would 70-2002.8IS be a good addition?

i was originally looking for a 85L. i am beginning to question if i really need that f/1.2. its more of, i just WANT it...so now my debate is...should i pull the trigger and get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS? i have the 35L and 135L...what should i add to the kit? should i just go all prime and add the 85 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.8 or get the 70-200f/2.8IS? or any other recommendation?

What do you like to shoot?

What DN said... There's a diff between collecting glass and using it

i shoot mostly indoor social events, with not so great lighting. i also shoot many staged events. i am no professional...i don't really do things for money, at least not as of yet. i take pictures at social gatherings and parties for my own fun and memory sake.

Figure out what kinds of images you want to take, like portraits, landscapes, etc. Then you'll have to decide how wide you need your len(s) to be and how mush telephoto you need.

You could do like some users do and have lenses that cover the focal range from the widest to the longest without too much cross covering or gaps with the range of mm.

I like my 70-200, but it's heavy so it gets less use. The L series lenses weigh more than non which could be an issue for you to think about, especially if your lugging around a heavy camera setup all day

i used to have the 24-70 and 70-200 non is...i found those at times just not fast enough. i am considering the 85 1.2 and 1.8 due to speed. i am considering the 1.2 due to awesome sharpness, portrait shots, color, speed...etc. but with the IS...i could take lots of pics since most of my subjects are still. this why im a little torn. cause i could find a 85L mkI for cheaper than a new 70-200IS with double rebates.

Can't go wrong with either of the 85mm lenses. Maybe a 50mm f/1.4 or 100mm f/2.0 on either side if you want shorter/longer. They're all USM.

2.8s are quick enough for the shots you are thinking of shooting. Bump up the ISO to 800 and you should be ok.

I prefer the convenience of a zoom and would only choose a fixed length lens if I needed more speed in dim light conditions. Remember that a large aperture comes at the expense of shallow depth of field. This is great if you are shooting one person and want to blur out the background, but a disadvantage if you are trying to include two people in the shot and they are not both exactly the same distance away.

With a zoom you have more ability to compose from a fixed position. With a fixed lens you have to zoom with your feet, which is not always possible, or change lenses, which can mean you missed the shot while you were fumbling in your camera bag.

For the first 20 years of my photography I only used prime lenses because the zoom available in the 70's were not sharp enough. It was not until I picked up a 70-200 f/2.8 lens in the 90's that I realized that top of the line zooms had advanced to the point where they could replace prime lenses for most uses.

id say go for the 70-200 IS L. Its an AMAZING lens. It does weigh a lot, but for me, personally, I like it weights. It makes me more stable when shooting.

I was also planning on getting a 85L, but since it cost so much, i can get a set of USM primes instead that will do a excellent job too. For Example 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm Macro,

Hello Stealth - do you do any wedding work?

I was all set to get the new 70-200 f/4 IS, but unfortunately that one isn't on the rebate list while the f/2.8 IS lens is.

Since I'll probably get a second body too, the current double rebate makes getting the f/2.8 attractive. I've handled both lenses though, and the weight/bulk of the faster lens puts me off a little. Granted it would be mostly tripod mounted at the back of the church for my wedding work, but there would certainly be times when it would be my "walkabout."

Typically, what are the slowest (non-tripod) shutter speeds you use with your 2.8? Thanks in advance. - Stu

StealthLude wrote in post #2237271
id say go for the 70-200 IS L. Its an AMAZING lens. It does weigh a lot, but for me, personally, I like it weights. It makes me more stable when shooting......,

if you want portraits, look no further than 85L. simply the fastest, sharpest lens in the 50-100mm range out there (can't compare with 50L since the new one isn't out and the old ones have been discontinued for a long time). for indoor "social" shots, go for 35L though. not as good of a portrait lens (still great, though you have to get very close), but sharper wide open than any of the other options you may want (with maybe the exception of the 85L, though the difference is so small i can't say which is better), and it's a 1.4 that can actually get that entire group in there at once...

get the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4 that's way less than the 70-200. I've seen great results with the 85 1.8, especially with indoor stuff, and my personal experience with the 50 is great.

The 70-200 2.8L IS is a great lens, and most say the best zoom lens made. It may be a little large and bulky for some social events though. The minimum focusing distance is 1.4 m, and it may not be wide enough if you're trying to take pictures of stuff right around you. If you're taking pictures of stuff happening on stage or from bit of a distance though, this is the best lens you can get IMO.

flipm3 wrote in post #2237078
i shoot mostly indoor social events, with not so great lighting. i also shoot many staged events. i am no professional...

I do not think the 70-200 f2.8L IS could be the best choice for your needs.

I would just add the 85 f1.8 to your kit, and perhaps a 1.4 extender for your 135L, instead of buying the 200 f2.8L, if you think you need the reach (although I doubt it).

You will have a great kit for the type of photography you do, IMO.