Canon 85mm f/1.8

[ddt0725]

I am thinking of ordering the 85mm f/1.8 lens within the next few days. I am looking for something really sharp w/ great contrast at a lowto moderateprice. It looks like this may be the only lens that falls into that category. Actually, it is at such a low price, Iwill be able to get a few otheritems as well! [:D]

After I saw Garrett's photo in "Post Your Best Portrait" thread, I thought this may really be a great purchase! Before I was torn between the 135L & 24-105mm but the 85mm appears to come thru at alot less $.

Is anyone using the 85mm f/1.8 on a 7D? Are you happy with the results you're getting?

My current lenses i own are:
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS USM
Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

If I don't order the lens, I will probablyorder a monopod, beauty dish and of coursea shutter release I asked about earlier this week.

All feedback/suggestions greatly appreciated!

Denise

[MrGreenBug]

I am thinking (saving) on buying this prime too and I'll be glad to hear some thought. Thanks Denise for bringing this one up. [:D]

[Sean Setters]

I own the 85mm f/1.8 and have used it on the 7D, but I haven't used it much. I *almost* used it today, but I was too lazy to fish it out of my other camera bag. The 85mm f/1.8 is indeed a fantastic performer. Here's a shot using the 85mm f/1.8 at f/3.5.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4402477571_beb220646d.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/4402477571/)


To be honest, the 85mm f/1.8 was the first lens I ever purchased. At the time, I found the prime to be too long (for indoor use, especially) and decided I wanted the convenience of a zoom. I sold the 85mm prime to help fund the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Fast-forward about 3 years and, after owning three really good zooms and a couple of primes, I began to miss the capabilities (and quick, accurate AF) of the 85mm. In my mind, it's not a great general purpose lens (I personally prefer a zoom that covers a shorter focal length); however, it's a fantastic lens for the price and one of the best economical "second lenses" I can think of.

[ddt0725]

The 85mm f/1.8 is indeed a fantastic performer.







Awesome self-portrait, Sean! [:-*]Shhhh...don't tell them but I think Canon made one heck of a mistake pricing this little gem!

Denise

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Denise,


Yes, I've used my EF 85mm f/1.8 on my 7D - it's a great lens, and I'm very happy with the results! With any prime, you're giving up flexibility - meaning you probably want to know what you're going to use the lens for before you mount it on your camera. I love the 85mm f/1.8 for close-up portraits of my daughter; it also works well for head/torso portraits of an adult. 135mm on FF is the 'classic' head/shoulders portrait length - enough compression to be flattering, but not too much compression; the 85mm lens is the 1.6x equivalent of 135mm. I have been thinking that 135mm on a crop body might be too long for indoor work; in another thread, Jon Ruyle stated that he really likes the 135mm f/2L for tight portraits indoors.


I do think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent value, even more than the 50mm f/1.4 (the 85mm has ring USM, and it's sharper at f/1.8 than the 50mm is at f/1.4). Compared to f/2.8, the narrower DoF with the primes makes a noticeable difference in OOF blur, to me. There's not really much difference between the two primes in terms of DoF for the same framing, though (e.g. 85mm @ f/1.8 and 10 ft distance has the same DoF as 135mm @ f/2 and 15 feet distance, but the 135mm will be a little 'flatter' in terms of telephoto compression).


If you're considering indoor portraits as a use for the 85mm or 135mm lenses, one thing you might consider is setting your 100-400mm to 135mm, just to get an idea of framing at that focal length in places where you'd be shooting. If you like the framing, the 135mm may be the way to go - it's a spectacular lens, would also be great for twilight backyard shots of your dogs, for example. But if 135mm seems long, consider the 85mm f/1.8. Or, just use your 100mm f/2.8L Macro and see if you'd want to go a little longer or a little shorter, or even just stick with the 100mm f/2.8 if you're happy with the OOF blur from that aperture.

[Jayson]

Denise,


I have grown to love the 85mm on my 7D. I was skeptical at first when I bought my 7D and wasn't getting the results I wanted, but I gave myself an assignment of on lens one hour and worked with it a little while. When I was done, I realized that my technique had to change from when I was using it with the rebel and since then have gotten stellar results. I had it out yesterday capturing the kids in the back yard. I will have to post a picture or two when I get the chance. It is very sharp stopped down past f2.2 on my camera and love the DoF it gives. I too own the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm macro(original flavor) and use my 85 mostly to get the kids playing in the back yard. For larger than 3 year olds, I believe it would make a great head and shoulders lens. I have been really looking at the 135mm L for some time, but I think that for my needs it would be a little long. I did the test with my 70-200 set at 135 and shot with it for a day. It was a little tight for everything I tried. I would do as suggested above and try shooting your 100-400 at 135 for a day and see if it works for you.


Jayson

[neuroanatomist]

I am looking for something really sharp w/ great contrast at a lowto moderateprice.


Just re-read this line - that describes the EF 85mm f/1.8 perfectly!


One thing to point out about this lens' IQ, by way of full disclosure (Bryan doesn't mention it in his review, but other reviews like this one ("http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review) touch on it) - the 85mm f/1.8 does have sometimes-noticeable purple/green fringing in high-contrast lighting.


Here's an example outdoor portrait (one that I really like! [:)]).


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/85mm.JPG


These 100% crops show off both the sharpness of this lens even at f/1.8 (you can count her eyelashes!) and the purple/green fringing on thebacklit hair at the back of her neck.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/85mm_2D00_Sharpcrop.jpg /cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/85mm_2D00_CAcrop.jpg


I don't find the fringing to be a major issue - I've taken a lot of shots with this lens, and have only seen it a couple of times, but just so you're aware.


You can also appreciate the very thin DoF with this lens - her eyelashes are in focus, but her lips are not. I was probably ~6 feet away from her, and the DoF at f/1.8 with that subject distance is around 1.5".


--John

[Brendan7]

Denise, the 135 f/2 is meant for a fullframe body, on a 1.6 crop an 85 f/1.8 is a 136mm lens. And you save $700.


I have used this lens but I didn't buy it because I wanted the 85 f/1.2 which will be coming soon.


Overall the 85 f/1.8 is a great "bang for the buck" lens. Highly recommend it for any crop body, on FF a 135 f/2 would be better.


-brendan

[Brendan7]

BTW, it seems you like the 100-400 a lot more than the 300 f/4, at this point selling it might be a good idea. Pocket the $1k. Just my 2¢.

[powers_brent]

Granted this was taken with the 100mm f/2.0, this lens still shows the capability of the 85 f/1.8. They are practically identical. Most people cannot even tell the difference between the lenses if it wasn't for the 100mm/85mm designation. Its an AMAZING lens, even wide open. And it gives TACK SHARP results when stopped down.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3917654495_69f6d92172.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/3917654495/)

[neuroanatomist]

the 135 f/2 is meant for a fullframe body, on a 1.6 crop an 85 f/1.8 is a 136mm lens.


I have used this lens but I didn't buy it because I wanted the 85 f/1.2 which will be coming soon.





Brendan, what does 'meant for a full frame body' mean? Your EF 300mm f/4L IS was designed prior to the existence of dSLRs and crop factors. Does that mean it's meant for full frame, too?


I could as easily say, the 85mm f/1.2L is meant for full frame bodies. On a crop body, you've only got the DoF of an f/1.9 equivalent anyway, so why not get the 85mm f/1.8, and put the balance towards a 5D2?? [6]


If the 135mm focal length (216mm FF) works for the subject and available space, the 135mm f/2L is a great lens on a 1.6x crop body. Have no doubt - there are many people out there using that lens to capture indoor action and portraits on crop bodies.

[Brendan7]

the 135 f/2 is meant for a fullframe body, on a 1.6 crop an 85 f/1.8 is a 136mm lens.


I have used this lens but I didn't buy it because I wanted the 85 f/1.2 which will be coming soon.





Brendan, what does 'meant for a full frame body' mean? Your EF 300mm f/4L IS was designed prior to the existence of dSLRs and crop factors. Does that mean it's meant for full frame, too?


I could as easily say, the 85mm f/1.2L is meant for full frame bodies. On a crop body, you've only got the DoF of an f/1.9 equivalent anyway, so why not get the 85mm f/1.8, and put the balance towards a 5D2?? /emoticons/emotion-14.gif


If the 135mm focal length (216mm FF) works for the subject and available space, the 135mm f/2L is a great lens on a 1.6x crop body. Have no doubt - there are many people out there using that lens to capture indoor action and portraits on crop bodies.






It wasn't designed only for FF bodies, but the 135 f/2 is more of a good idea on a fullframe body because an 85mm lens gives the same focal length and wider apertures at lower costs. My 300 f/4 isn't "designed" for crop bodies, but a plain 300mm lens isn't long enough for birds. On a 1.6 crop it makes more sense. If I ever (ever, ever) move up to 1.3 crop or FF I'd sell my 300 f/4.


I am considering the 85 f/1.2 because while I know it will equal f/1.9, that's a lot faster than the f/2.8 I would get with the 85mm f/1.8. Hey, it's not a final purchase yet. Debating that with the Sigma 180mm macro, 24-105, etc. A 5D3 is on the shortlist of possibilities.


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

the 135 f/2 is more of a good idea on a fullframe body because an 85mm lens gives the same focal length and wider apertures at lower costs


...unless, of course, you really need/want the ~200mm focal length and a wider aperture (at lower cost than, say, the 200mm f/2L). Bryan mentions that the 200mm f/2L is a great portrait lens. On a crop body, the 135mm f/2L is as close as you're going to get to that aperture at that focal length.


I think it all comes down to the focal length you need, then getting the widest aperture you can (or at least, can afford!) at that focal length.

[Keith B]

Both pics above (85 1.8 and 100 2.0) are great shots as far as exposure and composition but I'm not very fond of the bokeh in them. It looks kind of jagged. I guess that is another reason the L lenses are so much more.

[Jarhead5811]

This lens is on my short list.

[Gina Franco]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/85mm.JPG





So so so beautiful, John. Is she yours?


Also, Denise, you will love this lens. I don't use it as often as I use my zooms, but when I'm looking for a way to make creative images and to play with DoF, this is the lens I pull out of the closet. Someone commented on the "jagged" background blur in this photo, but these "jags" look to me like nearby bright reflections--water, maybe?--and I want to mention that I've taken photos with the 85mm with backgrounds that are smooth and creamy. It partly depends on the distance of the background to the subject.


Gina

[ddt0725]

Yes, I've used my EF 85mm f/1.8 on my 7D - it's a great lens, and I'm very happy with the results! With any prime, you're giving up flexibility - meaning you probably want to know what you're going to use the lens for before you mount it on your camera. I love the 85mm f/1.8 for close-up portraits of my daughter; it also works well for head/torso portraits of an adult. 135mm on FF is the 'classic' head/shoulders portrait length - enough compression to be flattering, but not too much compression; the 85mm lens is the 1.6x equivalent of 135mm. I have been thinking that 135mm on a crop body might be too long for indoor work; in another thread, Jon Ruyle stated that he really likes the 135mm f/2L for tight portraits indoors.


I do think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent value, even more than the 50mm f/1.4 (the 85mm has ring USM, and it's sharper at f/1.8 than the 50mm is at f/1.4). Compared to f/2.8, the narrower DoF with the primes makes a noticeable difference in OOF blur, to me. There's not really much difference between the two primes in terms of DoF for the same framing, though (e.g. 85mm @ f/1.8 and 10 ft distance has the same DoF as 135mm @ f/2 and 15 feet distance, but the 135mm will be a little 'flatter' in terms of telephoto compression).


If you're considering indoor portraits as a use for the 85mm or 135mm lenses, one thing you might consider is setting your 100-400mm to 135mm, just to get an idea of framing at that focal length in places where you'd be shooting. If you like the framing, the 135mm may be the way to go - it's a spectacular lens, would also be great for twilight backyard shots of your dogs, for example. But if 135mm seems long, consider the 85mm f/1.8. Or, just use your 100mm f/2.8L Macro and see if you'd want to go a little longer or a little shorter, or even just stick with the 100mm f/2.8 if you're happy with the OOF blur from that aperture.



Hi John,

I would mostly be taking photos of kids and grandkids like the one you posted of your daughter. Canon should pay you an advertising fee because that photo of her really sold me on the lens! She is just precious!

I would love to have the 135mm but yes, I do think it would be to long for indoor use. I will take a few indoor shots with the 100-400mm this weekend @ 135mm as you suggested just to be sure but I think I will move that lens to my long list. With the other things are do want to get right off, the $ saved will enable me to make a few more important purchases.

Thanks for all your insight on comparisons! You are ALWAYS a tremendous help!!

Denise

[ddt0725]

I too own the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm macro(original flavor) and use my 85 mostly to get the kids playing in the back yard. For larger than 3 year olds, I believe it would make a great head and shoulders lens. I have been really looking at the 135mm L for some time, but I think that for my needs it would be a little long. I did the test with my 70-200 set at 135 and shot with it for a day. It was a little tight for everything I tried. I would do as suggested above and try shooting your 100-400 at 135 for a day and see if it works for you.


Jayson



Hi Jayson,

Yes, I will be taking some test shots this weekend of the 100-400mm @ 135mm just to see the results but I think I am sold on the 85. A majority of people are very, very happy with this lens and the photos taken with it that I've seen are breathtaking! Now I'm just wondering if used is a safe way to go to save even a few more extra $. I guess for the low price new maybe it's not worth the risk.

Denise

[ddt0725]

One thing to point out about this lens' IQ, by way of full disclosure (Bryan doesn't mention it in his review, but other reviews like this one ("http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review) touch on it) - the 85mm f/1.8 does have sometimes-noticeable purple/green fringing in high-contrast lighting.



Thank you for pointing this out to me as being a possible "issue" with this lens but I don't find it to be that bad either. There are way too many good things about this lens for that to bother me enough to change my mind about purchasing it.

Thank you so much for posting this and helping me make a fully informative decision!!

Denise

[ddt0725]

BTW, it seems you like the 100-400 a lot more than the 300 f/4, at this point selling it might be a good idea. Pocket the $1k. Just my 2¢.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I think I'll hang on to it for awhile.

[ddt0725]

Granted this was taken with the 100mm f/2.0, this lens still shows the capability of the 85 f/1.8. They are practically identical. Most people cannot even tell the difference between the lenses if it wasn't for the 100mm/85mm designation. Its an AMAZING lens, even wide open. And it gives TACK SHARP results when stopped down.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3917654495_69f6d92172.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/3917654495/)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



This portrait is very beautiful! It shows everything I am looking to get out of my next lens purchase...great color, awesome sharpness and beautiful bokeh! Thanks for posting!

Denise

[ddt0725]

Someone commented on the "jagged" background blur in this photo, but these "jags" look to me like nearby bright reflections--water, maybe?--and I want to mention that I've taken photos with the 85mm with backgrounds that are smooth and creamy. It partly depends on the distance of the background to the subject.


Gina



I fully agree with you Gina. I have seen many beautifully smooth backgrounds online of photos taken with this lens.
Thank you for posting and letting me know how pleased you are with the lens ...I think everyone has sold me on it and the beautiful photos posted here clinched it!

Denise

[Garrett-Grimsley]

Haha I feel honored to be mentioned as a motivation to get this lens.[H]





Here's a couple more examples of mine taken with the 85, and of course you've already seen the most recent ones in the portraits thread. All of these were taken with a 350D w/ the 85 wide open at f/1.8 with the exception of the middle one which was shot at f/3.2.


http://sleekupload.com/uploads/5/img_4105.jpg


http://sleekupload.com/uploads/5/img_00102editedit.jpg


http://sleekupload.com/uploads/5/img_0087edit_1.jpg


(^ It's a real, living monkey in this photo, even though it looks so posed and fake ^)

[ddt0725]

Haha I feel honored to be mentioned as a motivation to get this lens./emoticons/emotion-11.gif



I was beginning to wonder when you were going to chime in since you ARE the reason behind this entire thread! See how we talk about you when you're not around!! [:P]

BTW: Another set of awesome photos with this lens! Thanks for sharing &amp; re-selling me on it! [Y]

Denise

[Brendan7]

Garrett, that second image is great. Great "pose", framing and exposure.

[neuroanatomist]

So so so beautiful, John. Is she yours?


Thanks, Gina! Yes, that's our little one... [:D]

[powers_brent]

This portrait is very beautiful! It shows everything I am looking to get out of my next lens purchase...great color, awesome sharpness and beautiful bokeh! Thanks for posting!

Denise





Thanks Denise! And about the bokeh, well it can be jagged in this case because of the window/fountain that was close behind her, but in other situations its creamy smooth.

[Keith B]

By jagged I mean, if you look at almost all of the specular OOF elements, they are not soft nor round. I see it in all the photos. All shots are said to be shot wide open but I see what appears to be aperture blade shaping. I guess it is just me.

[ddt0725]

By jagged I mean, if you look at almost all of the specular OOF elements, they are not soft nor round. I see it in all the photos. All shots are said to be shot wide open but I see what appears to be aperture blade shaping. I guess it is just me.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



You know, now that I look at each more carefully ...I see what you are referring to and you are right, none of them are soft. Hmmmm...I'm going to have to think about this some more and look at a few more photos.

I think it was Gina that mentioned earlier in the post that she gets a creamy background from this lens. If so, I wonder if she wouldn't mind posting a few.

Does anyone else have a photo or two using this lens that you wouldn't mind posting?

Denise

[powers_brent]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/4400787356_d597980e1f.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/4400787356/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2574/3853626278_2346c97807.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/3853626278/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4371170934_fcc3286068.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/4371170934/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/4023653651_5f0237dfc7.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/4023653651/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/4002304770_44b3f03009.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/brentpowers/4002304770/)





Here are a bunch of examples of my shots with the lens. I do not disagree that if there are OOF specular highlights that they may come out kinda jagged compared to creamy smooth peanut butter. But I still stand by the claim ofthese lenses (the 85 and 100)are amazing!

[crosbyharbison]

I think the 85 is too close to your 50mm, I'd get the 135mm f/2.0.

[ddt0725]

I think the 85 is too close to your 50mm, I'd get the 135mm f/2.0.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



My eye originally was on the 135mm f/2.0 for the longest timebut when I saw photos taken with the 85 and then saw the price of it, it sure sold me as a heck of a deal. I also thought with the 100mm 2.8L, do I really need the 135mm f/2.0 for $1000? It is a tough decision to make. I think I'm back on the fence again! [^o)]

Denise

[ddt0725]

Here are a bunch of examples of my shots with the lens. I do not disagree that if there are OOF specular highlights that they may come out kinda jagged compared to creamy smooth peanut butter. But I still stand by the claim ofthese lenses (the 85 and 100)are amazing!



These are amazing and you have succeeded in reaffirming it is a great lens!

Thanks!!
Denise

[crosbyharbison]

Looking at your kit again your missing something in the 200 range. Might I suggest either


70-200 2.8 is II


or


200 f/2 is

[ddt0725]

Might I suggest either


70-200 2.8 is II


or


200 f/2 is



Yeah, if you can also suggest winning lottery numbers with it or if you have a used one for a low, low, low price that you'll sell me! [;)]

Seriously, yes I know that would be a great area for meto filland they are awesome lensesbut all in that range are way more than I could spend on one lens right now...unless I was getting some financial return on my investment.

Denise

[Gina Franco]

By jagged I mean, if you look at almost all of the specular OOF elements, they are not soft nor round. I see it in all the photos. All shots are said to be shot wide open but I see what appears to be aperture blade shaping. I guess it is just me.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>







You know, now that I look at each more carefully ...I see what you are referring to and you are right, none of them are soft. Hmmmm...I'm going to have to think about this some more and look at a few more photos.

I think it was Gina that mentioned earlier in the post that she gets a creamy background from this lens. If so, I wonder if she wouldn't mind posting a few.

Does anyone else have a photo or two using this lens that you wouldn't mind posting?

Denise
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Hi Denise, Hi Keith,


Just to respond quickly: Keith is right about OOF elements and aperture blades--you're going to see them, just as you do with your 50 1.4, especially stopped down, and if you're hoping for the gorgeous perfectly round highlights you can achieve with some L lenses, well, eh, not so much.


That said, I don't think the quality of the background blur, even with bright OOF elements, is necessarily jagged. Again, I think it depends a great deal on the distance of the background to the subject. Here is a test shot I took when I first bought the lens. I was specifically looking for the shape and quality of the OOF highlights. This is the non-L 85mm at f2:





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3511011680_c2a9d2bef8.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghostword/3511011680/)





Now, this ain't a great picture, but in my (truly) humble opinion, the highlights are lovely. Yes, if you look for them, you see aperture blades, but they're not jagged. And wide open, they would have been softer yet. Compare (and this isn't really fair, I know, but I want to point out that even the stellar 85 L doesn't always achieve soft OOF elements) these highlights to some I found on the very first page of the Flickr "Canon 85mm 1.2 L Open" group:


Oval-shaped and jagged:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/floriopics/4546832549/sizes/l/in/pool-690714@N20/





Are those aperture blades?


http://www.flickr.com/photos/rohicks/4536543172/in/pool-85-12open





Yes, I think so:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/yutsang/4531107931/in/pool-85-12open





Sorry you'll need to copy and paste the links. I don't know how to make links here. Anyway, since you own the 50 1.4, you have some idea of what the 85 1.8 can do in terms of image quality. The 85 1.8 outperforms the 50 1.4 (I own them both and love them both) in image quality wide open, though stopped down, they are similar. I think the 85mm is a tad sharper than the 50mm. There is more dreaminess and less contrast and color to the 50 wide open. I also think the 85 1.8 focuses more quickly and more accurately. On a crop sensor camera--my Rebel XSI--the difference in the angle between the two lenses seemed significant to me. The 50mm was more useful for what I usually shoot. I used to reserve the 85 for creative projects or for taking photos of my God kids in the yard. The 85 is the longest lens I own, and on the Rebel it was my 135 equivalent: great for portraits from across the room, great for isolating subjects from their backgrounds and delighting later in the sharpness of the detail.


Someone made the point that you may not need both the 50mm and the 85mm. That could be true if you don't know what you'd like to shoot with the 85mm. Neither of mine is for sale!


Hope this helps,


Gina


P.S. Since you also have the 100mm 2.8, I'm thinking that the 85mm and the 100mm are going to be very similar in terms of millimeters. That macro lens isn't as fast as the 85mm but it's more versatile in terms of MFD, and I hear the 100mm is also tack sharp. I specifically wanted the 85mm for it's razor thin DoF capabilities. I love its characteristic wide-open look--images at 1.8 are very appealing to me. Remind me again what you really want in your next-lens-purchase?

[ddt0725]

Someone made the point that you may not need both the 50mm and the 85mm. That could be true if you don't know what you'd like to shoot with the 85mm. Neither of mine is for sale!


Hope this helps,


Gina


P.S. Since you also have the 100mm 2.8, I'm thinking that the 85mm and the 100mm are going to be very similar in terms of millimeters. That macro lens isn't as fast at the 85mm but it's more versatile in terms of MFD, and I hear the 100mm is also tack sharp. I specifically wanted the 85mm for it's razor thin DoF capabilities. I love its characteristic wide-open look--images at 1.8 are very appealing to me. Remind me again what you really want in your next-lens-purchase?



Hi Gina,


Thank you once again for posting, you have been extremely helpful and I sincerely appreciate your input! I use my 50mm for actual sit-down portraits when I'm using my softbox or umbrella and it has worked out awesome! The 100mm is a fantastic macro lens of course and I do use it for taking more candd shots of the the dogs in the backyard (when they interrupt my macro shooting) and of the grandkids but sometimes the seems a little more than I'd prefer. I don't want to have to get in the grandkids face at the park and lose the moment I'm trying to capture butdon't want to be too far from them either. The 85mm seems to be a happy middle for those reasons. I alsowant theDOF capabilities and extreme sharpness.

For the most part, my kit serves me very well and I am not in dire need of another lens and if the 85mm costed much more than it does, I would probably pass for now and get a few other things on my short list. I only started photography about 8 months ago and with everything I have aquired in that short amount of time ...another "L" lens can wait a year or two.

Thanks again forALL your help! [:)]

Denise

[HiFiGuy1]

Denise,


You have had lots of input, but after reading the thread, it seems that the obvious choice for all you want to do is the new 70-200 f/2.8L II. It has the 85mm range covered, it has the 135mm range covered. If 85 is slightly tight, you can open up to 70, and obviously the other way if necessary. It is fast, sharp, and has the most advanced IS that money can buy today. If you combine the cost of the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 you're 60% of the way there, and if you account for the fact that it will likely neatly replace a future 200/2.8, you're all the way.


Just my 2c, but I have been struggling with the prime vs. zoom thing, too, and it seems the zooms just keep getting better every year, making their case more compelling than ever before.

[ddt0725]

You have had lots of input, but after reading the thread, it seems that the obvious choice for all you want to do is the new 70-200 f/2.8L II. It has the 85mm range covered, it has the 135mm range covered. If 85 is slightly tight, you can open up to 70, and obviously the other way if necessary. It is fast, sharp, and has the most advanced IS that money can buy today. If you combine the cost of the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 you're 60% of the way there, and if you account for the fact that it will likely neatly replace a future 200/2.8, you're all the way.


Just my 2c, but I have been struggling with the prime vs. zoom thing, too, and it seems the zooms just keep getting better every year, making their case more compelling than ever before.



You definitely have a very good point here! Now you have put in my head to possibly sell my 300mm (since I recently purchased the 100-400mm) and 1.4 extender &amp; also put that money toward the new70-200. I will have to mull that thought over a bit today!

As soon as I think I have it all figured out ...my train of thought takes a detour!

Denise

[HiFiGuy1]

Denise,


Just a thought, but apparently the 1.4 is fairly simpatico with the 70-200 f/2.8L II, so maybe just sell the 300 f/4. That would be even more versatility. That is the combo I am looking at right now.

[ddt0725]

Just a thought, but apparently the 1.4 is fairly simpatico with the 70-200 f/2.8L II, so maybe just sell the 300 f/4.


I was just reading that in Bryan's reveiw ...so yes, I would hang on to the extender if I were to get the 70-200 f/2.8L II. I guess the only thing weighing on my mind right now is the weight of it all for practical reasons. Going from the possibility of the 85mm to the 70-200 f/2.8L II ...big, big change in my mind set here not to mention my pocketbook! The 70-200 weighs more than my 100-400mm and my 300mm...yep, have to think about this!

Denise

[neuroanatomist]

The 70-200 weighs more than my 100-400mm


I wouldn't worry about that at all. The 70-200mm II is only 4 oz heavier than the 100-400mm. But, with the 100-400mm extended to its full length, the 70-200mm is ~3" shorter. From my experience, the 70-200mm actually handles a little easier and is a little better-balanced than the extended 100-400mm, so I doubt you'll notice the extra 4 oz.


In his review of the EF 85mm f/1.8, Bryan states, "I didn't find myself using the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens very much after getting theCanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens." Technically, that may be the case - for 'around the yard' shots, the 70-200 II is an excellent and very versatile lens. But then again, I have never left the 85mm on my camera. When I want to take portrait-like shots with very thin DoF, I still reach for the 85mm f/1.8. DoF calculations show that for equivalent subject framing (different distances, of course) with 85mm f/1.8 vs. 200mm f/2.8, the 85mm's DoF will be about 2/3 of that with the 70-200mm.


But cost-wise, there's a world of difference!


If you do end up deciding on the 70-200mm II, definitely keep the 1.4x extender. The 70-200 takes that very, very well and the resulting ~100-300mm zoom is quite sharp. It's also weather-selaed, so if you every want to go out shooing in the rain, use that combo on your 7D instead of the 100-400mm.


SinceHiFiGuy1 brought up the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, I'll repost a pic from last night that I posted in Brendan's thread, which shows some the capabilities of this lens.This grab-shot was taken<span>30 minutes after sunset(quite dark out, stars were already visible in the deep blue/black skies). This washandheld at 200mm and1/13second!


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Hop.jpg


EOS 7D,EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM @ 200mm, f/2.8, 1/13 s, ISO 3200


The 70-200 MkII really is an amazing lens!!
<div></div>

[Brendan7]

Denise,


you said you were looking for a lens with good sharpness, contrast &amp; colors, and bokeh. The 85mm f/1.8 is a good, cheap(er) lens, but you already have the 100 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4. Three primes between 50 and 100mm might be overload. You said the 85 gave "extreme sharpness" but it isn't sharp till f/2.8. Its bokeh is OK, good bokeh is an L lens quality. A 135 f/2 makes a bit more sense here as a higher quality alternative.


I'm not saying the 85 is a bad lens, but it doesn't give you something you don't have.


I think selling the 300 and buying the 70-200 II is a fantastic idea. It's a fantastic lens. It stands alone as a fast zoom that is sharper wide open than a bucketfull of L primes. I myself might be buying one soon. Oh, and keep the 1.4x. It's a handy thing to have :)


brendan