Would i experience benefit of 85 1.8??

I already own the 50 1.4, would i feel benefit of 85 1.8? there are a number of outdoor street events that are happening soon near where i live, they are lantern parades in the dark winter evenings- i have seen the 85 perform well in such situations with only street light and shop window display light available- the shooting distance would be 12-18 metres.
Would the 85 suit this environment?
or would 135mm be a better purchase?- danger is that i do not want to double up on focal length as at some stage i wish to purchase the 70-200 2.8is- unless there are benefits to having zooms and primes that cover the same focal distance.

I am after any form of reason to help me decide what lens to buy next.

Also thanks to those who helped me decide on the 17-40L i am delighted with this lens, i am so amazed at the true likeness of colour that it manages to capture- and the AF is tack sharp- though it will lead to further spending as i am now wanting to buy slide in filters to take pucker landscape shots.

Anyway as i said any thoughts would be welcome, thanks in advance, A.

Faster Af, is one.

my husband owns the 85 1.8 and I've got the 135 f/2. To me, they are both very good lenses...but the 135 is my fav (barely). We took some of the same shots at a portrait session last Friday and the colors/sharpness were a bit better w/the 135. BUT, I was using the 5D and he was using the 30D. That might have made a diff. Anyway, I'd highly recommend either of these...they both focus quite fast and produce excellent shots.

However, I find, that when I take out my primes I don't need the 85 range (I also own the 50 1.4) because of having the 50 and the 135. He however uses the 35, 85 and the 200. So if you own and are happy with the 50, I'd bypass the 85 and buy the 135L (which I think is the sharpest lens canon makes).

Both the 85 f1.8 and 135L are great lenses, quite different than the 70-200 f2.8L IS so they will complement it if you end up buying it.

It depends on the focal lenght that you need or prefer now. The 85 f1.8 will be about 135mm on your camera, the 135L will be a bit more than 200 mm so it may be a bit long, particularly in low light situations...

In my view, your 17-40 f4L and the 85 f1.8 make a great combo. They are all I take with me when travelling, together with a 20D.

These are both from 18 meters (actually 58 feet) at 90 and 135 mm with my 70-300. I know, I know. Lousy photos. Taken from over halfway down the hallway, into a dark kitchen, by a no-talent hack

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I own the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8 AND the 17-40. great combo.

I am thinking the same but from the other end. I own 85/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4, and now thinking of the 50/1.4 as I have rather low hit-rate using 85/1.8 for indoor low-light space due to camera-shake. Coupled with the crop factor 1.6x makes it even worse.

So I am toying with the idea of the 50 as I found the focal length is nice and the lens is rather small, so probably easier to hold.

If I were in your shoes, I probably buy the 135 for outdoor and wait for 70-200 to fill the gap at 85.

Advantage of my 85/1.8 USM: Available light (no flash) in the evening in my livingroom, fast focus, and it's light so you can handhold it with lower shutter speeds than you'd think!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have the 85 and haven't experienced any issues with hand holding it. I think, though, that you might find the 135 more usable coupled with the 50mm lens than the 85. I own all three focal lengths, by the way.

The 85 f/1.8 is a very capable and sharp lens, and works well for indoor sports and outdoor shots if you're fairly close. If you don't mind spending the extra $500 the 135 L will probably suit you better.

What about the 135 soft focus...I've seen some very nice shots with that. With and without the soft focus turned on. And I don't think it's nearly the price of the 135 f/2...(though I admit I haven't a clue what it's price actually is...)

well the last 2 lenses i have bought- the only 2 lol, have usm and now i am used to that i would like my next lens to have it aswell- as far as i am aware the softfocus does not have it.

Tricky decision so many people own these 3 primes- no 70-200 owner seems to have defenced the case for going for the zoom and forgetting the primes.

I can get the 85mm for £230 and the 135mmL for £490 and the cheapest that i have seen the 70-2002.8is £1025
The cost of the 85 and 135 go some way toward the cost of the zoom- argh decisions decisions.

Has anyone used the 70-200 for low light street photography?

I've heard mention that it's not wide enough...

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #2201522
Has anyone used the 70-200 for low light street photography?

I would say that f2.8 zooms are great for "available light" photos. "Low light" will generally require a faster prime, particularly if your subjects are moving.

It just depends on the "available light" at that street... I would pick a prime if I want to play safe.