Help me get rid of one of 5 lens

I am no expert on wedding photography, but I would want a fast 35. I would keep the 85 for indoor portrait and the question then becomes whether you want to keep the macro lens. I have the expensive Kenko tubes, and don't like to use them. They are best with shorter lenses, where you can easily get more magnification. I greatly prefer macro lenses for true macro. They are much more convenient and I like the results.
If you use the macro lens, keep it. If not, then get rid of it.
If wedding photography is work for pay for you, you don't have too many lenses.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18489692
85mm would be beneficial indoors if space is of a concern....
do reconsider....

Yes. I was thinking of using my 24-70 2.8 II or 70-200 II to replace the 85.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18489717
70-200 covers that, and is great for portraits.

That's what I'm leaning toward if I decided to sell the 85.

artyH wrote in post #18489885
I am no expert on wedding photography, but I would want a fast 35. I would keep the 85 for indoor portrait and the question then becomes whether you want to keep the macro lens. I have the expensive Kenko tubes, and don't like to use them. They are best with shorter lenses, where you can easily get more magnification. I greatly prefer macro lenses for true macro. They are much more convenient and I like the results.
If you use the macro lens, keep it. If not, then get rid of it.
If wedding photography is work for pay for you, you don't have too many lenses.

What don't you like about using extension tube for macro shots? It doesn't get you true 1:1 macro?

5 lens for wedding photography isn't too much. I do make a couple grand a wedding as a weekend warrior so selling the 85 1.4 Art for $1000 on the used market wouldn't make a huge difference. It was more for me to streamline my gears more, and be more efficient.

Sell both Tam's and pick up an EF 16-35 f/4. I also like the idea of selling the 85 and 90 and getting the EF 100 2.8 macro but that will only be providing you with macro as the 135 will basically cover portraits.

I also have the 85 Art & 135L, the 135mm is the best bokeh/dof due to the longer focal lenght, the 85mm better closer contact with the model.
I would sell the 135mm, seen that you have the 70-200 2.8 II.

I have this last zoom too, I only keep the 135mm as it's more compact, black and lighter.
The IQ is the same as the 70-200, but with the zoom you have the IS.

level5photog wrote in post #18490937
Yes. I was thinking of using my 24-70 2.8 II or 70-200 II to replace the 85.

That's what I'm leaning toward if I decided to sell the 85.

What don't you like about using extension tube for macro shots? It doesn't get you true 1:1 macro?

Not getting 1:1 from tubes is kind of a misnomer. While using my full 65mm extension on my 85/1.8 I will only see a .88x magnification, I see a full 1.3x magnification from my 50/1.4. The 100L goes from 1x to 1.9x and the 60/2.8 goes from 1x to 2.6x. So shorter focal lengths magnify more with tubes. Zooms however get tricky especially if the barrel extends during zooming.

I find tubes cumbersome, and you have to experiment with them to find out what lens and tube combo gives you the best results. I find that they work best with shorter lenses if you want lots of magnification. It is just easier to pop on a macro lens. If you don't have enough working distance for the needed magnification, you can have a lighting problem. It is easy to get the necessary working distance with macro lenses - you just use a longer one if you need more working distance and lots more magnification.
If you aren't careful popping a lens onto a set of tubes, you can drop your lens. You need to first remove a normal lens from the camera, add the tube or tubes you want, and then add the lens in front of this. It is also possible to assemble a lens to the tube and then add to the camera. I haven't used my tubes much, as you can tell. You lose the option of AF. This is not a biggie with a macro shot, but it is convenient to be able to have AF at times. You also need to be sure that the set of tubes you get is compatible with your camera system, if you want to have TTL exposures that are on. It is convenient to be able to shoot quickly with a flash and a macro lens when this is wanted, even with manual settings on the flash.

Sounds to me like you are just making up excuses to- i don't know- justify the cost of buying an actual macro lens?

artyH wrote in post #18491760
you have to experiment with them to find out what lens and tube combo gives you the best results.

You kind of need to experiment with lenses no matter what you are shooting.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
I find that they work best with shorter lenses if you want lots of magnification.

Well yes.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
If you don't have enough working distance for the needed magnification, you can have a lighting problem.

You can have this problem with a dedicated macro lens too.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
It is easy to get the necessary working distance with macro lenses - you just use a longer one if you need more working distance and lots more magnification.

Sure its easy to just buy a second macro lens and carry around a 100L and a 180L to get more working distance than what you normally need but the OP is trying to down size how much he has to carry around.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
If you aren't careful popping a lens onto a set of tubes, you can drop your lens.

I have news for you, you can drop a dedicated macro lens too. Still need to be careful and I don't really see how tubes complicate this. Camera around neck on strap. Put tubes on the 85 prime with both hands, swap from 24-70 or whatever lens is on camera to tube and 85 lens just like any other lens change.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
You lose the option of AF.

If you buy the cheap plastic $10 amazon POS options, this might be true, but the Fotodiox tubes I have and the Kenko's still AF

artyH wrote in post #18491760
You also need to be sure that the set of tubes you get is compatible with your camera system, if you want to have TTL exposures that are on.

The tubes are just electrical contacts passing through the lens signal to camera and visa versa. If you have the same lens mount and are not trying to use Nikon lenses on Canon via some weird tube thing, this is not an issue.

artyH wrote in post #18491760
It is convenient to be able to shoot quickly with a flash and a macro lens when this is wanted, even with manual settings on the flash.

Using a tube system is exactly the same.

All these excuses and the one valid one about using tubes you didn't even mention and that is the loss of infinity focusing. With a dedicated macro lens, you could be taking a close up of the ring and see the flower girl off at a slight distance doing something cute. With the dedicated macro lens, you could quickly snap off a cute portrait of her without having to remove the tubes.

Tubes are just a tool and can even get you larger than 1:1 with the right lens so they can do what no other Canon macro lens can do there aside from the MPE65 which is way less practical than throwing tubes on a 50m prime.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18490981
I also have the 85 Art & 135L, the 135mm is the best bokeh/dof due to the longer focal lenght, the 85mm better closer contact with the model.
I would sell the 135mm, seen that you have the 70-200 2.8 II.

I have this last zoom too, I only keep the 135mm as it's more compact, black and lighter.
The IQ is the same as the 70-200, but with the zoom you have the IS.

I find the 135 1.8 to have better bokeh than my Canon 70 - 200 @ 200 f2.8.

It's sharper to me and greater separation from the background. I also keep the 135 because it's more compact, black, lighter, more discrete when I'm on vacation, or shooting at a place that restrict professional photography .

I usually shoot at 70-200 @ min 1/200 to avoid any blur when moving subject so it's not terribly important for my use.

level5photog wrote in post #18487908
I have Sigma 85 Art 1.4, Sigma 135 1.8 Art, Tamron 90 macro IS, Canon 24-70 II 2.8, 70-200 II 2.8 and Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS. I shoot mostly wedding, portrait, and engagement.

I'm thinking of selling the Sigma 85 1.4 Art as the odd one out. I rarely shoot the 85 other than indoor portrait. I do like the 135 much more than 85. Better bokeh and focusing for me.

Well.... there you have it then !