Letting the baby go...

[Austin Greene]

Edit: I should say that I have a buyer for my 70-200 f/4L IS for 1100. Combine that with a work discount through Canon and I'm looking at transitioning to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for $750. Selling my 85 could get me $350 towards those costs. That's the gist here, do I sell my 85 f/1.8, or keep it around? The mindset here is portraits, and weddings.

Well, here we are. After roughly 1.5 years of owning it, I am selling my 70-200 f/4L IS. It served me well for a time, but in all honesty, has not found it's way onto my camera since buying my 85mm f/1.8 in March and discovering the gift of amazing bokeh for portraits. But I suppose, there is a bright side to this...

I'm buying the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II! Or at least, I think I am? I feel satisfied with the performance of my 17-40 on the landscape front, but I hated the fact that my 70-200 was always left sitting in a drawer during portrait shoots. It simply couldn't stack up to the 85 in terms of versatility (aperture wise).

Now the question is whether or not I go forwards and buy the f/2.8 version, and if so, do I then sell my 85mm? The only thing that makes me think I'd keep the 85mm is that it is a great compact lens. But then again, it does seem redundant to keep it around, and the money from selling it could buy me a good insurance plan to ensure I feel comfy toting the 70-200 around without fear of dropping it.

So what do you think? Is my logic sound here? Do I sell the 85mm? I'm rearing to finally get into weddings, and I regularly have portrait shoots almost every weekend. My only other consideration is the 24-70, but while it's a great lens, I don't think it would be as versatile. A purchase for later years, perhaps. Also, the discount Canon offers my employer is much greater on the 70-200 than the 24-70.

Thoughts? I use the lens regularly at work, but that's for product photography. I love it, but I suppose I'm really asking more a question on whether or not to sell my 85mm. Will it become relegated to my drawer as the original 70-200 was? If so, I think I'd be better off selling it.

 

[iolair]

If you're looking to get into weddings, the extra stop-and-a-third that the 85mm 1.8 has over the 70-200mm 2.8 could be handy in darker venues.

I shot a wedding with two bodies, one with the 70-200mm 2.8 IS ii, and found the weight of it was getting too much by the middle of the day - plus the temptation to use 2.8 was too much and as a result I didn't have enough depth of field in some of my shots (mea culpa) ... In retrospect I'd actually have preferred the 70-200mm 4.0 IS (or maybe a good prime; 85mm would have been the ideal length for that particular wedding) because of its lighter weight. 200mm at f/4 still gives you a very shallow depth of field if you want it.

For portrait shoots, I personally prefer to stick to primes - as I'm in control of the environment more than is possible with a wedding.

In your position, I'd get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on rental for a few days, when you've got a portrait shoot on, and make sure it's doing what you hope it will. Its versatility is helpful for weddings, but you may find you just get on better with shooting primes.

 

[gsgary]

I let all my Canon lenses go at the weekend

 

[Austin Greene]

If you're looking to get into weddings, the extra stop-and-a-third that the 85mm 1.8 has over the 70-200mm 2.8 could be handy in darker venues.

I shot a wedding with two bodies, one with the 70-200mm 2.8 IS ii, and found the weight of it was getting too much by the middle of the day - plus the temptation to use 2.8 was too much and as a result I didn't have enough depth of field in some of my shots (mea culpa) ... In retrospect I'd actually have preferred the 70-200mm 4.0 IS (or maybe a good prime; 85mm would have been the ideal length for that particular wedding) because of its lighter weight. 200mm at f/4 still gives you a very shallow depth of field if you want it.

For portrait shoots, I personally prefer to stick to primes - as I'm in control of the environment more than is possible with a wedding.

In your position, I'd get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on rental for a few days, when you've got a portrait shoot on, and make sure it's doing what you hope it will. Its versatility is helpful for weddings, but you may find you just get on better with shooting primes.

Thanks for the thorough reply!

It might be useful, that stop and a third, but I can't think of a situation where I'd shoot wide open instead of just cranking the ISO.

Buying the 85 was almost entirely a venture to get what the 70-200 f/4 IS couldn't in terms of shallow depth of field. The f/4 simply wasn't cutting it for me, and I'd rarely find myself at 200mm. However, I like the idea of being able to shoot long, especially at certain portions of weddings.

Renting one is a good idea, and I've considered it quite a bit before. I suppose I just wonder if it would be a waste of money. I'm trying to think of where the 85mm could outpace the 70-200 2.8 II, which is really the crux of it all, the question of if I sell the 85mm to help ease the wallet when buying the 70-200.

 

[Braineack]

I don't use my 85mm as much as I probably should since getting the 70-200.

It's more versatile at the expense of bokeh quality.

I've considered dumping it and my 70-300 to just get the 150-600 already so i have a fun outdoor lens for my backyard friends. My 24-70 and 70-200 can pretty much tackle everything else I shoot.

 

[iolair]

It might be useful, that stop and a third, but I can't think of a situation where I'd shoot wide open instead of just cranking the ISO.

That's a choice, and more of an option on your 6D which has great low-light performance. (However the 6D lacks dual memory card slots, which for me is an essential for weddings). You'd presumably still have your 50mm f/1.8 to fall back on if you really did need the extra aperture? (though I always found that mine hunted for focus too much in low light)

Buying the 85 was almost entirely a venture to get what the 70-200 f/4 IS couldn't in terms of shallow depth of field. The f/4 simply wasn't cutting it for me, and I'd rarely find myself at 200mm. However, I like the idea of being able to shoot long, especially at certain portions of weddings.

True ... I took a number of wedding detail / portrait shots at around 100-110mm (on crop; so same field of view as 160-176 on full frame), so 85mm on full-frame may not be long enough - depending on the venues, and on the style you develop.

Renting one is a good idea, and I've considered it quite a bit before. I suppose I just wonder if it would be a waste of money. I'm trying to think of where the 85mm could outpace the 70-200 2.8 II, which is really the crux of it all, the question of if I sell the 85mm to help ease the wallet when buying the 70-200.

But it could save you money if you decide you don't need it ... I personally would be happy with the 85mm and 70-200mm f/4 ... picking which one best suited the circumstances. Also, if you want to shoot weddings professionally, you need gear redundancy, so having two long lenses is important (one can replace the other in moments in the case of a failure) (as would be having two wide lenses, and two bodies - although I only shoot weddings occasionally so I've gone down to one body and just hire a second as needed).

 

[Austin Greene]

That's a choice, and more of an option on your 6D which has great low-light performance. (However the 6D lacks dual memory card slots, which for me is an essential for weddings). You'd presumably still have your 50mm f/1.8 to fall back on if you really did need the extra aperture? (though I always found that mine hunted for focus too much in low light)

True, I would have the 50mm. I haven't used that thing in years though, except for macro (extension tubes). Time to dust it off! For starters, my redundancy will come via a second shooter. We use the 5DmkIII by the dozen (literally) at work and I simply prefer the 6D, but I will move into one eventually for the dual slots and the AF points.

True ... I took a number of wedding detail / portrait shots at around 100-110mm (on crop; so same field of view as 160-176 on full frame), so 85mm on full-frame may not be long enough - depending on the venues, and on the style you develop.

This. It's really quite hard for me to know what I'm going to develop style wise. I've shot events before, almost always at the long end, but I'm also a fan of wide-angle portraits. I do plan on renting, and eventually buying, the 24-70 II once things get rolling.

But it could save you money if you decide you don't need it ... I personally would be happy with the 85mm and 70-200mm f/4 ... picking which one best suited the circumstances. Also, if you want to shoot weddings professionally, you need gear redundancy, so having two long lenses is important (one can replace the other in moments in the case of a failure) (as would be having two wide lenses, and two bodies - although I only shoot weddings rarely so I've gone down to one body and just hire a second as needed).

The redundancy point is a good one. At this point, just wanting to move into weddings doesn't afford me the ability to cover all that redundancy myself, so I plan on using second shooters once I've played out my own role as one. I'm actually not in favor of selling the 85mm, it has served me really well and is a favorite, I'm just looking to see if anyone who's had experience with the 70-200 II can convince me otherwise since there is so much overlap between the two.