The one warning about the 85mm f/1.8 is the large amount of purple fringing you'll get in high-contrast parts of the image (sun reflections on water, metal). I love my 85, but some shots are ruined by the purple. Lightroom apparently recently added a purple-killing algorithm. Perhaps someone else can comment on it's real-world effectiveness.
I think so. Check the ISO crops on Bryan's site here.Originally Posted by cyoung315
Hope this link workshttp://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=7&APIComp=1
Mark
You guys are a great help and I thank you for sharing your knowledge and insight. I've pretty much decided on the 85 and am just hunting down a good price. If anyone has guidance on the 70-200 with a teleconverter option I'd love to hear it.
Thanks again.
The Canon Store has refurbished units at a good price. Throughout the year, 20% off and free shipping can be found. Gotta get it quick when that happens. Goes pretty fast.
Sent from my IPhone V using Tapatalk 3 Beta
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
[QUOTE]I want to cover that 50-100mm span with something in the 2.8 range if possible[/QUOTE
I love my 85mm 1.8, but almost have never used it again since i got the 135mm 2.0. i use my feet to cover the 50-100mm range, what i mean is that for 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8, you probably need one of them.
I had the 150-500mm, sold it due to the IQ is not very good, 70-200 lenses are genaral or portrait lenses, with 1.4XTC, the IQ probably better than the Sigma 150-500mm(70-200mm 2.8II is the best), but still not very good IMO, if u shoot more like wildlife, sports..., you may want to consider 300mm 4.0 or 400mm 5.6, or 100-400mm 5.6, depending on the focal length you need and on your budget.Another question along the same line, I'm considering returning my Sigma 150-500 and getting the Canon 70-200 with a 1.4 teleconverter to keep the range for wildlife shots. My hesitation there is loss of OS and f stops Thoughts?
+1....sell the 150-500 mm and buy either the 70-300L, or the 100-400L if you choose focal length over aperture. But, as you stated you want aperture over focal length, some have used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 2x TC to get to 400 mm. From what I have read and seen posted here, that can produce very good results at 400 mm, but not as good as a lens that gets you there without the TC.
Of course, I can see filling your void with the 85 f/1.8 as well. It is very well regarded and near the top of my wish list.
Hi again! I've been comparing and reviewing as much information as I could find about the Canon 70-200 models, well, minus the 2.8 IS model, just too far out of reach price-wise. I'm leaning toward the 70-200 f/4, the price is great and the IQ appears to be pretty good. I'm toying with the idea of the IS model but then I have to wonder is it worth the extra 350-500 bucks? Seriously, is it? I'm thinking that extra money could pay for the 85mm so many of you have suggested. Thanks for all of your help and please, stay cool if you're in the hot parts of the US today!
If you plan to hand hold, Yes
Mark
You must have been watching me just now! I was taking some dragonfly shots at a nearby lake a few minutes ago with the Sigma 150-500. I turned off the OS to see ho steady I was...I turned it back on just a couple of shots later! 70-200 IS it is...probably a used 2.8 if I stumble across the right price.
Mark, I've never purchased from KEH before. Between he two optins here, http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-...99089813R?r=FE, which would you recommend? The distinction between the LN and EX+ seems so minor would the extra $50 even be worth it?
I have another week to return the used Sigma I purchased from Amazon, thats why I'm picking everyones brain so much this weekend.
-Chris
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote