I want your 2 cents worth! Which lens/s?

[wookiee]

<p>Hi<br>

I need some advice on how to best spend my money on some new glass.<br>

First a bit of background about me. I have about £1000 to spend. I currently own a Canon 40D and primarily use a Canon 17-55mm IS f2.8 as my standard walk around lens. I also own a Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC lens. This is the lens I wish to replace. I mainly shoot around the city of London where I live and landscapes. I'm starting to experiment with portrait photography as well. Often my subject is my 2 year old daughter playing inside and out. I find the Sigma lens mostly lets me down when trying to photograpgh her on the move as the focus is quite slow (comparing to my Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS).<br>

So from all my research I have come up with the following senarios suited to my needs and within my budget.<br>

1. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM £339 & Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens £516<br>

2. Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM £959<br>

3. Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L Lens £1040<br>

Any advice is much appreciated.<br>

Cheers Shane</p>

[bueh]

<p>I cannot really advise you. I fear that there is no optimal solution.</p>

<p>The L zooms are heavy (especially the f/2.8 versions). So if you are going to carry them around a lot, check out beforehand if you are comfortable with them. And Image Stabilization will not help you if you subject is moving around. But even really fast lenses have their limits...</p>

<p>For indoor portraiture a flash unit with bounce capabilities is the best way to eliminate movement blur. When bounced from a white ceiling, flash light produces a soft, natural light that freezes your subject. The flash's AF assist light also helps AF focusing in poor indoor light. So for this you may mot really need a new lens, but of course any fast prime (<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50/1.4</strong></a>, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc) is a fine portrait lens, although I love to shoot wide and super-wide lenses indoors with flash, as they capture "the environment" beautifully.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>In a nutshell - if your lens holding technique is good such that IS is not hugely important, and you really want the very shallow depth of field the 85mm offers, then that and the 70-200 f4L will be an excellent combination.<br>

From what I can tell, away from theh e  shallow depth of field (that is, shooting at equivalent apertures) there is not a significant quality differences between 85mm and 70-200 range. Now kids move around a lot so unless you will shoot regularly at f1.8, the 70-200mm f2.8 (non-IS) will give the versatility a lot of movement may need.<br>

Maybe I have got lazy in my advancing years, but I would find it hard to go back to a non-IS telephoto zoom, so I would be tempted more by the 70-200f4L IS as the all-rounder. And I think the IS may be useful in the city or when walking and you are not using a tripod. <br>

<br>

One other option is get the 70-200 f4L IS plus the 50mm f1.8 - at £100 it is very good value and will let you experiment with shallow depth of field and see what you like .<br>

By the way, Mifsuds in Devon have on their website a 85mm f1.8 for £250 so is it tempting to get that plus the f4L IS?</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>A few months ago I would have blindly adviced to get the 70-200/4 IS. However since i bought the 100L Macro I use it less and less.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 100 F/2.8L IS Macro is fast (aperture and AF), light, ultra sharp and opens a whole new world (macro). Get a small fast prime to go with it and you're set. (Canon 24/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2 or 50/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4?)</p>

<p>Still, the 70-200/4 IS is great outside and with the high ISO of a 40D also pretty usable inside. (Just to make things difficult... all your options are good.)</p>

<p>Sorry if this didn't help, this is a very personal choice. (Try renting or borrowing before you buy!)</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>#1 all the way, why? First, you have a great short zoom. The 85 1.8 can be used as your portrait lens along with the 70-200 F4. The 70 200 F4 will be used outside. Both great lens'. v/r Buffdr </p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would suggest the 85 mainly because its size and faster aperture. If I am working or really somewhere special I will carry a 70-200 2.8 but for most anything else I use the 85. But if you need more reach and you want something more telephoto you may consider a 55-250 if size/weight is an issue. The 70-200's are great lenses just not very practical for casual use but its a great lens to own so the 85 + 70-200 non IS is what i would do. Get a cheap monopod to help when you need a slower shutter.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I would go with option 2. I have found IS to be very useful, and though it is expensive in this lens I think it's worth it. If you want a fast short telephoto, add the 50/1.8 for now, upgrade later if you need to. That's my tuppence.</p>

[pturton]

<p>To chase my 13 grandchildren (aged 1.5 to 23 years) I usually pick my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS over my 85 f/1.8 for both indoors or out because of the zoom's versatility. I find the 70-200 a great lens for everyday casual use when I do not know what subjects await me. The 70-200 f/2.8 offers quick AF, great bokeh and it is sharp wide open. It also works well with the EF 1.4 Mk II TC.</p>

<p>If your 17-55 f/2.8 is fast enough in the most of your shooting situations, the 70-200 f/2.8L should also be satisfactory. Paired with your 17-55 f/2.8, you will have most things covered.</p>

<p>I do use my 85 f/1.8 when I know that the light will require an f/2 lens or when I need to be somewhat descreet with my shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>I also own a Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is the zoom length you have preferred, have you checked out/considered the: <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx"> Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens.</a><br>

It would cost you around £200 new!</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>1. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM £339 & Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens £516</em></p>

<p>+1 (for just the 85mm)<br /> <br /><em>2. Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM £959</em></p>

<p>-1. Way too slow.<br /> <br /><em>3. Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L Lens £1040</em></p>

<p>+1<br /> Depends on your budget, but the 85 1.8 is a stunning lens for portrait use.</p>

[anthony_murray]

<p >From the listed choices, Option #1 appeals best to me, but based on your application, I would actually go with a different approach. </p>

<p >I would get the 70-200 F/4L and a 580EX II speedlite (you didn’t mention if you own a flash). You can combine the 17-55 with bounce flash for your indoor shots and use the 70-200 F/4 outdoors. This is the exact combination I use to capture my two year old running around the place. The 85 F/1.8 will make a great portrait lens, but from experience, the above 17-55/flash combination will work much better for a fast moving two year old in low light than an extra 1.3 stops. You also have the added advantage of zoom flexibility and using a lower ISO. (In addition, you can also use the 70-200 F/4 indoors with flash, but the flash needs to be the dominant light source to avoid camera shake issues).</p>

<p >Getting good results from an on-camera speedlite takes a bit of practice. Not sure if I’m allowed post a link here, but the articles on Neil van Niekerk’s “Tangents” blog helped me a lot. </p>

<p >Also, if you really want to experiment with shallower depth of field, you should have enough left over to pick up the 50 f/1.8 for now. </p>

<p > </p>

[daniel flather]

<p>ef-s 10-22 and the ef 85/1.8.</p>

[rwyphotography]

<p>I have a 6 and 4 year old and I own the 85mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f4 IS. Practically, I end up using the 70-200mm f4 IS a lot more because of the zooming capabilities since they run around and can't hold still. I find that the reach of the 200mm allows me to capture their soccer games and award ceremonies while the zoom allows me to compose and frame much faster. While indoors, I shoot with at ISO of 800-1600 on a Canon Rebel T1i and with Adobe Lightroom's noise reduction, the quality of the picture is good enough for a 12 x 18 in. </p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>If I were faced with that choice today, I would pick the big white lens in the middle of the picture below without a second thought. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens has proved to be one of the most used and abused lenses I have ever owned. It serves so many situations so well, that I would never be without it. I thought it would be a specialty lens when I bought it quite a few years ago. Not so... It has turned out to be the "stand up-do all" lens that never ceases to amaze me. It can also take a salt water bath without harm, and with the hood in place, it has no problem bouncing off of walls, floors, and general stuff for years on end without complaint. It is an optical work of art.</p>

<p>I love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. Does it show? If you add a 1.4x tele extender, it even does a respectable job recording the local lunar eclipse....<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2294832731_d4c4b3481e_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4475471310_4e48c127ec_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Also, DOF is always at a premium with APS-C cameras, and f/2.8 is just worth so much more than f/4 to our creative tool kit. I'd rather have it, than try to convince people that I really don't need it.... This shot of the killer dog was made with a 40D or 50D sporting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L handheld 1/60 sec at 160 mm, f/2.8, ISO 400. If the displayed image is distorted in the forum web view, just save it to your PC, and view it there to see what I intended to show.<br /><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4419099462_09ec1be2ef_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="724" /></p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I love my Canon 70-200 F4. If you dont need a zoom for indoor work, it will do everything you need it to. Plus its lighter, Cheaper, and some even say sharper than the 2.8 (we'll just say equal sharpness). I would recommend the 50 1.8 instead of the 85 due to the price difference. But if you can afford the 85, go ahead!</p>

<p> </p>

[wookiee]

<p>Thanks very much for all your responses. A lot more 2 cents/pence worth than I thought. My next step is to hire the 70-200mm f4 L IS use it with and without the IS to see if I can live with out the IS. I own a Monfrotto 190 tripod so when shooting landscapes IS shouldnt really be an issue. And have a 430 EX Speedlight for indoor use. I think I will find the Canon 70-200 f2.8 too large/heavy for my casual walk around use but I probably should hire that as well to see. If I have money left over I like the suggested idea of adding a macro lens which can be used as a portraiture lens? So the 85mm maybe off the cards right now.<br>

Will let you know my decision.<br>

Cheers<br>

Shane<br>

P.S. the killer dog must eat you out of house and home I'll try the f4/f2.8 on my killer cat</p>