Congrats on your decision! The 70-200mm II is a great lens.
The 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are two nice fast primes. Fast primes are nice indoors so out of these two, I would probably lean towards the 35mm.
The 1.4X III extender is also nice to have.
You should probably start off with what you picked first, and then see what focal range you use the most.
You still may want to get some protective filters, a bag, tripod, ball-head, or an external flash.
Congrats from me to, on making the decision after 10+ pages of great advice with multiple options.
As you see, there is not one best answer, it depends a lot on personal preferences. Same is true for your question about the next lens. Both the 35 and the 85 are great, but have somewhat different applications. I agree with Richard, the best way to find out is to start shooting for a while and then see for what focal length you want to add a prime. Either one will also work on a full frame when you upgrade.
All the best for you and your family,
Arnt
The EF 85mm f/1.8 looks like a good lens at a great price point; how does the 85mm f/1.8 differ from the the 70-200 when both lens are shot at 85mm? Does the f/1.8 make that much of a difference over the f/2.8 on the 70-22?
I am trying to soak all this information in,
Thank you.
I was looking at the 35mm lens too, from what I read the lens sounds amazing. In addition to the 35mm prime, I was looking at the 16-35mm, and the 50mm f/1.4.Originally Posted by Richard Lane
Regarding other gear; I purchased a protective filter (I did not realize they were so expensive), sleeve for camera+lens, camera bag, good strap, and a couple educational books
I need the gear you mentioned, tripod, ball-head and external flash... recommendations?
I think I'm with Richard Lane on this one. The 35mm f/1.4 would probably be a better choice than the 85mm f/1.8. The DOF at 85mm will be thin enough that you'll often want to stop it down a bit from f/1.8 anyway, making it an often redundant lens. The 35mm is a bit faster. It's a usable focal length for indoor shooting, and it's closer to a normal (non tele, non wide) focal length on a crop camera. Of course it's a fair bit more expensive too. Several people here opted for a Sigma 30mm instead of the Canon 35mm, which brings the price back under control.
There are excellent reasons to take the 85mm f/1.8 anyway, even if it is redundant. It is significantly lighter and smaller than the 70-200. There will be days when you won't want to drag that beast around with you.
I'm not sure what the Chromatic Aberration is like on the Canon 35mm or the Sigma 30mm, but the Canon 85mm gets a fair deal of purple fringes at the slightest provocation. I'll let the others who've used both to fill in the details here. If you're going to use Lightroom it can, apparently, magically make the purple go away.
Thank you Arnt, I appreciate this forum's advice, recommendations and support.
I am looking forward to applying photography to my life,
Bruce
Would you choose the 35mm f/1.4 over the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?
Do you think the 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM lens is a good fit on the 60D?
If I was in your position, I would forget about the 16-35 and 35mm f1.4 fow now. Buy that 17-55 and 60D and get started taking pictures. Then next week buy the 70-200mm, that is a great 2 lens setup, you will be blown away by quality and what you can produce, with that set up. You can spens all your time sweating over what lens and miss photo opportunities.
Get your lenses and then start working on tripod and flash combinations.
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
35mm f/1.4 over the 16-35mm. Why would you need the 16-35 if you own the 17-55?
The 16-35mm II is a good fit on any camera.
Take Steve U's advice, its good advice.
The 16-35mm f/2.8 may make sense when you go FF, and don't have the 17-55mm, but for now, already having a 17-55 f/2.8, I don't see the point. It's also a super wide angle for full frame, so you'll be in for a surprise when you upgrade cameras. If you want to go super wide angle on a crop body, you need to look at the 10-22mm, which will frame exactly the same as a 16-35mm on full frame.
With the 16-35mm get 1mm that wasn't already covered, no aperture difference, no new shooting possibilities until you upgrade to full frame. You're not even saving yourself a lens swap (For example, having a 10-22mm and a 24-70mm can get annoying if you tend to shoot 17-30mm. You'd have to keep bouncing back and forth between lenses. In this case, adding an 17-55mm can be justified, despite not really covering any new focal lengths, as it saves a ton of annoying lens swaps.)
So, no, for now I don't see the 16-35mm as having ANY value to you, while the 35mm opens up low-light shooting.
Or, instead of the 35mm, save the money and buy a flash. They're cheaper, and will provide you plenty of light to shoot indoors with the 17-55 you've already got. Which works best for you depends on YOUR preferences and situation. Do you think your subjects will stick around while you find the flash, assuming it doesn't stay on the camera at all times (the same argument can be made for the lens!)? Do you prefer the look of natural light? Are you willing to accept the thin DOF you'll be forced to have to get a decent shutter speed without a flash? Are you willing to work within the limitation of a fixed focal length?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote