Speed vs reach for next "nice" lens?

My EF lens line-up is thus: 24-70 f/2.8i ii, 50mm 1.8 ii, 85mm 1.8. Really, my 24-70 lives on my 6D, I probably use it for 95% of my shooting now. It covers most of my needs, but once in a while I do wish I had a bit more reach or a faster lens for low light.

I'd like to add a lens in around the $1000 range, thinking either the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-is) or one of the Sigma Art 35/50s. Maybe the 35mm 1.4L as prices have come down on that lens as well. I think the 70-200 f/2.8 would suit me better than the f/4 IS in that price range due to me shooting people mostly, so I like to keep my shutter speed up.

Suggestions?

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17791330
My EF lens line-up is thus: 24-70 f/2.8i ii, 50mm 1.8 ii, 85mm 1.8. Really, my 24-70 lives on my 6D, I probably use it for 95% of my shooting now. It covers most of my needs, but once in a while I do wish I had a bit more reach or a faster lens for low light.

I'd like to add a lens in around the $1000 range, thinking either the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-is) or one of the Sigma Art 35/50s. Maybe the 35mm 1.4L as prices have come down on that lens as well. I think the 70-200 f/2.8 would suit me better than the f/4 IS in that price range due to me shooting people mostly, so I like to keep my shutter speed up.

Suggestions?

Heya,

You have a 6D, so I wouldn't stress "speed" so much. I would comfortably shoot at F2.8 in low light at 1/100s, F2.8, ISO 12,800 in RAW and just gently expose to the right and clean it up a touch, you will still get a very usable image. It's pretty much what a 6D is great for compared to other options, to be able to do that.

Your 50 F1.8 & 85 F1.8 are already fast. I guess you just don't like them? I don't see how you'd switch to a 35 F1.4 when you already have F1.8 glass that works fine, unless you just didn't like the lenses. Then again, it's kind of odd that you're having to choose reach or speed and can't have both, so when you choose speed, you choose a focal length you already have, but with 2 stops difference of aperture and nothing else gained (your 24-70 II is sharper frankly than a 35L).

Seems to me that a 70-200 F2.8 VC (Tamron) would make sense. Or any 70-200 F2.8 like you pointed out, as you won't need stabilization much, but if you could have stabilization, why not get it, right?

I'd rather have more pixels on target, and use higher ISO, than to have less ISO, and way, way less pixels on target if shooting people in low light. Just a thought!

Very best,

With your set up I would go for a 70-200 and imo IS is very helpful on both 2.8 and 4. Consider also the weight/bulk of the 2.8 which may become demanding if you intend to carry the lens as walkaround.
Low light prime vs. tele zoom is basically your call. If you absolutely need both, 35 f2 IS + used 70-200 f4 is not too much far from your budget

I too use a 6D and have both the f/4 and f/2.8 latest versions of the 70-200mm. The f/4 is great for people, even fast moving people in good light, but it fell a bit short for me in night concert photography so I was forced into the f/2.8 model. I'm not nuts about the weight gain and enjoy using them both until the f/4 sells. Between weight and price I encourage you to evaluate your needs and not make a costly (if buying new) mistake.

Good luck!

if you must do a 70-200, the tamron 70-200 VC is extremely good. I wouldnt wish a non stabilized 70-200 on my worst enemy

shooting people, the 70-200 should be a primary lens IMO. People just look better from the longer focal lengths.

Just a thought, since I'm considering a similar move when my 70-200mm f/4 sells. With your budget you can come close to the 70-200mm f/4 + 85mm f/1.8. I'm currently looking around for a used (or Black Friday deal) on the 85mm to use on days when I haven't eaten my spinach. Slightly more reach than my 24-70mm f/2.8, wider aperture and one hell of a good lens for the price.

Nethawked wrote in post #17794082
Just a thought, since I'm considering a similar move when my 70-200mm f/4 sells. With your budget you can come close to the 70-200mm f/4 + 85mm f/1.8. I'm currently looking around for a used (or Black Friday deal) on the 85mm to use on days when I haven't eaten my spinach. Slightly more reach than my 24-70mm f/2.8, wider aperture and one hell of a good lens for the price.

TS already has an 85 1.8, and based on the comment "my 24-70 lives on my 6D", I take it that TS isnt a prime shooter, and zooms would be more for him.

shooting low light with F2.8 being the fastest, IS is absolutely essential on a longer lens.

Oops, thanks Charlie. I didn't check his existing lenses.