
Originally Posted by
ditch_azeroth
another up for the 24-105. i've used it before and it is probably one of the best walkaround lenses for canon. most people i know usually go through this trend: kit>50mm1.8f>28-135>then usually 70-200 2.8 or 4f (for zoom fanatics) and/or 24-70 or 24-105. skip a few pages, go straight for the L. of course, money is the limiting factor. there are a lot of relatively okay sigma lenses that have good range, pero layo ra gyud cya kontra canon L in terms of image quality. for macro, i think the 85mm 1.8/f is a very good lens for this purpose, considering its price (there are lenses specifically designed for macro, but i'll stick with the 85 1.8f).
but as what most seasoned photographers will tell you, it is always the person behind the camera that makes the biggest difference. we learned this lesson in rocky 4 (dolph lundgren vs. rocky balboa/brawn vs. heart)... lol
85mm 1.8 is lousy at macro...minimum focusing distance is very far to be a useful macro lens...
now 100 2.8 macro is a whole different thing... try it
yes i have both lenses and try as i might with 85 1.8, it just cant get there...example try framing and focusing just the face of a baby with the 85 1.8...with a full frame camera not possible...
even for crop bodies with 85 1.8 i think that would be very hard to achieve if at all possible...
but for sure framing a closeup of the just the eyes is not possible with the 85 1.8 with any canon EOS.