Need a another opinion

[Scuba]

OK let's forget that I mentioned a wedding. It is just an off the wall thought that is not much of a reality. Think landscape, horse farms, and possibly portraits (also only a future possibility).

[Ads]

[EIngerson]

I have the 70-200 F4 L and absolutely love it. It's sharp as a tack and fast. That said, I will upgrade to the current 2.8 eventually, but I won't get rid of the F4.

[KenC]

If you could find a way to stretch your budget a little you could have the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8. Range covered, more speed, probably better sharpness. Wouldn't be as good for events or candids because you would have to have two bodies or switch lenses, but for the stuff you say you'll be doing most, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Scuba]

That is a possibility I hadn't considered yet. Is the 85 1.8 as sharp at the 70-200 f/4 IS though? I am stretching the budget pretty hard as it is. I was originally planning on the f/4 non IS version and then changed to the IS version. However, two lenes can be bought at separate times too. Would the 85 to 200mm jump leave a big focal length hole?

[Robin_Usagani]

If you shoot a wedding and you want to shoot with primes, you need to shoot with 2 camera bodies. You should stick with zoom if you shoot with only 1 body. It is a good idea to buy another camera body if you want to start taking on a wedding as a main. As 2nd shooter, 1 body is fine.

[jaomul]

I think the 85 is sharp

The scramble for dinner by jaomul, on Flickr

[KenC]

That is a possibility I hadn't considered yet. Is the 85 1.8 as sharp at the 70-200 f/4 IS though? I am stretching the budget pretty hard as it is. I was originally planning on the f/4 non IS version and then changed to the IS version. However, two lenes can be bought at separate times too. Would the 85 to 200mm jump leave a big focal length hole?

It depends on how and what you shoot, but I've heard that each lens should be about twice the focal length of the previous one. If you are using the 85 and need something more like 135 for perfect framing you can get it by cropping. This is assuming you can't do it by moving in. Of course the perspective and "feel" of the image would be a little different, but you can't have everything, right? I suppose it's possible there will be an occasion where you can't get a shot without having the zoom, but then there are probably times when the slower speed of the zoom or the extra weight could cost you a shot. You could do the 100/2 and the 200 to get them a little closer, but the 100 costs more than the 85, so you'd have to stretch even further.

[Scuba]

If you shoot a wedding and you want to shoot with primes, you need to shoot with 2 camera bodies. You should stick with zoom if you shoot with only 1 body. It is a good idea to buy another camera body if you want to start taking on a wedding as a main. As 2nd shooter, 1 body is fine.

This is a good piece of info. I knew that but hadn't thought about it for some reason. I do have a second body but it is a rebel xsi so I guess it work as a backup but not sure I would use it as an active second body. This wedding idea is just something that I have wanted to try out as a second shooter. I would never attempt to be a main without some decent experience as a 2nd first and a lot of studying. I would say the chances of me actually shooting a wedding is slim.

That is a possibility I hadn't considered yet. Is the 85 1.8 as sharp at the 70-200 f/4 IS though? I am stretching the budget pretty hard as it is. I was originally planning on the f/4 non IS version and then changed to the IS version. However, two lenes can be bought at separate times too. Would the 85 to 200mm jump leave a big focal length hole?

It depends on how and what you shoot, but I've heard that each lens should be about twice the focal length of the previous one. If you are using the 85 and need something more like 135 for perfect framing you can get it by cropping. This is assuming you can't do it by moving in. Of course the perspective and "feel" of the image would be a little different, but you can't have everything, right? I suppose it's possible there will be an occasion where you can't get a shot without having the zoom, but then there are probably times when the slower speed of the zoom or the extra weight could cost you a shot. You could do the 100/2 and the 200 to get them a little closer, but the 100 costs more than the 85, so you'd have to stretch even further.

Now I am all questioning what I want to do. Part of me wants the zoom for animals when they are moving etc. Also, the 70-200 f/4 IS is an extremely sharp lens but it does have the low light disadvantage. However, the 85 1.8 is known to be a great lens and from reading up on the 200 f/2.8L it is a great lens too. I love primes. But I am worried that would limit me a little more then I would want without a 135 in the middle. I do need the low light help since I have the 5D classic which doesn't have a great low light capability. That is how I got to the IS f/4 over the non IS. I would be able to avoid the annoying white lens if I do the primes. One thing that worries me is looking at the blur index (tloader) of the 85mm 1.8. It just doesn't look good all that great on paper but I have only heard good things about it.

[Derrel]

If you have a crop-body, do not buy the 85/1.8, but instead, buy the zoom lens, the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is a professional-grade lens. The focal length flexibility of the zoom will really make the 70-200/4-IS the best "deal", all-around. On a full-frame Canon, still, the 70-200/4 IS is a nifty lens to have. Prime lenses are fine, but they are only one,single length...not very versatile...I'm familiar with primes and zooms. I have both.

[Scuba]

If you have a crop-body, do not buy the 85/1.8, but instead, buy the zoom lens, the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is a professional-grade lens. The focal length flexibility of the zoom will really make the 70-200/4-IS the best "deal", all-around. On a full-frame Canon, still, the 70-200/4 IS is a nifty lens to have. Prime lenses are fine, but they are only one,single length...not very versatile...I'm familiar with primes and zooms. I have both.

Derrel I have 5D classic, so sounds like from your opinion the 70-200 f/4 IS is the better option? You have mentioned to me before that the IS was significantly better optically than the non-IS f/4.

Or do I get the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and then get the 85mm 1.8?

[Scuba]

I was just thinking too about KenC comment about cropping to get the 135 focal length if needed, and I am not sure if that would work well with my 5D classic at 12MP. I feel that would be a better option on a mkII or mkIII with a higher starting resolution. Or am I just looking too far into that?

[KenC]

I was just thinking too about KenC comment about cropping to get the 135 focal length if needed, and I am not sure if that would work well with my 5D classic at 12MP. I feel that would be a better option on a mkII or mkIII with a higher starting resolution. Or am I just looking too far into that?

You can crop a 12MP file and have plenty of resolution left over unless you want to make a poster for the side of a bus. The only problem would be if the original image was a little soft or noisy these would be more apparent in a cropped image.

[Scuba]

I was just thinking too about KenC comment about cropping to get the 135 focal length if needed, and I am not sure if that would work well with my 5D classic at 12MP. I feel that would be a better option on a mkII or mkIII with a higher starting resolution. Or am I just looking too far into that?

You can crop a 12MP file and have plenty of resolution left over unless you want to make a poster for the side of a bus. The only problem would be if the original image was a little soft or noisy these would be more apparent in a cropped image.

Ok. I just don't crop heavily much because I have mainly used zooms.

[Scuba]

So I ended up buying a lens last night and ended up with the 70-200 f/4 IS. It was a good deal and the lens I was originally leaning towards. There hadn't been any major objections just other configurations which I think won't work as well for me. I can always sell it and go another route. I picked it up for $770 in great condition so it made the decision a little easier. Thanks for everyones help!

[dbvirago]

If I had your budget when I got mine I would have got IS, but I've had the f4 non-IS for years. I think IS would help on that lens, but it was early days and getting L glass for $600ish was the best I could do. I still love the lens, though.

fyi time to change your sig