Wrong lense for me or is it just me?

Bought an 85mm 1.8 thinking I can use this for people pics, went to a local fair last weekend and ended up so frustrated - couldn't fit what I wanted into the frame. Could be me or have I misunderstood the purpose of this lens. Went back to the fair with my 17-40 and the resulting images were outstanding. Thinking of selling the 85mm and buying a medium zoom. What I really need is to be able to focus on people/objects across a street and not as large a lens as the 17-40. I have a 400D camera.

It's a bit long. More of a portrait lens than a walkaround people lens. A zoom or "normal" prime is more appropriate for snapping around, IMO. As far as shooting from across the street...you should be able to get those with the 85, depending how much of the frame you want to fill. Although a 70-200mm zoom would be more versatile. You'll have to have a large lens though if you want that and a fast aperture. If you're always in daylight you can consider the 80-400 Tokina That Condyk wrote a review about. It's compact-ish but slow in the aperture department.

just dependso n how far you are from the person, and what kind of surroundings you want.

it will isolate the subject from the background much better than the 17-40 will, but if thats not what you want, then something like the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 might be better.

85mm on a 1.6 crop body means an effective focal length of 136mm, so perhaps a bit long for your needs, and especially if the 17-40 lens covers that. Perhaps a better lens might be something like the 24-105?

With a prime... your feet are the zoom. The 85 is equivalent to 135 on 1.6 crop camera. You should be about 6 ft away for a tight-ish 3/4 shot of someone.

I was walking around with my 200/2.8 for a few days and talk about long

4x4rock wrote in post #2258075
I was walking around with my 200/2.8 for a few days and talk about long

I would say so! LOL!

85 is too long for a walk-about on a crop camera - but 17-40 is perfect. I also like 70-200 providing you have some room, it is good for candid stuff. and the versatility of a zoom in these situations is not to be sneezed at.

I like my 85 1.8 ......... I LOVE my 24-105

Would a 24-85 fit the bill for the time being until I save for the 24-105?

Pat wrote in post #2258306
Would a 24-85 fit the bill for the time being until I save for the 24-105?

Since you have the 17-40L and 85, you probably wouldn't be happy with the quality.

coreypolis wrote in post #2258061
....something like the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 might be better.

Pat wrote in post #2258306
Would a 24-85 fit the bill for the time being until I save for the 24-105?

I agree with the recommendation of the Tamron 28-75 if you are considering the 24-85. It is a faster lens with f/2.8 thorughout the zoom range versus f/3.5-4.5 variable aperture for the 24-85. It doesn't have USM (obviously) as does the Canon. It does, however, include the lens hood and is almost universally praised for the sharpness of the images produced with it. B&H advertises the 24-85 for $310. USD and the Tamron for $380, before a $30 Tamron rebate.

I think the 24-85 would overlap what you already have too much...I'd recommend the 50mm f1.8 or f:1.4 if you have the $dough$ray$me...

And for what it's worth, the 24-85, while soft wide open at the edges it's plenty sharp in the middle...as you can see here...
a 1.5" x 2.5" center crop from the 8x12 full frame (or a 5x7 cut from a 16x24 as you see it here)...shot raw @ iso 200 on a d30...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I like my 50, LOVE my 85, but for walking around I like my 24-105...the zoom options are nice as long as I dont want to get something relaly far away....

how much are you selling your 85mm?