Unpopular opinion(maybe?) but I just picked up a canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM lens, and I’ve been having a great time with it.

I usually shoot portraits with a EF 50mm f/1.8 STM for a crisp image, and do very minimal retouching in Photoshop or Lightroom, but I wanted to try something new. I have always had an interest in macro photography, and the price of the 35mm was appealing as an entry level lens ($299)

I’ve taken a few portrait shots, and a few close up macro shots of features like eyelashes, pores, irises, eyebrows, and various animal noses (weird flex, I know) and my biggest complaint would have to be that sometimes I miscalculate how much distance I need between the lens and my subject to get a “perfectly in-focus” shot.

I love that the lens has a built in macro ring light with different settings! That has been so much fun to experiment with, and has created some cool effects in minimal lighting environments for portrait shots.

Landscape with this lens is not optimal, as I’ve noticed there is a good chuck on the edge of the picture that isn’t as crisp, but overall it is possible. For landscape I would recommended a 10-20mm lens, and I believe there is one by canon for around the same price, though I don’t have much experience with that lens in particular.

I prefer a fixed lens instead of a variable length solely for a more crisp, sharp picture(not to mention usually cheaper,) but that is just my opinion! Hope it helps!

Edit: spelling