I have a Canon 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 30mm. Thinking about a Canon 85mm f1.8. Would that be a good addition? Any alternatives you can think of that I should check out?

I primarily shoot my kids, www.aubs.com for reference, families, other kids, stuff like that. Would eventually like to get into weddings... Someday.

The 85 f/1.8 is a fine lens and at its price is pretty good value. The 1 1/3 stop advantage over the 70-200 should make it a good lens for photographing people indoors. It does have some CA but in many cases its not a big issue. The only alternative I'd suggest considering would be the 100 f/2.

ooohhh... now you have me interested. the 100 f2... gotta check that out.

You have two great lenses already (and more if you still have the Tokina - looked like you also had a 50 1.8 on flickr - some great shots there btw). The 70-200 will work great for anything outside especially. I don't see that the 85 adds that much to your capability unless perhaps you want to shoot indoor sports because it can be too tight for photographing people indoors. IMHO you might benefit more from a wider zoom - maybe the 24-70L, 17-55IS, Tamron 17-50 or something of that nature.

I like the 85/1.8 a lot, and yes it would be a good addition to what you have now. It's small/light and has excellent IQ and AF speed. Effective FL on a crop body would be around 135mm (136 to be exact) which is a great FL for head shots and for future reference also pairs up brilliantly with both 1.3x and FF bodies as well. It's a great alternative if you do not want to mount/carry your 70-200/2.8 and would make for a complimentary low light prime kit when teamed up with your 30mm.

The 85mm f1.8 is a great choice. If you think you can live with 100mm for portraits you then seriously need to think about the 100 f2.8 macro. It's also considered one of the best portrait lenses - but one complaint is that it's too sharp. However, if you're looking for a real low light lens then you're a full stop darker than the 100mm f2.0.

Matt Khoury wrote:
ooohhh... now you have me interested. the 100 f2... gotta check that out.

Since you are using a crop camera you may want to look at the 50mm 1.4 (or 1.8) too...it will be a nice adder to your lens list as this FL is not covered

i have the 30mm... but don't you think that having a 30 and a 50 would be odd?

I have the sigma 30 1.4 and canon 50 1.4, to me, both serve different purposes (in low light, as well).
If I want individual portraits (waist up) ,shoulder or head shots from a close distance/indoors, I use the 50mm, the 30mm can cause pinocchio effect. 50 is tough for group photography, gotta back up a lot to accomodate 4 people in the frame :-)

The 30 comes in very handy for group photography or as a normal lens on my xxD cameras.

Maybe these are my excuses to own both . That and I also own the 50 1.8, too cheap and BFB lens

Just re-read your post and if you eventually want to get into weddings then the 100mm f2.8 is even a more ideal choice.

brad_s wrote:
The 85mm f1.8 is a great choice. If you think you can live with 100mm for portraits you then seriously need to think about the 100 f2.8 macro. It's also considered one of the best portrait lenses - but one complaint is that it's too sharp. However, if you're looking for a real low light lens then you're a full stop darker than the 100mm f2.0.

Matt Khoury wrote:
ooohhh... now you have me interested. the 100 f2... gotta check that out.

brad_s wrote:
Just re-read your post and if you eventually want to get into weddings then the 100mm f2.8 is even a more ideal choice.


Huh? I am admittedly not a wedding shooter, but how is a slower focusing, slower aperture lens with poorer bg/bokeh rendering a better choice?


To the OP, get the 85 1.8. It is a bargain, and for shooting your kids will be great. Since you are using an APS-C cam, it will act like a 136mm, which is pretty good for kids even indoors (though maybe a little long occasionally). The 100/2 (or 100 macro I guess) would act like 160mm, which is pushing it indoors.

Incidentally, my second copy of the 85mm 1.8 was delivered today and is waiting for me at home. I have pretty much always regretted selling the first copy.

85 1.8 is a little tight on a crop body. It's a great lens though.

vpk24_astro wrote:
85 1.8 is a little tight on a crop body. It's a great lens though.

Should be fine for taking photos of small children, which was the main stated purpose/subject. Not too tight then.

You did not state why you want to buy a new lens in a FL which is already covered in a lens you already have. Weight issue perhaps?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I would have to agree with Yakim.

I would look for a FL that isn't covered yet, UNLESS you really need more light in that 70-200 range (or background diffusing effect, but the 70-200 2.8 is already very good at that).

I also don't agree on the 100mm macro. While it is indeed a fantastic lens, you already have that FL convered, with the same aperture, and on a faster focusing lens with better bokeh on top of that!

fraga wrote:
I also don't agree on the 100mm macro. While it is indeed a fantastic lens, you already have that FL convered, with the same aperture, and on a faster focusing lens with better bokeh on top of that!

I would have to agree with Luis.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

17-55.

Nothing wrong with overlapping focal lengths between a small and fast prime lens and big monster of a moderately-fast (by comparison) zoom.

But, I suppose it might not be a bad idea to consider another focal length. There are plenty of fast 50mm lenses out there, and on a 30D, a 50 acts like an 80, which is a very nice portrait focal length.

-Canon's 50 1.4 is pretty good. Very sharp stopped down a bit. Not everybody is a fan of the rendering style, but I like it well enough.

-Canon's 50 1.8 is great considering how cheap it is. You could always get this and 85.

-Sigma's new 50 1.4 has quite a few fans. Of course, it is Sigma, so you have to play the lens lottery and hope you get a good one.

-The Zeiss ZE 50 1.4 is supposedly very good. I haven't gotten the chance to try it yet, but I would like to. No autofocus, but it will have top-notch manual focusing and AF confirm.

-EF-S 60mm macro. Even though it is a macro, it makes a pretty good focal length for portraits (96mm equiv) and I have seen a number of people on the forums here say that they really like it for portait work in addition to the obvious macro applications.

Many people (mself included) feel the need to have a 35mm and a 50mm, so 30mm and 50mm would not be odd at all IMHO.
Second the vote for a 50 f:1.4

bpark42 wrote:


-The Zeiss ZE 50 1.4 is supposedly very good. I haven't gotten the chance to try it yet, but I would like to. No autofocus, but it will have top-notch manual focusing and AF confirm.

Yes ZE 50 is fabulous, but manual focus does not sit well with shooting kids as the OP wants to do IMHO. Which is why I recommended the Canon 50 f:1.4 even though I like the Zeiss a lot more.

you may want to consider a wide zoom like the EF-S 10-22 since you don't have anything in that range...

No-brainer for the price/performance ratio of the 85 f1.8 lens. Just go for it - it might be a bit long for portraits on a cropped DSLR, but it is perfect for some short tele photographies of concerts or other low-light situations. On full-frame it is the ideal portrait lens IMO. It complements my 70-200 f4 IS lens perfectly.

yeah, I'd say get a 50 first. 50/1.8 gets my vote, but the 50/1.4 is also good. I'd also get the 100/2 over the 85/1.8. I wouldn't get the 100 macro unless you really want a macro lens... and then I would look at all the other options as well.

retrofocus wrote:
No-brainer for the price/performance ratio of the 85 f1.8 lens. ...



Ditto.

I'd consider a fast 50 first to complement your existing lens kit. On a crop body, I personally find the 85 and 100 a bit long for indoor candids and portraits, and prefer the 50-60mm range. The 50 on APS-C will give you portraits with less flattening of features; it draws with an "intimate" look that I quite like. I don't think it's overkill to have both this and the 30.

If you go that route, the Canon 50 1.8 is cheap and optically good; the 50 1.4 is better if you can afford it. The new Tamron 60mm f/2.0 macro may be an interesting choice if it proves it can double as a fast portrait lens.

The longer primes can be great for sports, stage, and other uses, or for portraits you like the flattening; it just depends on what you shoot.