jvphotos Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro) | |
So I'm trying to decide between the 85 1.8 that I currently own, and selling it (plus a few other non-camera things) to pay for a 100 2.8 L IS Macro. I currently own a T3i and a 5d Mk1, along with a 24-105 L, 35 F2 IS, 50 1.8 II, and 85 1.8.
As for the intended uses... probably my favorite type of shooting involves candids and people. I also really enjoy shooting bugs and animals and whatnot, but I've never really had the equipment (or the budget) to get the longer-range nature photography lenses. I have shot one wedding on my own and second shot a couple with a local photographer, and plan on doing more of this from time to time when the opportunity arises, but I'm not trying to turn into a full-time professional wedding photographer or anything (I'd just like a kit that was quasi-capable of doing this if the mood/opportunity strikes). Thus far I've never had a use for indoor action shots or anything like that, or landscapes for that matter. I think I would enjoy macro photography, but at this point there's no way to know because I haven't had much of a chance to try it (so I'm trying to make the decision based on the kind of shooting I know that I currently enjoy).
Some recent stuff I've shot.. First set with the 85 (fewer keepers than I would have liked) and the other with the 24-105.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97296377@N04/sets/72157637956775825/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97296377@N04/sets/72157635085096079/
As best I can tell, the pro's of the 85 1.8 are the better background blur you get from the wider aperture, and if I'm ever shooting moving subjects in dark places I'd be better off with a wider aperture than I would with slow shutter speeds+ IS. On the other hand, the 100 2.8 L seems to do colors a little better, has the IS so I have a lot more options with shutter speeds, and seems to be much sharper all over the place (even though I know many people say sharpness isn't necessarily all that important for portraits...). What this question seems to be boiling down to for me is do I keep the 85 1.8 and try to swing into a 17-40 (because I did enjoy my 10-22 before I got my 5d) or a 200 2.8 II (refurbished these seem to be somewhat affordable), or do I switch to the 100 2.8 macro and just stick with the 35 f2 IS, 100 2.8 L IS, and 24-105 for the foreseeable future and figure that I can make do without the 17-24 focal length range or anything over 105mm. I think it comes down to "go super high quality in the ranges you can cover, or just compromise on quality a little so you can go affordable and cover more focal lengths". However, you all probably know better than I do how much quality I'm actually compromising by sticking with the 85 instead of going 100 2.8 L macro. Oh, and I did think about going for the non-L macro, but I really, really like IS, especially since the last time I used my 85 you could tell that I wasn't holding the camera steady enough even at 1/125 sometimes... I know that will improve with practice, but still... IS really is super valuable to me right now, and since the 100 2.8 doesn't have the light intake of the 85 1.8 or the ability to slow the shutter down to let light in that way, I've ruled it out at this point.
Thoughts on this conundrum? Anything else I should think about or consider that the more experienced photographers here already know? I really just want to take great pictures with a decent keeper rate (it drives me nuts to lose a picture to camera shake or something like that). I know I have a lot of personal development/learning to do here as well, but I want to make sure that I'm the only thing really holding me back, vs my equipment. And I want the pictures I do take to be as great as possible... which I guess goes without saying, since I feel like everyone here would say that same thing.
(btw, sorry about the long post... I just figured it would be helpful to those of you planning on chiming in if you knew where I was coming from in all this.)
|