Lens buying advice/opinions?

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Once again, I am buying some lenses and trying to decide on the best route to go. I currently have the following:

Canon7D
Canon 10-22
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
Canon 400mm

I recently sold my Canon 17-40 f/4.

So I want to purchase a "50mm equivalent-ish" Prime and a longer Prime. (which will overlap with my 70-200 f/2.8) I would like the longer prime for sports, headshots, and stealthy street shots, and the wider prime for street shooting and general purpose.

Here are the choices I was considering....

Canon 35mm f/1.4L and a Canon 85mm f/1.8 - The 35 is sharp and would be a great all around lens and the 85 would work well for headshots but isn't great wide open.

or

Canon 28mm f/1.8 and Canon 135mm f/2L - The 28mm isn't great wide open but at such a short FL, shutter speeds should be lower for handholding assuming I don't need to freeze action. The 135mm f/2 is a bit tight on a crop, but is an incredible lens and would be great for sports and street shooting (which I would probably do more than portraits )

I am currently leaning more towards the second one. I have a new messenger bag and would like to be able to travel light when street shooting instead of carrying the 70-200 along. I figure I could carry a wider/standard prime, the 50mm f/1.4 the longer 135mm and flash.

I guess I could also do the first set up but with a 100mm f/2 instead of the 85mm if I want some more reach.

What would you do and why?

 

[analog.universe]

So, I had the 28 1.8 and I sold it. It's not just wide open that it suffers, the edges are well fuzzy all through 5.6. The 85 1.8 continues to amaze me for what it costs. It's not "great" wide open, but it isn't bad either, and at 2.2 it's beautiful. The autofocus on it is also great for sports.

Also, my 35mm 1.4 is on the camera more than any other lens. I shoot a Zeiss, not Canon, but they're both awesome. 35 feels like a great "standard" focal length on APS-C to me, nicer than 28... but that's purely subjective of course. The "rumors" (I know, I know), suggest a 35L II coming soon.

If it was me I'd get the 35 and 85, and keep saving pennies for the 135 down the line. The 35mm just goes so well with a crop camera, and the 85 is so good for the money... The 135 f/2 is a legendary lens though, I've never shot one but I'd like to someday, my 135 is pretty cheapo. For an extra like 400 or 500 you could get the 135 instead of the 85...

Stay away from that 28 though. It would be a sweet $200 lens, but it's not worth $500.

 

[Derrel]

Canon's 28mm 2.8 is one of their very oldest EOS designs...it's not well thought of...they are redesigning it, and fitting the new 28 with IS.

35mm on 1.6x is useful. 85/1.8 EF is a n ice,compact,light lens, an incredible bargain!!! The 135/2 is "tight" indoors on a 1.6x Canon....but it does give apparent reach and narrow angle of view...size-wise, the 85 is much smaller. Analog.universe has it pretty much right.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Canon's 28mm 2.8 is one of their very oldest EOS designs...it's not well thought of...they are redesigning it, and fitting the new 28 with IS.

I was talking about the 28mm f/1.8 not f/2.8 (I hear the new IS versions are more for video) I should add that I may hold out and see what the upcoming Sigma 35mm f/1.4 will be like. May be a cheaper option than the 35mm f/1.4L

 

[analog.universe]

Canon's 28mm 2.8 is one of their very oldest EOS designs...it's not well thought of...they are redesigning it, and fitting the new 28 with IS.

I was talking about the 28mm f/1.8 not f/2.8 (I hear the new IS versions are more for video) I should add that I may hold out and see what the upcoming Sigma 35mm f/1.4 will be like. May be a cheaper option than the 35mm f/1.4L

The new IS primes do look cool for video, but I'd hesitate spending that much on a prime that only opens to 2.8 if I was concentrating on stills. From what I understand there will be a 35mm f/2.0 IS coming out however, which sounds like a nice compromise as long as it isn't too pricey.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Canon's 28mm 2.8 is one of their very oldest EOS designs...it's not well thought of...they are redesigning it, and fitting the new 28 with IS.

I was talking about the 28mm f/1.8 not f/2.8 (I hear the new IS versions are more for video) I should add that I may hold out and see what the upcoming Sigma 35mm f/1.4 will be like. May be a cheaper option than the 35mm f/1.4L

The new IS primes do look cool for video, but I'd hesitate spending that much on a prime that only opens to 2.8 if I was concentrating on stills. From what I understand there will be a 35mm f/2.0 IS coming out however, which sounds like a nice compromise as long as it isn't too pricey.

I didn't hear about the 35. That's interesting. I would consider that as long as it was sharp at f/2. That is the only reason I want the 35, and 135mm, so that I can actually shoot wide open. when needed. I am also considering selling the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and buying a used 70-200 f/4 IS and putting the extra money towards buying BOTH the 35 f/1.4L and the 135 f/2L. This is a tough choice though. I love the 70-200 zoom, but its huge, heavy and I think for what I typically use it for, the f/4 would probably suffice 90% of the time.....Its like a sickness! LOL