85 f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4L?

Jackal wrote:
I've been torn between these two as well......and the new 70-300mm IS.

http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/image/5382584​7
http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/image/5382584​6

Seems like barely a quality difference and you gain 300mm and IS for a little less than the L.

Jackal, I have the 70-300 IS, and I rented the 70-200 f/4 to compare the two. In the focal ranges up to 200mm, I couldnt tell the difference between the two. I love the 70-300 IS, for the money I think its as close to a telephoto "L" glass as you can get.

That is good to hear. I'm considering upgrading my 75-300 to the 70-300 zoom lens.

That post just made me want that 70-300 IS slightly more than the F4L. Thanks!

Well, I just got the 85mm f/1.8 - I wanted it for low light performance, bokeh, and compactness. It delivers on all of them, as well as astoundingly good quality images. I like it because I mainly take head and shoulder type portraits anyway, and on my trip to the Lake District, I didn't take the lens off my body.

Well, I decided on the 70-200 f/4L. I figured if I was going to be doing a good bit of shooting outdoors where I'd like to blur the background at a tight aperture + working with a lot of new models who may be a bit camera shy, it was best to go with the longer focal length.

FlipsidE