Options
Decisions, decisions (Canon lens choices)
divamum
Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
Shooting on an xsi - no new body in my immediate future (although when I see the low noise and amazing yumminess of full frame shots, my mouth waters!! However, nothing on the horizon since I'm not a pro so can't justify it on those grounds, and I don't have the $ to indulge just because it makes me happy :cry). Low-light (ie performance) and portraits seem to be making up the bulk of my shooting right now, and I tend to shoot at the widest appropriate aperture I can anyway because I prefer the look.
Existing lenses:
Tam 17-50
85 1.8
Own but haven't been using much:
50 1.8
EF 70-210 (the old push-pull one)
EF-s 55-250is
Recently, I spotted a bargain 100 2.0 on Keh; I find with the 85 in performance situations that I could use a little more reach -I've slightly regretted getting the 85 instead of the 100 and wanted to try it so I went ahead and ordered it.
In the meantime, I just became acquainted withi the 200 2.8L prime -a used copy of the Mk 1 would be in my price range if I can find one, and I think it could be a great tele solution for me being lighter, cheaper and less conspicuous than fast zooms.
I have also been eyeing a 50mm 1.4 for some time now, but since I seem to be taking more portraits with the 85mm than either of the 50's I have, I guess I can live with the 1.8 for a little longer if need be, much though I love the ide of the wider aperture.
So here's my dilemma.
Which do I keep - the 85 or the 100? I'll wind up pretty much nil sum $ no matter which way I go, so it's a matter of which will be a better long term lens choice (and they're both good copies). I do like the added reach and compression of the 100, but will I miss that extra 1/3 of a stop in low light? Alternatively, do I keep the 85, send the 100 back, sell off the two telezooms and spend the next few weeks tracking down a Mk1 200 in decent shape instead? Other permutations I've missed?
Too many choices - my brain has completely shut down! Need some perspective... Tx!
Existing lenses:
Tam 17-50
85 1.8
Own but haven't been using much:
50 1.8
EF 70-210 (the old push-pull one)
EF-s 55-250is
Recently, I spotted a bargain 100 2.0 on Keh; I find with the 85 in performance situations that I could use a little more reach -I've slightly regretted getting the 85 instead of the 100 and wanted to try it so I went ahead and ordered it.
In the meantime, I just became acquainted withi the 200 2.8L prime -a used copy of the Mk 1 would be in my price range if I can find one, and I think it could be a great tele solution for me being lighter, cheaper and less conspicuous than fast zooms.
I have also been eyeing a 50mm 1.4 for some time now, but since I seem to be taking more portraits with the 85mm than either of the 50's I have, I guess I can live with the 1.8 for a little longer if need be, much though I love the ide of the wider aperture.
So here's my dilemma.
Which do I keep - the 85 or the 100? I'll wind up pretty much nil sum $ no matter which way I go, so it's a matter of which will be a better long term lens choice (and they're both good copies). I do like the added reach and compression of the 100, but will I miss that extra 1/3 of a stop in low light? Alternatively, do I keep the 85, send the 100 back, sell off the two telezooms and spend the next few weeks tracking down a Mk1 200 in decent shape instead? Other permutations I've missed?
Too many choices - my brain has completely shut down! Need some perspective... Tx!
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
the plan for the 200 L appears pretty sound to me if you dont want a 70-200 2.8 zoom. The sigma is about the same in price.... Its pretty handy...
As for me I just got a 40D...Christmas in June....
www.jonbakerphotography.com
The 85 and 100 are like sibling lenses: They are incredibly similar except for the slight change in focal length. So you would choose one or the other, as you are considering. If you go 100, then you may use the 50 more often.
Perhaps your future plans may affect your decisionmaking more than a preference for one or the other. The missing lens from your list is the 135 f/2L. This is superb! If you are considering this, then you may want to keep the 85 instead. I built to a 35 f/2L, 85 1.8, and 135 f/2L. The 135 gets used the most. I do not use my 50 1.8 and rarely use the 85 (I rather step back with my 135). I also have the 70-200 f/4L IS.
So no wrong answers here. Just plenty of fun ways to spend your money!
That's a good point. I love the 50mm end of my Tammy as well - it is very nearly as sharp as the 50 1.8 and is a better focuser in many situations; I only use the 50 prime when I need the extra light (which is why I'd lurrrve the 1.4, but somehow i seem to be drawn to mid-length teles at the moment. They sure do make for purty portraits!)
That's my logic with the 100 vs 85, actually - it's easier to step back for a portrait than feel too short for a stage. Oh, how I wish I could afford the 135... would be my dream lens at this point but is, alas, out of my price range (you'll note that my choices are all sub-600 lenses and for any additional lens it's going to take building up the penny jar and selling the two telezooms I already have...)
Hadn't seriously considered a TC - how much does the image degrade when using one? Of course, the problem is that I reach for the longer lens(es) when shooting in theaters etc, so since I'd lose a stop, that might kind of defeat the purpose.
Would be more fun if I actually HAD any money to spend, but there we have it!! At least with the 85/100 the most this experiment will ultimately cost me is about $20 in shipping fees which is less than renting one would have been so it's pretty much win/win on that. The longer lenses however..... Oy. Anybody want to sponsor a starving opera singer's photographic addiction?!
The 85 is great. I want the 85 1.2 - I used it in a seminar this week that Canon sponsored.
In your dilemma, I'd send the 100 back. I think that the Canon lenses are far better than the Tamron EXCEPT I have one good Tamron for personal travel - the 28-300 vr; If I had $600 to spend, that would be my first choice. I don't use it for my business but it's a great lens for portraits, architecture and the low light capability is pretty decent.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Appreciate the input!
I think your comment, "... my first tests ... definitely made me appreciate that extra 15mm of reach.", is fairly telling.
There is no absolutely wrong answer in this case but, from the little I know about theatrical lighting, I would always go for the fastest aperture if at all possible. When they switch to a dark and moody lighting theme, you will always wish you had more aperture and higher ISO.
I am hinting that the EF 100mm, f2 USM might be the current best choice in that it yields the longest focal length in the given price range and an aperture 1 full stop faster than the EF 200mm, f2.8L USM.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I didn't know there was a 2.0 - I have the 2.8 Macro version. Learn something new everyday!
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Yup - as Rainbow says, the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 are siblings, with the only significant difference being the focal length. I nearly bought the 100 initially, but I just missed out on a really cheap superbargain and wound up with an available 85 instead. I think I'm currently leaning towards the 100, but just want to try it out in a few more situations before I'm certain. Of course, going with the 100 will probably leave me consdering adding something faster than I have to fill the 50-100 gap, but I guess that's all part of the continuing rolling upgrade....
Have to say - it's kind of nice to have the problem of "too many choices"!