Ok, down to 2 choices: Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs Canon 85mm 1.8

So after some deliberation, I am ready to add one (but not both) of these lenses, as I feel either one fills a pretty obvious hole in my lens lineup that I'd like to fill.

I did the quite time consuming exercise of looking through most of the pictures I took in 2013, and a vast majority of the ones I like were taken in the 35-50mm and 80-100mm ranges.

Hence why I like the 24-105 so much as a primary walk-around lens. However, since I do do quite a bit of indoor people shooting in low light, I have been hankering for a 2.8 zoom, and the Tamron fits the budget.

But of course the 85mm 1.8 makes sense since its around the focal length I like shooting at, and I don't have anything faster than f/4 in that range currently, while I have 35-50mm pretty well covered.

So, which one should I get?

Get the 85 and use the 40 indoor.

You can always add the 35 f2 IS later...

Heya,

85mm is too tight for in-door shooting probably, regardless of aperture. You can't keep walking backwards through a wall. You will be very limited using a telephoto prime indoors unless it's a large studio indoors, I'm imagining you're talking more about in the house with friends/family, so keep that in mind. The 28-75 F2.8 makes more sense for truly indoors. But, it's not super sharp at F2.8, so it kind of defeats the purpose of getting the F2.8 lens. I would just get a 35 F2 IS lens for indoors.

Regardless of focal length, you have a lot covered with the 24-105 F4L IS. But, you don't have anything that is very fast, like F1.4, F1.8, F2. I would get something like a prime that does that, at your most commonly used and preferred focal length, with as fast an aperture as you can manage. If you stop down the F2.8 lens to F4 just for sharpness, you just made it pointless when you already have a sharp F4 lens. Right? Get a prime that is sharp at F2 so you don't have to stop it down. The 85mm F1.8 is sharp at F2, but, it's long, tight, for indoors. But it's great outside or in a large room/building where telephoto can be used reliably.

Try a slightly wider, wide aperture prime. You may just fall in love.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16789411
Heya,

85mm is too tight for in-door shooting probably, regardless of aperture. You can't keep walking backwards through a wall. You will be very limited using a telephoto prime indoors unless it's a large studio indoors, I'm imagining you're talking more about in the house with friends/family, so keep that in mind. The 28-75 F2.8 makes more sense for truly indoors. But, it's not super sharp at F2.8, so it kind of defeats the purpose of getting the F2.8 lens. I would just get a 35 F2 IS lens for indoors.

Regardless of focal length, you have a lot covered with the 24-105 F4L IS. But, you don't have anything that is very fast, like F1.4, F1.8, F2. I would get something like a prime that does that, at your most commonly used and preferred focal length, with as fast an aperture as you can manage. If you stop down the F2.8 lens to F4 just for sharpness, you just made it pointless when you already have a sharp F4 lens. Right? Get a prime that is sharp at F2 so you don't have to stop it down. The 85mm F1.8 is sharp at F2, but, it's long, tight, for indoors. But it's great outside or in a large room/building where telephoto can be used reliably.

Try a slightly wider, wide aperture prime. You may just fall in love.

Very best,

Thanks, I do have a 50mm 1.8, and 50mm is probably my favorite focal length, so I do have that covered , I think.

mgk2 wrote in post #16789354
Get the 85 and use the 40 indoor.

You can always add the 35 f2 IS later...

Yea, I would like that lens later, right now if I get that I'd have a 35, 40, and 50 prime, so that seems a bit odd. But down the line I'd like to add that to replace the 40 and 50 probably. The upcoming Sigma 50mm 1.4 looks promising too.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16789413
Thanks, I do have a 50mm 1.8, and 50mm is probably my favorite focal length, so I do have that covered , I think.

Heya,

The 50 is only sharp stopped down a bit, like F2.0~F2.8 or so. Also, it's autofocus is slow, clunky and is hit or miss, especially in low light, it hunts like a monkerfudger in a low lit room. The 40 F2.8 is simply better, if you wanted something similar and inexpensive.

Maybe wait on the Sigma 50 ART to drop. Or, try the current Sigma 50 F1.4.

Very best,

Of the two, the 85/1.8 hands down. From experience and as was mentioned above, my Tamron 28-75 never really impressed me at 2.8 even though it was tack sharp at 4.0. Having both the 40 and 50 seems a little redundant to me though. Maybe stretch the budget and get the 35/2 and 85/1.8 selling the other two to help fund it.