Canon 85mm f/1.8

[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!


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


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