2nd (or 3rd) Opinion

[Kayaker72]

Chris,


I can't make a recommendation, because all of the above are good options to upgrade your kit. But here are two different alternatives that I haven't seen discussed...I am not trying to muddy the waters, just a different angle:

1. For your budget (with current prices, this is a little tight) you could buy the EFS 15-85 and the EF 70-200 f4 non-IS. What I like about this is that you upgrade bothof your zoom lenses so you are taking quality photos throughout this focal range and you can use the 85 f1.8 for DOF on portraits. I own the 15-85 and think that it is optically amazing and it works very well for how I shoot. I've used it for portraits, waterfalls, landscapes, etc. Very versatile lens. The disadvantage is the speed of the 15-85 and the age/lack of IS on the 70-200.
2. You could go "all prime." It is something I don't see myself doing, but it is something others seem to have done and like. So it is up to you. But you have 50/85 mm already covered. You could pick up a Sigma 30 mm f1.4, 200 mm f2.8and have a very fast kit.

Like I said, just some thoughts. Everything being discussed is a "right answer" to upgrading your kit. Sometimes the hardest decisions are picking which right answer you want. []


Brant

[Baker]

Like I said, just some thoughts. Everything being discussed is a "right answer" to upgrading your kit. Sometimes the hardest decisions are picking which right answer you want. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

Hahaha exactly [:P] And now to make the decision even harder, a friend of a friend is going to be selling her 5D Mk II and lenses, including a 2 month old 24-70, to make the switch to the dark side..... Nikon.... [^o)]


And now that I think about it even more, a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 24-70mm f/2.8. But they are using full frame cameras. The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

[neuroanatomist]

The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

Closest focal length, yes. But in terms of depth of field (often quite important for portraits), the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is actually 27-88mm f/4.5 (which means than when used on a FF camera, a 24-105mm f/4L is wider, longer, and can provide shallower DoF than the 17-55mm when used on a crop body. You'd need a nonexistent lens - a 15-44mm f/1.75 - to profide equivalent framing and DoF on a crop body to the 24-70mm on FF. If you want thin DoF on crop, within a reasonable budget, Brant's suggestion of primes is the way to go - lenses like the 85/1,8 which you have, and a 50/1.4 for looser framing.

[Baker]

The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

Closest focal length, yes. But in terms of depth of field (often quite important for portraits), the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is actually 27-88mm f/4.5 (which means than when used on a FF camera, a 24-105mm f/4L is wider, longer, and can provide shallower DoF than the 17-55mm when used on a crop body. You'd need a nonexistent lens - a 15-44mm f/1.75 - to profide equivalent framing and DoF on a crop body to the 24-70mm on FF. If you want thin DoF on crop, within a reasonable budget, Brant's suggestion of primes is the way to go - lenses like the 85/1,8 which you have, and a 50/1.4 for looser framing.

Thanks for the info, this makes my decision that much harder [:P]

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the info, this makes my decision that much harder

Then my work here is done. [6]


I am just thinking back to a past discussion between me and Jon Ruyle, where he made the point that for about the same amount of money, you can get either a 7D and 85L or a 5DII and 135L - equivalent framing/DoF, but in the latter combo you get a FF camera.

[Fast Glass]

I use mostly primes, OK I only have one zoom that I even use! And a stadard range that I don