gurbally_seth Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>I can buy only one of these two right now, but I am dithering on which one I should buy. I am new to Canon, and would welcome your suggestions. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p> Apples and oranges. What do you like to photograph?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_hoelzel1 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>What lenses do you already have? What do you plan on photographing? The 70-200 is very versitile but also large. The 85mm would be considered a walk around portrait lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>The 70-200/4 IS is reportedly one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever made, and the 85/1.8 is one of the better primes. But like the others have said, we'd have to know more about your photographic needs before we could recommend one over the other.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgranone Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>The 85mm F1.8 kicks butt over the zoom from F1.8 - F3.5<br /> <br /> The zoom is quite sharp but only F4. <br /> Too slow a lens for low light work, especially if the subject is moving where IS is no benefit.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>I have both, and both are fine lenses. Not knowing what you shoot or how you intend to use them, the odds are that the zoom would be a more useful and flexible first step - though more information from you could change that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <blockquote> <p>The 85mm F1.8 kicks butt over the zoom from F1.8 - F3.5</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah, but the 70-200mm kicks butt over the 85mm from 70-84mm and from 86-200mm!</p> <p>:0</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Yeah, but the 70-200mm kicks butt over the 85mm from 70-84mm and from 86-200mm!</p> </blockquote> <p>Hey, that was my joke! Is that copyright infringement?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonyari Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>70-200 f/4 IS is $900-1000. 85mm f/1.8 is $400, 70-200 f/4 non-IS is $600. I'd say with the money for the IS, you can buy both the 85 and 70-200 non-IS. :D The 70-200 is light enough that you can hand hold it. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Providing you get the one which best suits your needs, you are on to a winner, I've got the 85/1.8 and the 70-200/4 non IS, both are very good.<br> I haven't had the 85/1.8 long, but what I've seen I like a lot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurbally_seth Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Guys I need both. Though one is much cheaper than the other, I cannot afford both together. I want to use either of them for outdoor events and then portraits.<br> Thanks Mitchell for suggesting that 70-200mm IS can be the first step.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurbally_seth Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Luis, I have just sold D300 gear and shifted to 5D. Just beginning to collect Canon lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_popp1 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>I have both, and went for the 85/1.8 first and just recently got the 70-200. I got the 85/1.8 first because I bought it at the same time as my 40D and couldn't have afforded the zoom. If you have the money for the zoom, I would get that first because of the versatility. The 85/1.8 is a joy to use and you'll still want it I'm sure, but you'll miss more pictures by not having the zoom than by not having the fast prime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>Sorry Frank, I really did mean to put in a link, but didn't have the time to find it again. ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 <p>You could buy both the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8 L for the price of the 70-200/4 L IS. </p> <p>If you absolutely insist on IS and you are going to be primarily outdoors for sports and portraits then I'd go for the 70-200/4 L IS. Not sure how useful the IS will be in your situations though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamos Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>I would recommend the prime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Crop or FF body? You mentioned portraits, and for a crop body cam neither lens would be ideal. And possibly the same for events, depending what they are. You need to be more specific before a recommendation can be made. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurbally_seth Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>Brad, I use full-frame (5D)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>I'd get the zoom first because of the versatility of it. Both are superb lenses. I have the 70-200/2.8IS as well as the 85/1.8 and while I love both, I use the 70-200 <em>much</em> more.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p dir="ltr">For portraits there's really no substitute for a fast aperture. I had all Canon's f/4 zooms and sold them because of that. Light? Yes. Versatile? Undoubtedly. Sutable for portraiture? Not IMHO.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Last piece of advice: Also consider the 100/2 and of course, the mighty 135/2. The bokeh is worth it.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p> <p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>Here is an example of the 135/2 bokeh.</p> <p>Happy shooting,<br> Yakim.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurbally_seth Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>Yakim, I agree with you that nothing beats canon's 135mm. If I could afford, I will rightway go for 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and 135mm f2.Yakim.<br> 135mm is definitely on my immediate list, but I have heard romours that it is getting an upgrade as is 35mm f1.4. Will wait for a couple of month for 135mm. Thanks</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_hoelzel1 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 <p>I second primes for the portraits. If your portraits allow you to move around lots I'd go for the prime. I've have the 100-400 IS that doubled as my portait lens in the 100-200mm range and now I've add both the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 (which doubles for portaits) I've notice improvement in picture quality compared to the zoom. Granted the 100-400 isn't as sharp as the 70-200 but it comes down to prime vs zoom. The crazy shallow depth of field the primes offers is very useful also.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p> <p dir="ltr">I would not hold my breath for a 135/2 update. Save from adding IS (which would make it a lot more expensive) there's nothing to upgrade. And anyway, making purchase decisions based on fictitious future products is not a good strategy, at least not IMHO.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p> <p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>Yakim wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>For portraits there's really no substitute for a fast aperture.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, and no. Yes, there are some situations in which using f/1.8 for portraits could be very useful. But no, in most portrait situations - especially with the slightly longer focal lengths that the f/4 zoom would provide - you often would want to shoot at a somewhat smaller aperture such as f/4. The depth of field is very narrow on a long lens at f/2 and larger - so small narrow that one eye can be in focus and the other not.</p> <p>Bottom line, the OP really wants both lenses equally. So it seems to me that it comes down to a question not of "which lens is better than the other," but more one of "which will get me the most mileage while I wait to get the other." As I pointed our earlier I use both lenses, but if I had to shoot most subjects with only one or the other I would definitely grab the zoom first - as much as I like using the 85mm prime.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now