Recommend a good addition to 28mm and 85mm?

<p>Good evening, everyone. <br />I currently own a Canon 5D, a kit zoom (18-55mm, which I haven't used in years), a 28mm 1.8 Canon, and an 85mm 1.8 Canon lens. <br>

I am looking for a good addition to my lenses. I do mostly portraits (outdoors) and landscape, when traveling. But my daughter is starting school, so I foresee the need for some event work in the near future. <br>

The most logical choice to me seems to be some kind of telephoto lens. 100mm didn't seem like a worthy improvement over 85mm, in terms of reach. Given that I by far prefer primes to zooms, my next choice was 135mm 2.8 and I even ordered one. But then re-read reviews online, chickened out, and cancelled my order. <br>

I also considered 70-200, due to its versatility, but I really can only afford an f/4 no IS one at this point ($600 is about my budget, at most, would prefer to get something for $300-400), and a lot of friends said that hand-holding at 200mm without IS is not a good idea. <br>

So, I seek some advice. Should I just keep saving and waiting, and get something really good down the road, like a 135 1.8? That sounds like a good idea (except that I'm impatient), but it may take me easily another year or even more to double my budget for a lens. But then the question of what do I do when I have to shoot a school play or something like that remains open... <br>

So, I'm really hoping you could either <br>

1) talk me back into buying 135mm 2.8<br>

2) talk me into buying 70-200mm f/4 no IS<br>

3) suggest a lens I overlooked? Maybe a Sigma or a Tamron? <br>

Really appreciate your input! </p>

<p>If you shoot in fairly good light, the 70-200 non-IS is a great lens for the money. Given your budget, that is what I would buy.</p>

<p>What about the 200 f2.8 prime? A very good completely overlooked lens, probably because the 70-200's are so good. </p>

<p>Have you considered a used Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM? It is a sharp portrait lens.</p>

<p>I'd probably stick a 50mm in there. To me a good working kit is 28-50-85mm. I'm using zooms more these days but I feel like I could shoot most anything I need with those three lenses. Good luck!</p>

For most event and indoor work the IS does notnhelp a lot so the 70-200 is probably the way to go. I personally have

two 70-200 lenses ( the F2.8 non IS and the F4IS) and both are great. For versatility the 70-200 s are hard to beat so

this is what I would chose. I have and like the 100 F2.8 LIS but the 70-200 gives you more options

<p>28mm and 80mm are nicely spaced, 135mm or 200mm or 50mm would be good additions<br /> What did you read that was bad about 135mm f/2? There is also a f/2.8 soft focus version, but the f/2 is supposed to be great.<br /> Normally you want primes with focal length in multiples of 2 to make a difference, so 28,56,112 that kind of a lineup. 70-200mm would probably get too heavy to hold, i would say 135mm f/2 or 200mm f/2.8<br /> and a 200mm or 100mm macro lens would be a great fun lens when the sky and light are not best for regular photos, focusing on the small flowers or small details can be quite fun to explore. Either of the macro lenses can be used for portraits too.<br /> <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona08/images/2008-03-16-supers-4660.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>In your budget range I would look at the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 (best budget lens I have ever used). I would also suggest the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 over the Canon 70-200 F4 they are about the same price. The main benifit is you can put a 1.4 extension tube on the Sigma and get a 280 MM F4 addition. However, the lens you seem to be missing is the obvious 50 1.8 or 50 1.4. I use the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.2L which I wish to get rid of and replace with the 85 1.8 because it is just way too heavy to carry in camera bag. If you ever upgrade your camera to the 5D Mark II you will be quite happy with those three primes for video purposes as well. </p>

<p>Jesse - thank you! I had my heart set on 70-200 f/4 non-IS for a while! I think 1 good zoom is a good addition to a collection of primes, as much as I love the latter.<br>

Scott - I actually looked at 200 2.8 before I looked at 70-200, problem is, it's a little over my max. budget right now, and again, I've heard concerns that handholding at 200 without IS is difficult... Other than that, it is one of the more affordable L-grades, and I have been dying to get my hands on one of those! <br>

Peter - I did consider 100mm, but like I said, I think it's just too close to 85 to go for it at this point. I was choosing between the 100mm and the 85mm when I bought 85mm, and got a feeling that those lenses were very comparable and just not different enough to own both (unless you have a lot of extra cash, in which case why not, they are both great lenses).<br>

Gil - I actually had and sold my 50 1.8 after I got my 85mm because I was simply never reaching for it with 85mm around. I do hope to fill that gap eventually by buying a 50 1.4, but I keep hearing that 1.4 is a) old and ought to be replaced by Canon soon and b) does not have a true USM motor, so I'm kinda waiting to see what happens with that lens, since I don't seem to need it desperately.<br>

Philip - yay! one more vote for 70-200. May I ask why you happen to have both 2.8 and 4 version? Do you use them differently, or was it just the matter of buying f/4 first, and then upgrading to 2.8?<br>

Robert - no, no, 138 f/2 is, alas, outside my budget. I ordered and then cancelled the 2.8 soft focus version. Didn't read anything bad about the f/2, and wish I could afford it! 200mm 2.8 is also a bit outside my budget. So, I guess, your advice would be to wait and save?<br>

M.P. - Thanks! I really never looked at that Tamron, will now! As for Sigma - hmm... I looked at that one, and it was $1400, vs. the $674 for Canon f/4 non-IS, so that was more than twice the price, which is why I never seriously considered it. But now that I did the search on Amazon, I see that there's also another version for $748! I'm not that familiar with Sigma designation, but it seems that the CHEAPER version is newer (at least, that's what II tends to mean in Canon)? But no stabilization? Is that what explains the reduction in price? Cause at $748, it's definitely an interesting choice, even if it's slightly over my budget. <br>

Oh, and I apologize - was writing rather late at night - I already do have 5D Mark II.</p>

<p>Natalya,</p>

<p>Have you thought of secondhand? That easily outs the 200 f2.8 in reach.</p>

<p>Philip,<br>

nm! I just read your explanation for why you own both a 2.8 and a 4 in a different thread! :-)</p>

<p>It's probably a good idea that you haven't tried to use your 18-55mm kit lens on your 5D.</p>

<p>What I did when I got a 5D was to get the EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens for it.</p>

<p>As it is, you've only got a modest wide angle and a short telephoto. Telephoto is not where my thoughts wonder as I contemplate a lens assemblage of only a 28mm and an 85mm lens. If primes are the be-all here, then how about an EF 50mm f/1.4 or even a short 50mm macro?</p>

<p>There is a world in between in the so-called 'normal' range, and I'd be lost without my 24-105, as would many others.</p>

 

<p>In my twenty-odd years of kid event photography, I've found 135mm lenses to be too short (for full frame). You end up having go down to the stage or courtside; and if you're going to do that, you might as well use your 85mm. The 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM would of course be ideal, but the last time I looked longingly at that lens, it was at least a grand over your budget. The only lens I personally have used, that might do the job in your budget, is a good used or refurbished 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. This lens gives very good IQ and IS for the money. At high iso you can get good shots of performances. For sports.... not so much. If the subject is moving quickly, there's no substitute for a big aperture.</p>

<p>Scott - you know, I kind of did overlook used lenses, mostly because it seems that lenses do not depreciate much, and I figured, if I'm going to (eventually) shell out $1600 for a lens, I might just as well buy a new one, rather than pay $1400 for a used one. But I should definitely look at used 200mm, since it's original price is already pretty close to my budget, a used one may end up exactly what I need.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg - as I mentioned before, I did own a 50mm lens, and ended up selling it when I got my 85mm and my FF. I just never used it! 85mm has a much better IQ, it has USM, it has better color and contrast... Plus, I know have a suspicion that my 50mm had some backfocus issues that I failed to diagnose because I was being repeatedly told to "blame the photographer, not the lens", and so I did... Since 50 and 85 are pretty close together, I just really didn't see justification for keeping both, since I'm not a pro and don't do a lot of commercial shoots. For my personal and occasional commercial needs, 85 seemed to suffice. And in fact, with FF, I often even can use 85mm at home, so between 28 and 85, I have in-door portraits well covered, and 85 is perfect for most portraits outdoors. So, as far as I see it, I only miss a good telephoto to take pictures of arcitectural detail and school events.<br />No doubt, I WOULD like to eventually have 50mm, but not sure it should be my next purchase. Maybe the one after. Oh, as for 24-105, I'm not sure it should be my next move either, while I appreciate what you say about the difference in the normal range (and I did want 35mm rather than 28, too), this lens would, in essence, overlap with both lenses I already have. While it will fill in the gap in between them, it won't extend my range, and that is what I'm seeking to accomplish right now. </p>

<p>Dr. Path - thank you for confirming my fears! That was one of the reasons why I cancelled my order of 135mm 2.8 - I just wasn't sure it was a sufficient telephoto improvement over 85mm, on a FF. So, I really should eliminate 135 as an option and look at 200 or 70-200 (or 70-300, as you suggested).</p>

<p>The logical choice is a 50/1.4, but If you feel you need something longer, the 135/2 would be my choice in a heartbeat (though def. not the 135/2.8 -- might as well get a 70-200/2.8). At that point, with that selection, picking up a cheap newer rebel is an easy way to extend the reach of your primes further.</p>

<p>I use a 28/1.8 a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.8 on my 5s, and am pretty satisfied wth the coverage they give, though my next prime will be a 135/2 for it's true portraiture capabilities. (In fairness, I also use the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 for portraits -- but like my primes output more.) </p>

Personally I've never used the 135/2.8 SF.

 

However "the digital picture" review is pretty good and comparing his reviews to the equipment I do own has me

thinking that he's always spot on.

 

I'd think you'll be happy with it.

<p>If the only thing holding you back from the 70-200 f/4 IS is that you'll have to wait another year to afford it, and the possibility may arise during that year for you to actually need such a lens (seemingly infrequently), perhaps save for the lens you want, and rent one for the event should it happen. That will give you two benefits: 1) you can save for the lens you really want, rather than settling for something in your budget; and 2) if you rent, you can try out that very lens first. If the IS turns out to be useless for your shooting, then you can buy the non-IS version shortly after, since you'll already have the money set aside, and perhaps have already saved enough in the meantime for some other accessory you may need.</p>

<p><strong>Marcus Ian</strong> - why is 50 such a logical choice, really? I'm a little puzzled, because like I already explained, I used to own one, and sold it. Sure, in a perfect world, I'd have every step of the range covered - fisheye, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, etc. But in this less than perfect world, for someone with rather modest photographic needs and aspirations, isn't having 50 AND 85, as well as 85 AND 100 rather redundant? In retrospect, maybe going 28-50-100 would have been smarter, but I'm so in love with my 85mm, I can't really say I regret it, especially since 100 is more expensive than 85, but the bang-for-the-buck is about the same.<br>

135 f/2 would be my choice in a heartbeat too, except for the price tag. And saying that instead of buying 135 f/2.8, I "might as well buy 70-200" certainly makes sense aperture-wise, but is utterly unrealistic in every other department: it's apples to oranges, AND 70-200 2.8 is about $1200 more than the 135 2.8! That's hardly "might as well" in my book. <br>

As for a cheaper Rebel (I imagine, to take advantage of crop-factor to get more of a zoom) - I actually own one already. But I'm not sure I'd take a Rebel over 5DII to an event in a large and probably not too well lit auditorium... What I'd gain in range by crop-factor, I'll lose in ISO. At that point, it's easier to take picture with the longest zoom I have on 5DII and then crop them later, than to get cropped noisy pictures from my 450D. At least, that's my thinking...</p>

<p>Natalya, there's no question that I would recommend the 70-200/4 L <em>IS </em>above all other EF lenses for your intended applications. I use the lens almost exclusively for outdoor portraiture on my full frame and crop bodies. I also used to use the 24-105 for that application, but found the IQ of the longer zoom to be much better at the focal lengths at which I was primarily shooting (namely, 70mm on). Consequently, the 70-200 is my only remaining EF zoom. The lens is virtually the optical peer of the 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L (both of which I also have), its IS system buys you up to four stops for static or slow moving subjects, and it's half the weight of the 70-200/2.8 L's.</p>

<p>I picked up my copy used, but in like new condition, for only $1000. It's one of a very few lenses I have owned (and I have owned all too many) that I have found to be indispensible.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4181313">Matthijs Claessen</a> - I'll be sure to re-read that review (I'm fairly sure I already read it, but I've read so many) before I make my mind up one way or the other!<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5990272">Jay DeSimone</a> - Renting is an option, but it has a number of obvious drawbacks, too. Signature confirmation delivery is a pain when noone is home during the day. And I can just never talk myself into spending $100 just to try a lens for a week. At this point, $100 is about a quarter of my budget. It will be particularly a pity if I do decide to buy the lens that I try. Then I just upped the price by $100 just because I was indecisive. </p>

 

<p>Thanks, Mark! I'm looking into used ones right now, too, and it seems that $1000 is still about as good a deal as I can find. I didn't realize IS could make such a big difference! I thought it would be a stop or two at most... <br>

Too bad there's no chance you'd want to sell yours at a bargain price any time soon! :-)</p>

<p>Natalya, I would have thought that an 85mm should be fine for most kiddie snaps at school. IMHO, you have almost the perfect combination of lenses to cover you for 95% of most situations in everyday shooting. Obviously if you want to shoot macro or birds, then you need the specialised lenes, but two good primes like you have (although I prefer the 35mm to the 28mm) is ideal. If anything, a fast 50mm might be useful. </p>

<p>Natalya you should be able to handhold the 200 f2.8 without the need for IS. For years I shot with MF lenses like the 300 F2.8 and 400 F2.8 and with only film ISOs. So no IS, no Auto focus and lower ISOs yet handheld was fine (mind you the old 400 F2.8 was a massive beast to handhold). Iregularly shoot the 70-200 F2.8 handheld so the 200 F2.8 will be fine. If you can afford it get the 70-200 F4 IS as it is an amazing lens - the IQ is as good as most primes.</p>