Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    61

    70-200 or 85 and 135

    I've asked this at another forum.

    I want a longer lens (or set of lenses) for portraiture and events. My thoughts were to get either:
    a sigma (tamron?) 70-200 2.8
    a canon 85 1.8 and 135mm 2.8 (the soft-focus one)
    or canon 85 1.8 and a 70-200 f4

    I'm going crazy because each set up would work pretty well for me. I'm leaning towards the primes or the 85 and 70-200 combo the most. specifically I would like to know how sharp the 135mm is (samples?) and any problems you have encountered with any of these lenses.

    thank you soooooooooooooooooo much

    oh, and the canon 70-200 2.8 has been mentioned to me, but I'm in high school and can't afford it yet

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,146
    The Tamron 28-75 is quite good for portraits covering the normal 35mm range of 50mm - 135mm. Having said that, I use the 17-85 IS despite owning the Tamron 28-75.

    The Canon 70-200 f4IS is probably your best bet for a longer lens.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    61
    I already have a lens covering the 24-70 range. And as I said before, I can't afford the 70-200 f4 IS.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by smartguy26 View Post
    I already have a lens covering the 24-70 range. And as I said before, I can't afford the 70-200 f4 IS.
    24-70 is about 36-105 in 35mm format. I used to use 85mm for portraits so basically, you're covered.

    For the long stuff I would advise against f2.8 lenses on account of how heavy they are. They can be pretty unwieldy. I would advise against a lens darker than f4 at the long end and I would advise getting a lens with USM. IS is very helpful although for sport I suspect it wouldn't be very useful due to the fact the subject (if a footballer for example) would end up with blurred limbs.

    You could try a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I have one but haven't been that impressed. Having said that I didn't use higher ISOs.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    61
    thanks for the advice, now I'm narrowing it down to the 85 and 70-200 or 85 and 135.
    I think I may get the 85 1.8 and then see what my needs are from there....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    If indoors, your going to want at least f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, but its not fast enough for most indoor venues.

    The 85 1.8 is a no-brainer; sharp, fast lens for about $300.

    I've never used any of the non-Canon 70-200's so I can't really comment on them.

    Peter24 (member here) has the 135 SF and perhaps he can chime in on this lens.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    I would suggest getting the 85 then saving for the 135 f/2 L. Or just get the 85 for now and save for the more useful 70-200 f/2.8 IS. OR just get the 100mm f/2.

    f/2.8 - IS + Long + Indoors = Difficult.

    I didn't use my 70-200 indoors despite having f/2.8 because most of the time I couldn't get a good shutter speed to handhold it. It was only useful for basketball. Once I got the IS version it became more versatile.
    Last edited by cdifoto; 04-05-2008 at 06:44 AM.
    Ouch.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    61
    how does the 70-300 IS handle indoor situations? An 85 and 70-300 IS might be a better option than the 85 and 135 2.8

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,146
    The 70-300 IS is a slow lens at f4-5.6. It focusses faster than the Tamron 70-300 but I would not like to use it indoors. Having said that I have never tried. You might find an AF illuminator (STE-2) useful indoors unless you use a flash such as the 430EX/580EX.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Quote Originally Posted by cdifoto View Post
    ... OR just get the 100mm f/2.
    Not a bad idea, if you need the reach. Its supposed to very close to the 85 1.8 optically and its priced only a bit more.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •