85/1.8 vs 70-200/4 L vs 75-300 IS Help!

[pablo_s]

I recently started a thread asking for some concrete advice to

decide between the 70-200/4 L lens and the 75-300 IS. Since I

couldn't decide between the two, I got a new idea: getting a 85/1.8

prime instead.

 

At 85mm, the 85/1.8 gets you the best of both worlds: L-level image

quality and construction, and "IS" via a fast aperture (which gives

you nice bokeh and action-stopping possibilities as well); it's also

probably the focal length that I'll be using the most. On the other

hand, not having anything longer than 85mm (135mm on my DRebel)

seems rather limiting. I might add the non-IS version of the 75-300

or, stretching my budget a bit, a 100-300.

 

My main current interests are: cityscapes, candid and enviromental -

not studio- portraits, and travel photography. I also have the EF-S

18-55 and the 50/1.8.

 

Any ideas? All things considered, is the 85/1.8 together with the 75-

300 (NO IS) a better buy than the 75-300 IS? Is the 85/1.8 together

with the 100-300 a better buy than the 70-200/4 L?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Pablo

[fallon]

For what it's worth the 85/1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. I like it so much that I'm planning on getting the 200/2.8L as opposed to the 70-200 zooms. The really nice thing besides the speed and image quality is that it is fairly small and light making it easy to carry not the mention the fact that it's not too hard on the wallet either.

 

Matt

[the_macman]

I do as well what you call "environmental portraits" if I understand well what you mean

(outside portraiture in candid-like situation, working with whichever light is available) and

for that I rely entirely on my 70-200/4.

 

First off, figure out based on your previous experience whether you really need the fast

aperture. As I understand you work mostly outside and for that the f/4 might be enough.

At least I never found it too slow outside in plain light. Do you shoot evenings? It's a

fantastic lens and the added convenience of zooming in portraiture (70-120 or so) really

works for me. BTW, you get great background blur for portaiture with the 70-200/4 wide

open.. I don't get why the review on photo.net says that the 2.8 is necessary for that.

 

That's about all I can say, it's a contribution from a high-volume shooter who owns and

loves the 70-200 and never needed a faster lens outside. If you do evenings and such, you

might... but as I said you can calculate that from your existing lenses.

[the_macman]

Forget the combo. If you have an eye for quality I believe you won't be able to stand the

results from the 75-300 in comparison with the others, whether you also shoot with the

85 or the 70-200. Therefore, that lens is probably going to collect dust.

[jon_austin]

I'd recommend either the 70-200 f/4L OR 135mm + 200mm f/2.8 primes.

[jay_.]

Pablo from your mention of owning the 18-55 I will assume (barring that you have done a Bob Atkins hacksaw job on it)that you are using a Digital Rebel. In that case I would suggest that for your purpose you not be overly concerned with the optimum in lens performance because you aren't going to see the difference with digital. Plus, lenses like the 75-300IS which suffer mostly in the outer zones, will be enhanced by the DRebel's 1.6x crop factor which eliminates much of those outer zones.

 

Do recognize that the 28-135IS which is an outstanding lens by comparison to other consumer zooms, becomes effectively a 216mm lens at the long end on a DRebel which for your stated purposes should be more than enough reach, and a $50 Kenko 1.5xAF will get it out to an effective 324 with full IS function, for those rare occasions when you want that much magnification.

[the_macman]

135L might be out of budget if I look at the thing he is considering. The 135 SF seems to

be a great deal for the price tag. It's got a good score on photodo, at least. However

because of the crop factor, 135 is often unconforable.

 

There's also the EF 100, which is a great lens... but when you're that close to 85 and

decided to stick with prime, better for the super high scorer 85.

[digitmstr]

The 85mm is a great lens! I love mine: it's very sharp, good contrast and very fast AF. It's pleasantly "warm". For citiscapes however, you will do better with a zoom (and the 70-200 f/4L is the one to get for your budget). The reason being is that you won't be able to move at will to frame the shots to your liking. Professional photographers who do the same type of shoots often can gain access to restricted areas to get the angle/view they seek, for instance.

 

You already have the 50mm f/1.8 for candids so, I would suggest the 70-200 f/4L. Its optics are far superior to the other zooms you mentioned :)

[pablo_s]

Thanks for the replies.

 

The 135 on my DRebel would be too long for my purposes (216mm equivalent). I've had the 28-135 before and yes, it's a great all-around lens, but not a great portrait lens and it also has some distortion for use with cityscapes. I agree that the 85/1.8 is too limiting for cityscapes and not convenient for travel either. But what about the 85/1.8 + 100-300? Granted, the 100-300 is not in the same league as an L-lens, but many people consider it a step above the 75-300 (by the way, the 100-300 has a lousy rating in photodo, but a very decent one in photozone.de).

 

Macman, one of the reasons why I thought the 85/1.8 may be better for portraits is that it's much less noticeable than the 70/200. Don't your subjects feel a bit intimidated by the lens? I should add that my hand-holding technique isn't stellar so I feel secure shooting at ~85 only at 1/125 or faster, so in my case the 2+ stops advantage of the 85/1.8 may matter in fairly decent light. I appreciate your input since you're actually using the lens in much the same way I'd be using it.

 

I'm now leaning towards the 70-200/4 but I'm still liking the 85/1.8 + 100-300 combo.

 

Pablo

[pablo_s]

By the way, I don't do much evening portraits, but I like shooting in some indoor settings such as markets and cafes. The 70-200/4 would probably be too slow for that.

 

Pablo

[jay_.]

<<I've had the 28-135 before and yes, it's a great all-around lens, but not a great portrait lens and it also has some distortion for use with cityscapes.>>

 

The 18-55 and 28-135 would give you an equivalent range of about 28-200mm with good overlap and IS at all but the widest focal lengths. And the 50/1.8 would give you the equivalent of an 80/1.8, which is classic portrait length. As to the distortion in cityscapes the 28-135 has quite low distortion as wide-range comsumer zooms go, much of it will be cropped out by the DRebel's small view, and the residual--if in fact there is any--according to my local lab, is easily straightened in Phonyshop. You evidently did not have the 28-135 along with a DSLR. However it seems like you want affirmation to go out and buy some other lenses that you are lusting for, so perhaps that's what you should do. You can always sell them when you realize they are less suited to your stated use.

[pablo_s]

Jay, you're mistaken. I've had the 28-135 with the D30 and I've had some concrete distorsion problems with some highly geometrical compositions. This is not my main concern though, since as you say it can be fixed in PS. I doubt very much using a $50 teleextender with the 28-135 will give good results even for the web, and I'd like to have some longer reach for the times when I need it. Besides, I find the 50/1.8 a bit short for some types of portraits, so I'm looking for a lens with good portrait capabilities at ~135mm (35mm equiv). Finally, I'd rather spend my money on lenses not overlapping too much with the range I already have covered.

 

I'm not looking for confirmation but for advice (as you see, I'm debating between at least 3 different possibilities), but I've done my homework and already have an idea of what I want/need. The 28-135 is definitely a great lens but not what I'm looking for.

 

I do agree that I can always sell whatever get if I'm not happy with it.

 

Pablo.

[gary_ferguson1]

If you're really picky and evaluate the 28-135 IS against a prime in an artificial test then yes, it won't be as good. But in real world usage it's a fine lens, especially if you stop down and let IS take the strain, and don't compose with critical detail out towards the corners.

 

Here's the evidence.

 

First a full frame of the sports pages from a Sunday newspaper, the highlighted red square is the crop we'll look at next. The camera in all shots is a 1Ds.<div></div>

[gary_ferguson1]

Here's the 28-135 IS at f5.6.<div></div>

[gary_ferguson1]

Here's the 135mm 2.0L, also at f5.6.<div></div>

[gary_ferguson1]

I'm sure you'd agree the prime looks better. But I don't photograph newspapers. So here's the 28-135mm on a family holiday to Dineyland. First the full frame,<div></div>

[gary_ferguson1]

And here's a 100% crop,<div></div>

[gary_ferguson1]

Now I don't know about you, but in the real world the 28-135 IS is giving me pretty much all the resolution I could ask for. Especially as it comes in a handy little package that's ideal for wedging in a backpack along with all the other family paraphenalia! Sure, I wouldn't be without my L primes either, but let's keep a sense of perspective. They're good, but most times the 28-135 IS will be good enough.

[pablo_s]

Gary, thanks for the input! I don't doubt the resolution of the 28-135 is pretty good. It's just not the focal lengths I'm looking for, plus not a great portrait lens. On the other hand it's the best for travel. I wish I could have it in addition to other lenses, but unfortunately that's not something I can afford right now. Do you have any thoughts on the other lenses I'm considering? Thanks, Pablo.

[gary_ferguson1]

Yes, get the longest long you need, not the longest lens you can lift. Unless words like "sports" or "wildlife" start appearing in your list of photographic subjects then you have very little need of any lens with the number "300" in its specifications.

 

Looking at what you shoot and your current lenses, an additional 24mm prime and an 85mm prime would leave you better equipped than about nine tenths of the greatest photographers that have ever lived!

[alexdi]

Amazing. Didn't quite realize how much better the 135mm price was. The resolution gain is impressive, but far more than that, the CONTRAST!

 

Gary:

 

The girl's face at 100% has a number of sharpening artifacts. I've never been a fan of that of that portion of Photokit sharpener, and your picture illustrates why.

 

DI

[ted_reyes]

Based on my use of the 100-300 4.5-5.6, 85 1.8 and 70-200L f2.8, I would strongly suggest the 85 and 70-200 f4 or f2.8. The 100-300 was fine on my Elan 2 but as soon as I went to the 70-200L and a 10D, I became very disappointed with results from 100-300 on the 10D. Images were not as sharp and just lacked that"look." Of course there is about a $750 difference. My main comparison is taking youth soccer pictures. The 85 delivers great images but one must zoom with their feet.

[markci]

Anybody who buys Jay's crap about not seeing the difference in lens quality with digital should take a look at Gary's comparison.

[robin_sibson1]

Fascinating comparison, Gary, thanks very much. For shooting on film, I use the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2L, and the results that they produce are certainly a step beyond those from consumer zooms. Incidentally, 135/2L+1.4xExtender (189/2.8) is a very good combination. I agree with other posters that you might quickly become dissatisfied with any version of the 75~300 by comparison with the 85/1.8, and with your present 50/1.8. My son Isaac has the 70~200/4L and it is a really excellent lens, and works well with the 1.4x Extender. I have a 100~300/4.5~5.6USM, bought long ago. It is not a bad lens, arguably the best of the non-L ?~300 zooms, but I never use it now because I have a 100~400L to cover the long end.

[gary_ferguson1]

"The girl's face at 100% has a number of sharpening artifacts"

 

You're absolutely right. Just for the record none of the newspaper shots have any sharpening applied, but the photograph of my daughter had the dial turned up high, I've just seen it on another monitor and it's far too high! Still, aim off for that and the point still stands, a lens which underperforms in an abstract evaluation can still deliver all the resolution that's needed for practical, real world applications.