second thoughts...

after further thought...i am wondering if instead of the 85mm/1.8, i should've just gotten the 70-200/4 L. this is less the L factor and more for the sake of a convenient tele-zoom with. i've only shot once in low light with the 85, and while it's nice, the lack of zoom was very limiting to me when taking lots of other shots.

furthermore, for portrait shots, the 50/1.8 seemed much more convenient for me, and was considering upgrading to the 1.4.

i dont know...perhaps i just need to adjust to what the 85mm prime offers me. it's a great lens, but as a beginner, perhaps it's a little too much for me to handle at the moment?

what do you guys think?

People mistakenly believe fast lenses are for use in low light. They enable focus in low light, but where they really shine, and are more fun is for "selective focus," controlling narrow depth of field.
Before you're consumed with buyer's remorse, take your 85, set it to f/2.2, f/3.5, etc., and walk around shooting fence lines, urban signs, people, tree lines. Set up to subjects to throw selective focus out even more. Pick out one person at a bus stop. Blur everyone else. Now pick another. Etc.

Go have fun. If this, or indoor sport events, or portraits, are not your thing, sell the lens and buy the zoom. Zooms are fun because once you pick a viewpoint, framing is on the fly.

Jack, who thinks available low light photography is really overrated.

I made that mistake myself. Thsi forum helped me come to realize that.

I think that beginners and people who are taking photos for fun very often feel that zoom lenses are more to their liking. I certainly do.

I have the 50mm f/1.8 and while I like the ability to do selective focus, I find myself not having it on the camera very often, because its too long for indoor family snapshots, and that is what I do quite a lot of (like most new dads!)

Maybe a 35mm prime would have been more suitable for me (but much more expensive) but I always end up putting a zoom lens on, for convenience.

I wouldn't rush to undo it. For me, working with a prime really improves my eye and makes me learn how to position myself for the shot. I took a few less photos but I think they were better photos. And there's a huge difference in what you can do with depth of field between f 1.8 and f4.

It's a tough lens to part with, but after using it for awhile, and it still doesn't fit your overall style, by all means go for a zoom.

People are built differently and we all shoot to satisfy our own personal tastes.

I happen to shoot with primes only and the 85 1.8 is on my camera much of the time. Indoors, outdoors, inner-city, country, events, and anywhere I go. Do I miss some shots a zoom would have given me? Probably, but most of the time I'm too busy taking photos to notice.

It all depends on you. If it bothers you some, look at a zoom.

No one lens will give you everything you are looking for all the time. Some , like zooms, may give you more flexibility.

I have the idea.. atleast for myself that 85mm would be way too long.. if I were considering primes I'd go for shorter ones.. (35mm)... the 70-200 f4.0L is a fabulous lens and you won't regret picking it up.. But, primes take some getting used to but once adapted to them I often find my compositions to be much stronger and better throught out when shooting with them.... give the 85 some time... and serious time on your camera.. if you find it's not for you it won't be hard to sell it and aquire a zoom.

sari

Off topic, but in looking at your sig, I see that you have the 18-55 "coming soon". Are you buying this lens separately from the camera?

Zooms are probably better for beginners. That way they can figure out what FL would best suit them. That is basically what I did. My first lens was the Canon 28-135. Second was the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8. Then I began to move into primes. First with Sigma 30mm 1.4. Now I just purchased the Canon 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. The 85 and 50 will most likely be the only two lenses I bring for a portrait shoot. Before I bought the Canon primes I used the Sigma 70-200 for portraits.

J Rabin wrote in post #2161686
People mistakenly believe fast lenses are for use in low light. They enable focus in low light, but where they really shine, and are more fun is for "selective focus," controlling narrow depth of field.
Before you're consumed with buyer's remorse, take your 85, set it to f/2.2, f/3.5, etc., and walk around shooting fence lines, urban signs, people, tree lines. Set up to subjects to throw selective focus out even more. Pick out one person at a bus stop. Blur everyone else. Now pick another. Etc.

I wouldn't downplay available light so much - that's why I have fast primes and even fast zooms...

But this post is spot-on. The 85mm excels at isolating subjects with the narrow DoF. It's also a good focal length as you're not right on top of your subject(s); you've got some working room. Try the above suggestions and see if it works for you.

I use my primes, particularly the 85 f1.8, much more than my 70-200 f2.8 IS.

I more and more appreciate a smaller and lighter bag, and the quality of my primes. In any case, in low light situations, on when DOF control is important, a prime becomes a necessity.

Zooms and primes serve different purposes, so an ideal kit should have both. The only question is which should come first, but at the end is not really important.

Enjoy your 85 f1.8. It is a great lens...

unix04 wrote in post #2161521
after further thought...i am wondering if instead of the 85mm/1.8, i should've just gotten the 70-200/4 L. this is less the L factor and more for the sake of a convenient tele-zoom with. i've only shot once in low light with the 85, and while it's nice, the lack of zoom was very limiting to me when taking lots of other shots.

furthermore, for portrait shots, the 50/1.8 seemed much more convenient for me, and was considering upgrading to the 1.4.

i dont know...perhaps i just need to adjust to what the 85mm prime offers me. it's a great lens, but as a beginner, perhaps it's a little too much for me to handle at the moment?

what do you guys think?

Personally I think you should own both. I don't think the 85 is too much for a beginner at all. Plus there's such a huge difference between f1.8 and f4 it's not even funny. Definitely make a goal to own both, but I'd own the 85 before the 70-200.
Now besides all of that, if you think the 70-200 f4 would better fit what YOU shoot, then who are we to decide anyways?

J Rabin wrote in post #2161686
People mistakenly believe fast lenses are for use in low light. They enable focus in low light, but where they really shine, and are more fun is for "selective focus," controlling narrow depth of field.
Before you're consumed with buyer's remorse, take your 85, set it to f/2.2, f/3.5, etc., and walk around shooting fence lines, urban signs, people, tree lines. Set up to subjects to throw selective focus out even more. Pick out one person at a bus stop. Blur everyone else. Now pick another. Etc.

Go have fun. If this, or indoor sport events, or portraits, are not your thing, sell the lens and buy the zoom. Zooms are fun because once you pick a viewpoint, framing is on the fly.

Jack, who thinks available low light photography is really overrated.

Well said. I can't think of anything more helpful to say.

John, who agrees with Jack today.

Dont do second thoughts...its a waist of heart muscle and stomach linning.

Just buy the other lens.

I have found that I vasilate between lenses that I thought would be "redundant". But have found that for each lens there is a time and place. Once you have a a "redundant" lens you will find its actually NOT redundant, it just expands you options....

Thast my story and I am sticking to it....just ask my wife...LOL

thanks for the encouragement all. i didnt necessarily get the 85/1.8 for low light, but got it thinking it would be a versatile lens (within my budget) to shoot outdoor sports/events, portraits as well as low-light event photos (i.e. concert, recital, carnival, etc). i got in with the expectation that it would be the do-all foot-zoom lens, and in a way, it is, but at the same time, i'm not so used to foot-zooming as i thought, and sometimes it's difficult to reach the right distance/angle when the FL is locked.

i also recently realized i take lots of close up group shots, and the 85mm on a 1.6x crop doesnt help to let me come close enough. (forget about using non-external flash on the 85!) of course, this is where the 50mm comes in to save the day, but when i do this, i realize the 50 doesnt come off...haha

i'll keep the lens and try to put more practical use into it. i fully agree it's a great lens, and as i get better, i can take some awesome shots with it. it certainly does help me appreciate a zoom lens when i decide to purchase a good one.

once again, thanks all. if only my 85 could hear you guys..she'd feel so loved.

yea...i originally planned to go primes to start, but decided to get a used kit lens to figure out which walkaround zoom-lens i'd like to purchase in the future. as it turned out, i found a person who bought the xti w/ kit and decided to upgrade from the kit lens. the person gave me a good deal and considering it's new, i took it. (of course, i did plenty of checking to make sure the user was dependable)