Filling the gap

<p>I have recently changed from a crop body to a 5D. I already owned a 17-40L, 70-200L and 105mm macro. I soon realised that the 70-200 was not giving me enough reach and have now bought the 100-400L IS. Here is the question. I would like to put a lens in my bag that is somewhere between the 40mm and 100mm gap in my range, my first thought is the 85 f1.8 USM which I could pretty much fund by selling the 70-200, any thoughts please, either on that lens or other alternatives?</p>

<p>24-70f2.8, 28-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8... whatever makes you happy really.</p>

<p>Sorry, I do know what lenses are out there but I am just asking if anyone has any particular views or recommendations, budget of about £350 and I shoot a lot of wildlife and scenery.</p>

<p>Are you certain that the 100-400 replaces the 70-200 altogether? I'm just thinking in terms of image quality, speed and size. I always recommend faster primes for the standard and portrait focal lenght. The 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 could be good, although I am not sure you need both a 100/2.8 Macro and 85/1.8. Do you find the 100 Macro inappropriate for portraits or a bit too long for a more useful lens, other than macro subjects?</p>

<p>I have the both the 70-200L f/4 and 85 1.8, and find that the telephoto is more versatile. I feel that it would fill the 40 - 100 focal length gap, and you already have it. The only thing the 85 would do is give you f/1.8 at 85 ( of course). It is not that much smaller than the 70-200, so saving space in your bag is not really going to be a factor.</p>

<p>How important to you is having one lens with a larger aperture? I would say just buy the 85 since it only cost about $350 (in the US). In the UK gear is so expensive you're probably getting into the realm of "real" money.</p>

<p>Maybe try a 50 1.8? It's fast, and cheap and when you find that you don't use it much you will not be out of a lot of cash.</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon85mm/">flickr group</a> with images by the 85 /f1.8</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, thanks for the reply. I think the change to FF has made the 70-200 a bit redundant in terms of what I use the long zoom for, and the Macro is a bit lacking in DOF for much more than macro? Maybe I need to try this out for other things before I jump in and buy!<br>

Thomas, my thoughts for the 85mm are probably to get a fast lens with good bokeh, is the 50mm 1.8 as good? Or would it be too near the 40 end of my wide zoom. Sorry but I'm just trying to bounce my ideas off you all and get my head together a bit lol.</p>

<p>I use the 85/1.8 on a 5D, and love it. I use it mostly for low light candids; it's great sitting around a table.<br /> <br /> <br /> I also have the 70-200/2.8 and the 85 is *much* smaller than it. I haven't used the 70-200/4, but I found these specs at B&H:<br /> <br /> <br /> 70-200/4L: Length 6.8" Diameter 3.0" Weight 1.56 lb<br /> 85/1.8: Length 2.8" Diameter 2.9" Weight 0.93 lb<br /> <br /> <br /> The 85/1.8 is my smallest lens, excepting the tiny LensBaby. It has great bokeh - much better than the 50/1.8, by all accounts I've read. I don't know how useful it will be for wildlife and scenery, but it's great for people.</p>

<p>Depends what you are looking for. If you want a walk-around zoom then how about 24-105/4 IS ($$) or 28-135 IS ($) or Tamron 28-75/2.8 ($). If you want a fast prime then how about Canon 50/1.4 ($) or Sigma 50/1.4 ($$) or Canon 85/1.8 ($).</p>

<p>The 85/1.8 is a fantastic lens and very good value for the money - I like mine.<br /></p>