35mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8 - what would you do?

[henrik_lauridsen]

I find myself in a bit of a lens dilemma. My current system consists of the following: <br><br>

 

<ul>Canon EOS 400D/XTi <br>

Canon EOS 600 film<br>

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8<br>

Canon 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 USM II<br>

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8<br>

Yashica 135mm f/2.8 (used with m42 adapter)<br></ul>

<br>

I mainly like shooting candic portraits, pictures of my niece and nephew, as well as nature closeups (leaves,

flowers etc).

<br>

On my limited photo budget, I have enough to buy either the Canon 35mm f/2 or the 85mm f/1.8, and I can't decide

which to get first. The 35mm would give me a "normal lens" on the 400D, which is nice, but I have the same focal

length covered with the Tamron. On the other hand, I will get a lens which is one stop faster. The 85mm will be a

short telephoto (eq, 135mm) on the 400D, covering a focal length that I do not have (well, covered by the 55-200,

but that one sucks). On top of that it is a fast lens, with excellent reviews.

<br><br>

I am leaning towards the 85mm, also because it sounds like it is a better quality lens than the 35mm f/2.

<br><br>

What would you do?

[wgpinc]

Henrik, You don't need any more lenses. Like Suze Orman says 'Denied!' If you must have another lens get the 85mm 1.8. You could do professional grade work on portrait or event photography with just the Tamron 17-50mm and the 85mm. So get it, put away your other lenses so they don't get in your way, and take lots of pictures. The more you shoot the more you learn and the better your pictures will get. Good luck!

[tdigi]

Neither, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket consider a Flash ( rebates on them right now )

[sattler123]

I think that 85 will be too long for candids and portraits - on the other hand you have the 35mm length covered already - it makes no sense to invest in that lens for the one stop. Why not get the very good 70-300 IS Canon lens and sell you 55-200! That would make much more sense and will allow you to do some wildlife shooting as well. Optically that lens is very good and the IS is a life saver!

[g dan mitchell]

Unless there is something about the current lenses that prevents you from getting these photographs, and something about

the proposed new lenses that will enable you to get these otherwise-impossible shots...

 

... I'm not sure I see why you would buy either right now.

 

Dan

[arie_vandervelden1]

You don't need the 35 mm - you have the Tamron for that.

 

Consider Tamron 90/2.8 macro. I believe the $90 rebate is still on.

[PuppyDigs]

I bought both the EF 35 2 and 85 1.8 USM. Both are great optics but I use the 35 2.0 much more on both crop and FF

bodies. My 85 1.8 gets used for rare portrait sessions and isn't a very good general use lens.

[anders_carlsson]

How about "replacing" the 55-200 with a 85/1.8 and some macro extension tubes? I would seriously look at a better telephoto zoom however. Indeed, Canon's 70-300 with IS (non-DO) comes to mind. You'll probably only need the 35/2 if you find your Tamron standard zoom too big to haul around.

[jim_larson1]

I have the opposite opinion than Puppy.

 

I use the 85 FAR more than the 35. Why? While both lenses are two stops faster than my zooms. . .I tend to need the higher speed more often on the telephoto than the wide. But it depends on the type of shooting you do.

 

YMMV.

[john clark]

The 85/1.8 is a fine lens but personally I find it a difficult lens to work with wide-open, due to the very shallow DOF. So, maybe if I were in your shoes I'd look to the 35, but that's playing to the weaknesses of my camera (which is crop-format and therefore favours wider lenses, the 35 becoming ostensibly a 50/2...)

[anthony_hicks]

I use both of these lenses. Performance wise, I find the 35/2 to be good, but not outstanding. The 85/1.8 is different class - it is bitingly sharp, it focuses quickly and accurately on my 450D and 300X, and I can thoroughly recommend it. I find it perfect for candid portraits, both indoors and outdoors. As John says, you just need to watch the shallow DOF when using it wide open.

[henrik_lauridsen]

Thank you for the answers. First of all, I completely forgot to mention that I know that I do not "need" either of the lenses, but they would be nice to have. Secondly, I forgot to mention that I like to shoot with a shallow DOF, and am a big fan of bokeh. That was what led me to consider the 85mm in the first place. The 70-300 IS is also on my wish list (that or the 70-200mm f/4), but I really like using fast primes, composing the shots with my feet instead of a zoom.

On flashes - I like shooting with available light, and am generally not a fan of using a flash. I know that a flash will eventually be added to my system, but right now I do not miss it.

[lee_shively]

I have both of these lenses. Both are excellent but, like a previous poster noted, I use the 35/2 more than the 85/1.8. That has more to do with my preferences than the quality of the lens. The 35/2 is more useful to me and I can't really find any fault with its performance.

 

Is USM important to you? The 35/2 doesn't have it. AF speed? The 35/2 is noiser (but still pretty quiet) but both focus pretty fast. Maximum aperture? No practical difference between the two lenses. Subject matter? The 85/1.8 is a great people lens while the 35/2 is general purpose.

 

And it doesn't matter if someone thinks you don't need a new lens as long as you find the lens you want to be useful.

[tomwatt]

If you really need to get another lens, it seems to me (since you have the field pretty well covered already) that it would be time to consider solving your "sucks" issue... either by shooting with that lens until it proves itself more capable than you considered or by trading up for something like a 70-200 (maybe IS?). Because otherwise, I see a small wagon attached to your camera bag following along with all your photo gear.

[kin_lau]

I also have both the 35/2 and 85/1.8 along with a Sigma 18-50/2.8. The 35/2 gets the least use because the 18-50/2.8 (similar to your 17-50/2.8) covers the same range, is more flexible at the cost of only 1 stop.

 

Build-wise, the 85/1.8 is _much_ nicer and works very nicely as a candid lens.

 

I broke my 35/2 and replaced it with the Sigma 30/1.4. You might want to consider that instead of the 35/2.

[nrb]

Tamron 18-50/2,8 is the only small frame lens in your bag. If I were you I'd invest in full frame lenses that cover these focals and sell the Tamron. That said my most recent acquisition was the Canon 35/2. Still in the mail...