does it make sense?

Hi guys,
I just got my 20d for my birthday yesterday, I am so excited. I can't post any pics yet since I don't have a lens yet. I pretty much have decided to get the tamron 28-75, but is there an advantage of also geting the 85 f/1.8? I mostly photograph my children but also like to get close-ups from them? Would the 85 be as good as the 100 macro for my purposes?
As always, thanks

I've been toying with the idea of getting the 85 1.2 or 1.8. From what I've read and seen, the 1.8 is a fantastic lens that will probably give you much better results than the zoom you mention.

I do have the Canon 100 f2.8 macro. It is my only prime and by far my sharpest lens. I love it. I think I'm about to get bitten by the PRIME bug.

The zoom will make it easier for you to frame kids on the move/at play, and the long end is about right for portraits. But the 85 will perform better in low light and in more controlled portrait situations.
For a first lens, I think the versatility of the zoom (just) wins.

I would agree with Mr Clements and go for the flexibility. A very practical lens. The Sigma 24-70 2.8 is possibly better, at least in offering 24mm which can be useful for framing indoors. I'd ideally suggest a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 for low light or the 85mm 1.8 if you want low light performance plus some extra length. Won't always be that useful indoors for kids unless you have large rooms or just want face shots.

I have neither but either the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-70 or the Canon 24-70, all being F2.8 are high on my list to get. The 85 1.8 is way up their too for a low light candid or portait lens (I like the length of my 50 1.8 but sometimes find it a wee bit short) , the 1.2 being prefered but way more costly.

So, I guess what I am saying is that if you could could make good use of the 85, I think that the two you are looking at will both serve you well.

Seconded (I have this and the 85 )

thanks guys, I think I will probably get both since I really like to take face shots even macro facial parts (eyes, lips etc), let's hope Santa knows what I am whishing for!!!

The 85 1.8 (IMHO) is a great lens. Once you get it I'd be willing to bet it will be on the camera most of the time.

Behzad, if you really want the 85 and get close-ups as well, an extension tube could be an answer. The 85mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens, my favorite lens.

Here's one shot with the 85 AND 25mm extension tube
http://www.cmmvisions.​com/other/other8.jpg

and one without the extension tube:
http://www.cmmvisions.​com/portrait/portrait2​.jpg

Who said a prime can't be versatile

On the other hand, the tamon 28-75 get excellent reviews as well.

Another vote here for the 85 f/1.8 Behzad. It really is a beautiful little lens that has very fast focus...good for moving kids. Its my favourite lens by far (not that i have very many). Take a look here Behzad for some shots with this gem.

Regards,

The Sigma felt a little better than the Tamron to me although it is a little heavier. AF seemed faster especially in low light.

For a first lens, the Tamron would be a good zoom to start with, but the 85 1.8 would be a great lens to add to the kit.

The 50 1.4 would be another would to add as far as primes go.

Since you have the Tamron 28-75mm, a 85mm f1.8 is a good choice to extend your focal range. Though I don't have this lens, I appreciate it very much and it's probably a big bang for the bucks. If you have situations where flash is not allowed, the f1.8 is a big advantage. I have the 100mm macro and it really plays well in closeups and portraits. For me it's hard to choose between the 85mm and the 100mm macro. It's a tradeoff between true macro and fast aperture. Perhaps I'll get the 85mm one day.

I absolutely love my 85 f1.8. It is an excellent lens and is very flexible. As far as the other lenses I do not have them, but they are highly thought of here. Personal experience is that anything slower than f2.8 will dissappoint.

Personal is correct ... it all depends on required usage and user of course, but a fast lens is usually a better buy. I've had some great f4's and slower I have to say. I certainly wouldn't turn down a 24-105 IS L f4 either.