Second prime

mike_311 wrote in post #17928043
To answer your earlier question, the 35L is still a great lens, the Sigma 35 ART kind of stole its thunder. Everyone loves that lens now.

your recent question, on a full frame you could probably get away with a 35 and a 85. the 85 focuses really fast so thats a bonus with the little ones running around. i got rid of my 50mm when I moved to FF and I dont miss it at all.

Thank you! I actually just made a post in the lenses forum about the 35L. I don't know anything about the Sigma ART.

Good to know about the 85, it's the way I'm leaning. Especially with the fast AF.

Which should I save for in the future? 135? Something else? I like making plans

Brushy wrote in post #17928025
Gotcha. Thanks for trying to help though!

It's still usable in MF but with a 14-month-old tasmanian devil running around, AF is a necessity.

So I guess the question is, for family/candid photography is it better to get the 50 fixed or add an 85?

Providing your house isn't really small and/or full of stuff (my house is both small and full of stuff ) the 85 1.8 would probably be awesome.

You'll need a bit more room with it than with the 50, so you might wind up tripping over and bumping into things as you're trying to frame candid photos of your little one: if your house is small and/or full of stuff.

I love the 85 focal length, but i sometimes have to move furniture out of the way when i use it in the house.

Brushy wrote in post #17928047
Thank you! I actually just made a post in the lenses forum about the 35L. I don't know anything about the Sigma ART.

Good to know about the 85, it's the way I'm leaning. Especially with the fast AF.

Which should I save for in the future? 135? Something else? I like making plans

I'm assuming that is you in your avatar? If so, I expect that you're outdoorsy and active?

I you wanted to stick with a prime, the 135 might suit your purposes. But, if you are outdoorsy and active, and your little one is likely to be involved in sports, you might want to consider a telephoto zoom lens: something like a 70-200 or a 70-300.

neacail wrote in post #17928079
I'm assuming that is you in your avatar? If so, I expect that you're outdoorsy and active?

I you wanted to stick with a prime, the 135 might suit your purposes. But, if you are outdoorsy and active, and your little one is likely to be involved in sports, you might want to consider a telephoto zoom lens: something like a 70-200 or a 70-300.

Yes, we're very outdoorsy. She is definitely likely to be involved in sports, but probably not for a few years still.

I love the shots I'm seeing that have been taken with a 135, but I worry about trying to stay that far away from my subject. I've never shot with something that long before.

I would not recommend the 135 unless you were shooting portraits or something along those lines. its very long and very difficult to use when wide open plus the lack of IS increases the difficulty, especially if you stop it down. The 85 is much easier to use.

the 135 is fantastic but its much easier to use when your subjects arent really moving all thats or in a way that easy to track.

id go with an IS zoom. The 135L IMO is used to get a specific look. if you arent trying to get that look, there are better options.

mike_311 wrote in post #17928151
I would not recommend the 135 unless you were shooting portraits or something along those lines. its very long and very difficult to use when wide open plus the lack of IS increases the difficulty, especially if you stop it down. The 85 is much easier to use.

the 135 is fantastic but its much easier to use when your subjects arent really moving all thats or in a way that easy to track.

id go with an IS zoom. The 135L IMO is used to get a specific look. if you arent trying to get that look, there are better options.

Awesome, that's exactly what I was wondering, thank you.

I really love the look of the 135L but I'm not sure I would be in enough situations to justify owning one.

I've never even looked at zooms. Which should I start to look at that are the best for candid/family photography?

the 35 and 85 will cover you nicely, longer i'd look at a 70-200 variety. i would think the f4 IS, possibly look at sigma or Tamron if you want a better price.

if you arent shooting portraits or trying to get that very shallow look or have no need for the extra stop, you wont need 2.8.

The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a very nice consumer grade (non-L) lens. It is a little bit soft at 300.

Note that it is the 70-300 and not the 75-300. The distinction is important. The 75-300 does not have a good reputation, but I haven't personally used the 75-300 so I can't speak from experience on that one.

I do have a lot of experience with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It isn't a big and heavy lens. It is quite portable and easy to handle.

This photo of Kakinga (Calgary Zoo) was taken with it on my 6D @ 240mm. :

Photo from neacail's gallery.