Search
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
Neither! If this is all the glass you will be running, for a bit anyways. You first need a wide/normal zoom and then the telle stuff. 17-55 ($1100) + 85 1.8 ($380) + 70-200 f4 ($600) Total = $2080 The cost of the 85 1.2 is about $1900 by itself. Awesome lense but not nearly as necessary as what I have listed IMHO. Matt -
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
-
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
The 85 1.8 is an amazing portrait and action lens as long as the fixed range suits. 85mm on a crop is a good length for grabbing portraits at a reception because it forces you into a flattering perspective distance. Not always a practical distance but it's not making them look fat. But for major events that happen too fast… -
Re: 70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2
The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is ridiculously sharp, some say sharper than the Canon version and certainly cheaper. Lovedddd that lens. I only 'upgraded' to the 135 2.0 because I like to carry all of my lenses on me and the added weight wasn't worth the zoom. Can't go wrong with either, IMO. Definitely get the 17-55, don't pass go…
8 results