HELP PLZ 85mm f/1.8 USM or 70-200mm f/4L USM

I have a T2i with the kit lens. I was considering buying the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens but ran across this EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens review.

As far as I can tell, the 85mm f/1.8 is great for portraits but the 70-200 will do everything the former will plus much more. From all the reviews I read, I need to allow more distance for portraits otherwise it seems the better choice (& $310.00 more). Many reviews said get the f2.8 IS USM but that's $2000.00. That will not happen.

My ?? are: would not the 70-200 be a better buy and is there a better Canon lens <$1000.00. I really need your help on this please.

Gil

Buy the lens that suits your needs. They are both great lenses by all acounts but have different strengths. Do you need anything over 85mm? If so, then the answer is clear. Strictly for portraits? You probably won't need the extra reach (actually 85mm might be too long) so the prime will be faster and maybe a bit sharper (although the 70-200 is no slouch).

So, just think about what you NEED as far as your general subjects/interests.

Go from there.

I just read in the Newbie! Best lenses post for a 650D the 70-200 f4L received reccomendations but Ido not know how that compares to the 85mm f/1.8.

What is it you want to compare? Usually portrait photographers are interested in shallow depth of field, and then the EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM does of course clearly outperform the EF 70-200 mm f/4L USM.

If you are comparing sharpness then both lenses are good performers. The 70-200 you are considering is a tad less sharp than its stabilized sibling, the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM. None of them can challenge the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but you've already stated that you don't want to cough up that kind of money, so that doesn't matter.

If you compare AF speed, then both the EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM and the different 70-200 zooms are good performers.

The only thing I'd be a bit concerned about would be the focal length. With the sensor size present in your 550D, I'd say an 85 mm is a bit too long i many cases. I bought my 85 mm for action shooting in very low light, where even my 70-200 f/2.8 is too slow. But in the rather rare instances when I actually shoot portraits, I prefer the EF 50 mm f/1.4 USM, the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM or maybe the EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 macro USM. Each of them has focal lengths shorter than the 85 mm and rather (2.8) or very (1.4) large max apertures.

Copidosoma wrote in post #15105342
Buy the lens that suits your needs. They are both great lenses by all acounts but have different strengths. Do you need anything over 85mm? If so, then the answer is clear. Strictly for portraits? You probably won't need the extra reach (actually 85mm might be too long) so the prime will be faster and maybe a bit sharper (although the 70-200 is no slouch).

So, just think about what you NEED as far as your general subjects/interests.

Go from there.

Thank you.
More than portraits. Nephew is a Senior & plays American football, one starting 1st grade, 3 nieces from <1 year to 5th grade. Like sunsets, flowers, critters. landscapes, this part of Texas is broken with barbed-wire fences, murals on downtown buildings, and on it goes...

Gil

I have the 35 F/2, 50 F/1.4 and 85 F/1.8. My primary interest is portraits. From experience, I find the 85 1.8 to be the best portrait lens of the 3 by a long shot. However, on APS-C, I consider it to be "unusable" indoors because it is too long. The 50 1.4 is usable indoors. The 35 2 is extremely usable indoors.

So... if you have the room to move (especially outdoors), the 85 1.8 is the clear winner IMO. But if a lot of your pictures are indoors, the 50 1.4 is more versatile overall and will work in 90%+ situations whereas I find the 85 usually doesn't work at all. The 35 2 is the most versatile for indoor situations but I rank it the lowest for portrait work of the three and I generally only use it because it is the lightest lens or when I'm doing a lot of indoor work where I am relatively close.

For landscapes, sunsets, architecture... both the 85 or 70-200 are probably too long for that sort of work IMO unless you are taking these shots from quite a distance.

The 85mm is truly fantastic, especially considering the price (at around $300 used). I would try it first to see if it can do what you want. Then, I'd add a Canon 55-250mm or slight step up to the Tamron 70-300 VC. Granted, the Canon 70-200 F4 might be better overall, but the two zoom options I present are cheaper (especially used) and get the job done until you decide what you really want/need.

Christopher, Anders, S.C. Tiger, and BJenk,

I cannot find the review I read but he gave it high marks on all the photos I take (portraits, sports, sunsets, flowers, critters, landscapes, and on it goes).

Y'all pretty much shot down his review. I will read each of your suggestions and take my time re-thinking what route I want to take.

Thank each of you for taking the time to help me and for your comments, suggestions, and experience.

My Sincerest Thanks,
Gil

Found the review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Gil

If you want a lens specifically for portraits, I'd say the 85 1.8 is a better choice. If you want a lens that can do portraits and a lot of other stuff as well, the 70-200 is pretty much perfect. You say you take portraits, sports, landscapes etc... So I think the 70-200 would be a better choice for you.

As for the f4 IS vs f4 non IS, I have owned both. I now own the non IS. The reason for this is that I don't feel that the addition of IS (and weather sealing because at the moment my camera does not have that feature), is worth ~$600. In terms of IQ, the IS version is slightly sharper at the corners, but in centre frame, the two lenses are equal. There is no big difference, as some people make out.
The $600 saved can also go towards buying a very good tripod which will help far more than IS for many photos. IS is only really useful when you are shooting static objects in low light. If you don't see this as being a major part of what you shoot, you don't really need IS.

If you do decide you want IS, then I'd recommend the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS over the canon f4 IS, because it is the same price, but offers you better build quality and an extra stop of aperture. Or I'd recommend waiting for the tamron 70-200 2.8 VC to be released since their current 70-200 2.8 is amazing in terms of IQ, but lacks stabilisation and a good AF motor.

As you can probably tell, I was distinctly underwhelmed by the 70-200 f4 IS in terms of price/performance.

The only case in which I would recommend that lens (or buy it myself) would be if you need a light, compact 70-200 with weather sealing, because all the others which have weather sealing are 2.8, and are large and heavy. In all other situations, I recommend either the f4 non IS or one of the 2.8's.

Prime, if you going to have more pictures taken in the low light.
L if you going to take pictures under golden hours light and it will serve you indoors, but with flash.
I used to have few, different range, non L Canon primes. Sold all of them. They don't render colors as good as L glass, zoom or prime.
For indoors portraits it would be better to get old 50 1.4, like Olympus. It is 100$ lens. Better for Rebel, compare to 85 1.8 and colors are amazing from it. But even 50mm is too narrow for indoors portraits on Rebel. You will need 28-35 range prime for it.