Advice on lenses needed.

[Anthony Lee]

Hi,

I am deciding on either an EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM or a combination of two lenses, EF 85 f/1.8 USM & EF 200 f/2.8 L Mk II USM. Need the expert advise on which is a better choice as cost is almost the same. Thank you.

[gazkw]

depends on how critical your eye is and how much u value versatility.

no one can tell you which is better.

its always a trade off between versatility and quality.

[pplneedthelord]

A 70-200 f/4L IS is actually almost the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS). why not get the f/2.8 one?

but to answer to your question. i would go for the 2 mentioned lenses, mainly because of the apertures. f/4 just ain't fast enough for me.

[twisted illusion]

Originally Posted by pplneedthelord A 70-200 f/4L IS is actually almost the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS). why not get the f/2.8 one? but to answer to your question. i would go for the 2 mentioned lenses, mainly because of the apertures. f/4 just ain't fast enough for me.

but 70-200 at F2.8 is soft, whereas the 70-200 f/4 is sharp right... any comments...

[zj2000]

What do you normally shoot? I've owned all 3 lenses before and have used them extensively. The 70-200 is sharp even wide open but the shots will lack the POP that large apertures can give you. Contrast of the 70-200L also is a bit lower than the 200 2.8L, contrast is about the same as the 85 1.8. Get the 70-200 if the things you normally shoot won't allow you time to change lenses. Otherwise I will get the primes over the zoom. If possible, you really should try a L teleprime. Once you've used one theres no turning back.....

[An drew]

If you need the large apertures then the primes.

If you need IS plus zoom capability then the zoom.

I went for the primes though.

[pplneedthelord]

Originally Posted by twisted illusion but 70-200 at F2.8 is soft, whereas the 70-200 f/4 is sharp right... any comments...

not true. no one said you couldn't test various of the same lenses to get the sharpest one

[Entertainer]

my solution is to get the 70-200 f4 IS and the 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4

the former for multi purpose and when times comes for a portrait shot with good bokeh, change to the latter. 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 (or even the 1.8) isnt going to hurt your pocket much much more and it gives you the best of both worlds.

[Anthony Lee]

Many thanks for your comments. My current Tamron 17-50 is my normal camera lens and it takes excellent photos, but I find it slightly too short. I have been eyeing the 70-200 f4 IS but bought a 100mm f/2.8 macro instead as I need to shoot small objects including fishing rods and reels. Yes, I have tasted prime lens and I am now wondering whether I should still go back on my 70-200. I am now thinking of all 3, the 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8. Never knew DSLR can be such an expensive hobby.

Cheers,

[pplneedthelord]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lee Many thanks for your comments. My current Tamron 17-50 is my normal camera lens and it takes excellent photos, but I find it slightly too short. I have been eyeing the 70-200 f4 IS but bought a 100mm f/2.8 macro instead as I need to shoot small objects including fishing rods and reels. Yes, I have tasted prime lens and I am now wondering whether I should still go back on my 70-200. I am now thinking of all 3, the 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8. Never knew DSLR can be such an expensive hobby. Cheers,

Now you know

[An drew]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lee I am now thinking of all 3, the 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8. Never knew DSLR can be such an expensive hobby. Cheers,

To help you save a bit, you may not need all 3 as the 135 and 200 are rather close. The 135 actually costs more than the 200 and produces more amazing results while the 200 simply give you what can can get with a 70-200 at the long end.

[Anthony Lee]

Thank you Andrew. I am taking up your suggestion and will buy the 135 f/2 first as all the reviews suggest that this is the best buy. The rest will come if I need need them. Better to go one at a time.

Cheers,

Anthony Lee

[estel]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lee Thank you Andrew. I am taking up your suggestion and will buy the 135 f/2 first as all the reviews suggest that this is the best buy. The rest will come if I need need them. Better to go one at a time.

Anthony,

you can rent the lenses if you want to know how they feel and how convenient they will be in a typical day for you. The zoom and primes generally serve different needs, and all depends on how much you value bokeh/sharpness etc over versatility.

As someone suggested, 70-200 f/2.8 would probably be a compromise. However, it's not as sharp as f/4 IS version. "not as sharp as" doesn't mean "bad".

[Trapper]

Originally Posted by estel Anthony, you can rent the lenses if you want to know how they feel and how convenient they will be in a typical day for you. The zoom and primes generally serve different needs, and all depends on how much you value bokeh/sharpness etc over versatility. As someone suggested, 70-200 f/2.8 would probably be a compromise. However, it's not as sharp as f/4 IS version. "not as sharp as" doesn't mean "bad".

This is correct. the 70-200/4 is quite possibly the sharpest zoom Canon makes. But unless you print very large prints, you won't be able to tell the difference.

[Headshotzx]

First off, let me say that if you are shooting with the appropriate shutter speed and handling technique, all 5 lenses suggested (70-200 f/4IS, f/2.8L, 85mm f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 200mm f/2.8L) will have great great image quality and color reproduction (without post processing).

However, you'll have to think about how you're going to shoot, and what you're going to shoot.

If you purchase the 70-200 f/4IS, you'd be shooting outdoors mainly, and shooting indoors with flash, because f/4 really won't cut it (even with ISO3200 for what I shoot).

If you purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L, you must understand that it's going to be heavy, and when the lights dim, you will have the f/2.8, but you must still be able to keep your setup steady because of the lack of IS (especially significant at 200mm). It's a heavy lens, so your muscles might not be able to take it after a long day's of shooting.

I'm blessed to own the f/2.8IS version of the 70-200mm series, and it's the most versatile. It's also the most expensive, for that reason alone.

If you purchase the 85mm f/1.8-- you must understand that shooting wide open, you will encounter something called chromatic aberration. That is, the borders of white and reflective edges have a purple glow around-- that's a characteristic of the 85mm lens when shooting at f/1.8 aperture. I own this lens and love it.

If you purchase the 135mm f/2L.. well, you won't really find any issue with it imo. I've shot with this lens before, and the bokeh at f/2 is simply stunning. It's also one of the sharpest Canon lenses (in the league of the 300mm f/2.8L and 85mm f/1.2L). However, depending on your camera body, you might find it a bit of an awkward focal length. I find that it's a bit too tight for what I'd normally use it for (portraits) on my 400D.

If you purchase the 200mm f/2.8L... uh, why not purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L? Okay, I don't own the 200mm, but from what I've read online, the advantages over the zoom is that it's slightly sharper, focuses slightly faster as well (a few miliseconds), is lighter (way lighter), and costs a bit less (S$400 difference from the 70-200 2.8L? Is that it?).

Option 1: 70-200 f/4IS
Pros - Zoom and IS
Cons - f/4 aperture requires an external flash for indoor low-light shooting no matter what. Please don't say "a tripod will work" if you intend to shoot family events and stuff..

Option 2: 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2L
Pros - Simply superb image quality and very wide apertures
Cons - Not a zoom, 85mm and 135mm might be too close to each other in terms of focal length for you to justify the cost.

Option 3: 70-200 f/2.8L
Pros - f/2.8 aperture, zoom
Cons - Heavy. Heavy. Heavy. and no IS. A heavy lens with no IS at 200mm is difficult to handle in low-light when you don't have a flash or a tripod, and can't manage the 1/focal length guideline.

Option 4: 85mm f/1.8 and 200mm f/2.8L
Pros - Better IQ (similar to option 2) and wider aperture
Cons - 200mm f/2.8L seems expensive when there's a 70-200 f/2.8L for S$400 and 1kg more.

Hope this helps =)

[Anthony Lee]

Hi Headshotzx,

Thank you for your comprehensive explanation. My original intention was to use the 70-200 f/4 IS strictly for outdoor/day especially the forth coming LPGA tournament at Tanah Merah Country Club. Therefore the weight n price consideration was most critical. Instead, I bought the 100mm macro for close-ups as I need it for my work. Now that the price has gone up, I may have to stick with the 70-200 f/4 IS so that I have an outdoor lens. My current 17-50 Tamron is good enough for my indoor family events.

Thank you all once again for sharing.

Regards,

Anthony Lee