85mm f1.8 or 70-200mm F4 IS

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">My point is very simple. Fast aperture can be closed. Slow lenses can't be opened. That is why - when all other things remain constant - there is no substitute for fast aperture. Sure, you can always use your experience to get around this and make beautiful portraits with a slow lens but that is true for every lens</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<br>

 

<p dir="ltr">But I do agree about the revised question. That is something the OP needs to decide and I don't think any of us can help him with this as it is a very personal decision.</p>

<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

 

[eric_wespestad]

<p>As you have seen, this is very much an "it depends" question. I have (had) both of these lenses in addition to the 135/2. I used the 85/1.8 extensively for a dozen years, and it was very good. After purchasing the 70-200/4 IS I found that I could do without the 85/1.8 most of the time -- and that the number of shots taken at ~85mm with the 70-200/4 IS had a very high "keeper" ratio vs. the prime. I think that is a factor of flexibility and image stabilization. I added the 135/2 before the 70-200/4 IS, and I used that for portraits in preference to the 85/1.8 too.<br>

If I had to recommend one (and because you can afford only one), my experience suggests that the 70-200 f/4 is a terrific choice. It provides excellent results at all focal lengths (very sharp). I would also suggesr the 135/2 as your second lens over the 85/1.8 -- just wait a few years.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Eric, thanks...your suggestion makes sense.</p>