@@justinlaurens edits makes your subject pop… its fire
Means a lot dude! The edits are where the magic happens
These lenses are for full frame body?
Great choices
I prefer Sigma 105 1.4 over the 85 G Master
Good choice! 105 1.4 must be a fun lens 🔥
Old guy here with decades behind me, going back to film days before we had a ton of choices in camera brands, let alone lens options. To a point you are pretty much on target but only if you limit yourself to certain styles of photography. If you are a wildlife, action, sports, etc photographer these lens are useless. Your lens selection greatly depends on, one subject matter, two what camera are you using, micro 4/3rd’s, APSC, full frame, medium format, mirrorless, etc, etc. Stating these are the only two lens you will ever need in your bag is fine for your needs but not for everyone.
For wedding, it is often too tight for 50mm if shoot for group photos of 15 to 20.
Using a little step ladder and taking a few steps back for the big group shots works great for me. 👍
50mm Is it good for shooting video?
I use it mainly for photography but I do love it for video. That being said if you’re going to do a lot of gimbal work and even some social media (vertical) talking head videos - opting for a wider focal length like 35mm might be best. What type of footage will you be capturing?
@@justinlaurens The Sony 35mm f/1.8 has almost no focus breathing. Excellent lens for video work. Light and compact enough to balance well on a gimbal.
8:25?😂 I feel validated as I own an APS-C camera and a 35 mm and a 50 mm lenses
Haha there ya go!!
sigma 28 70 2.8 fullframe in apsc is the best unique lense for all
Sounds like a dope lens 💪
Dude, Fantastic video and explanation.
Thank you so much man, appreciate the watch + nice comment 👊
An absolute treat to watch. Fantastic video.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you for watching my friend 🙏
Your video is excellent. It provides very helpful information for someone who is starting out. Thank you for including images for reference.
You're very welcome! Thanks very much for the kind words 🙏
Thanks for the video.
I have three inexpensive primes for my Nikon Z5 by Viltrox I like a lot:
20mm
40mm
85mm
I have Nikon zoom lenses but don’t use them much because they are too heavy for my arthritis. Looking at the Vil 50mm to fill that out, can’t see a need for their 16mm.
Regards
Thanks for sharing!
As for "human eye", I heard it's not 50mm is human vision, but a distance to object about 5m/15ft, and focus length is more about the required angle of view
35 / 85, or 35 / 55 / 85
Please advice me 2 lenses for canon 7d mark ii body
If you do wildlife at all you'll want focal length. For most of what he looks such as wedding, I like 135 MM.
Intersting choice. Almost every pro I've talked to or read advice from on all the photography forums, don't pair 50mm and 85mm lenses. They usually pair 24mm and 50mm together. If it works for you, then it's the right choice.
50 & 85 are far enough in focal length to make a big difference. Anything below 35mm is a bit too wide for my liking (you lose that cinematic telephoto/compression effect).
@@justinlaurens Based on your answer, it seems you're shooting more for portraits. Sorry for not watching the video...I didn't know what style you were suggesting the lenses for. There are 100s of videos of people suggesting the lenses they use but since you mentioned the 35mm and shorter like...say, a 24mm...for me, those are extremely essential lenses. You're right. They're not for compression. Then never were designed for that. I don't use them for the compression...I use them for context in tight quarters...like on the dance floor of a wedding. It seems that you are suggesting lenses for portrait photographers. Again, I didn't watch the video, so I'm just assuming...I only skipped to see what lenses you were addressing. I guess if the title of the video was the ONLY 2 Lenses you need for portrait photography, then we wouldn't be interacting because it would have made more sense because 50mm and 85mm are actually not the only 2 lenses people should have in their bag unless they're doing portrait photography, otherwise a different pair would be more practical for run and gun situations; in which case, you'd run with two bodies, and two prime lenses that would cover you for both scene and portrait...like may wedding photographers that are not only shooting portraits. Anyway, like I said...if it works for your, then it's the right choice. For me, I use all of them and then some for both photo and video. But yea...I shoot prime. I have the 70-200GM MK2 f2.8...and that is MAD compression. I still love my 85GM1.4 which lives on a body. Take care!
My two focal lengths are 105mm and 14mm for portraits
Nice I bet you can get some interesting shots with that setup. You shoot outdoors / natural light?
@@justinlaurens with wide angle lenses I really like to play with flash light. It's almost a must to add a strobe to the equation no matter if it's outdoors or studio 😉
your pairing lacks wide angle capabilities and long reach. While a nice set (not the best I think) for portraits, I strongly disagree this is the best setup "across multiple genres" as you state in the description.
are these full-frame equivalent measurements?
Yessir. 👌
There’s lots a Photoshop in the samples, it won’t matter what lens is used 🤣
Post-processing will always be an important part of the process.
how does the sony 1.4 85mm compare with teh sigma art 1.4 85mm
If I could I would probably have chosen the Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 over the Sony version. The Sigma brand is top in my books.
Great video! Mainly 50 and 85, and also some 28, all 1.8.
Thanks man! Yes I sometimes like to throw in a 24mm into the mix.
I fully agree about prime lenses.
But 50 mm and 85 mm are too close to each other.
I personnaly use 3 lenses but not all together (I take with me either 2 lenses or only 1 versatile lens).
For landscape :
A wide angle needs to be sharp, no flare, nice sunstar, no subject separation needed.
Tamron 24 mm F/2.8 is the perfect budget lens.
Sony 20 mm F/1.8 G is needed only if focus on astrophotography (wider aperture) or architecture (wider angle and less distorsion).
For portrait :
A king's bokeh is needed for professionnal looking photos.
Samyang 85 mm F/1.4 AF version 1 aspherical is amazing, very close to the Sony GM for a third of the price.
For general purpose each time I take only one litle lens with me :
Samyang 45 mm F/1.8 is incredibly light and versatile, even closer to human eye focal than a 50 mm, great bokeh.
Was using the 85 1.4 then friend lent me his 85 1.2 was like dammm I thought the 1.4 was sharp that 1.2 is surreal sheshh what background hahah
Damn that’s cool I’d love to try it. The background must be butter 🤤
That 85mm Tamron on 9:35 is not manufactured anymore. Also, it was never available for E-mount, only A-mount. I doubt this lens is a good example.
What if I have budget constraint, therefore I want to choose between the 50 or 85, which one should I go with? Pls advise. TIA
50mm
@@justinlaurens Thank you
Definately rf 28-70mm f2 and rf 85 1.2, just becouse 70mm f2 is just like rf 50 1.2
Interesting.... but I love zoom lens...
What about Canon RF28-70 f/2.0
That's a great mid-range focal length (and lens in general). You're in good hands.
The "human vision" is related to the distance from the subject. Not the focal length.
Lol no man
@@justinlaurens look for that " Lens Compression Doesn't Exist - Here's Why "
have you use flashlight for the portrait fotos ? very nice video...
Thanks very much 🙏 I don’t use flash no. I use primarily natural/ available light (check out my portrait transformation course if you’d like to learn exactly how) 😊
@@justinlaurens thank you i will do it
@thomschonfelder anytime my friend. Let me know if you have any questions at all: justin@justinlaurens.com
You would need a third: 16mm 1.4 or 1.8 prime for group shot in a wedding
I do love a good ultra wide angle Zoom
Great video
Thanks! Appreciate your time 👍
I rock the 35mm 1.4 and 85 1.4mm. Although I wouldnt mind the 50mm 1.4 ...i feel it's a waste of money
The 85mm & 35mm duo delivers beautiful results - if you're happy with those focal lengths then no need to go to a 50mm for now. But down the line it could be a good option - its my personal favorite - so versatile!
somewhere i read that the 35mm is 'the eye of humanity'
I've read that ~40mm is closest to that eye.
I have those two lenses but they’re both 1.8. I can’t afford the 1.4s 😢
The 50/85 at 1.8 still captures stunning images and tons of depth don’t worry! In fact I will often shoot at f2.2-2.5 with the 50mm
I love your photos… they are anazing.. i like to photography.. but that is only dream.. because camera prizes in my country very high😅
Thank you my friend, stay positive and work hard and I'm sure one day you will be able to make your dream happen!
I am old school so the nifty fifties are overpriced kit lenses. The only fifty I owned was back in the 80s. For me, it is a weak wide-angle lens. Of the lenses I used the most was the original Holy Trinity the 300mm f/2.8, 28-700mm f/2.8, and 800-200mmf/2.8. Today I use the 17-35mm f/2.8, 200-500mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8, 28-700mm f/2.8, and 800-200mmf/2.8. My work is mainly, environmental portraits, portraits, people, commercial work, editorial, photojournalism, and sports. I have never understood where the none sense of you don't move and your feet are in concrete if you are using zooms, baka. I'm of the old school 'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough", said war photographer Robert Capa.
Great choices, definitely needed for business. You did leave out the 35mm though, and I can see how, yet, do know, this is literally a GRAVE mistake. The 35mm is literally a "Master's" lens. Anyone can grab an 85 1.4 and go out and come back and be pleased, the same absolutely does not hold with the 35mm. A newbie definitely won't be able to produce much of anything with the 35, but definitely can with the 85. I've learned that the 50mm, is a sweet spot lens, and that spot is at F2. With the 50 and especially the 85mm, you have to arrange the subject... With the 35, you have to arrange the background completely, or it just won't work well.
Typo at 8:00 24mm should be 35mm
Focal length heavily depends on one's shooting style, I never care for 50mm for any kind of application, Portrait, landscape.....
Would you recommend FF lens for crop sensor apsc camera set up?
Depends what type of focal length look you're trying to achieve
Great video thank you! I just purchased a Nikon zf would you recommend an 85mm Nikkor lens? I am using a Nikon 40mm. Thx.
Thank you so much 🙏 yeah I think the 40mm and 85mm would pair well 👌
It will take a little while to get familiar with the tighter/zoomed in focal length but once you get used to taking a few steps back before taking each shot you will capturing stunning shots in no time.
@@justinlaurens thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate it.
@harrisjon1 My pleasure thanks for watching. 🙏
Hey man love your work, you've got a new subscriber! Just wondering what Sony bodies you use? I just got hold of my first Sony (jumping off Nikon) and it's an A7RV, I hear that I really need top-shelf glass and wanting to know if these lenses you feature above are good enough?
Hey Michael, thanks for the kind words. Great camera to have. I have the Sony a7rii. I would highly recommend starting with the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4. Incredible quality photos with that lens and combined with the dynamic range of the Sony body you have the photos will be 🔥 🤩
35 is 52 maybe on crop, here is error on 8:01
My primes are 20, 35, 85, 135.
Quite the collection 💪
What picture profile do you shoot photos in ?
For videos or photos?
@@justinlaurens photos
I used to shoot primes...but then the Tamron 35-150mm came along.
Ouf that sounds like a stellar lens. What are you shooting mostly?
@justinlaurens It is! I shoot everything from portrait sessions to event photography with that lens. For sports I'll use a 70-200mm.
I shoot with Fujifilm mirrorless. So my kit would be 3 lenses. The Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4, the Sigma 56mm f/1.2 DC DN, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN. That’s with the X-T5. When I use the X-Pro3, I carry 4 prime lenses; 16, 23, 35 and 50mm. These are from Fujifilm’s f/2 line of lenses. They are very small and more appropriate for a range finder style camera.
Why 50mm for portraits ? Why not 24mm ????
24mm for portraits?? Lol 24mm is a wide angle lens for real estate & landscapes lol
Lens preference is a bit of a personal thing but definitely good idea to settle on two for use 90+% of the time, although I don't think they can be the same two for every kind of occasion (e.g., tight spaces vs great outdoors). Also, a second camera body makes life so much easier; changing lenses sucks, especially at events.
Nice use of AI, it worked really well
Ah I’m glad to hear that thanks for sharing 🙏