That lens I never use.. here we go again!

Hello, photographers and friends!

Well, I just had to post about this because it's been driving me crazy.
I have a Canon 70-200mm F/4L that was my first L lens. It produces such lovely pictures and works great on my EOS 3 as well as my 40D.

The problem:
I haven't touched it since June when I used it to take headshots for a friend. Well, I've touched it, but only to take it out of my bag while loading up the other lenses.

I've loved using it for portaits and headshots, but after using the 50 1.4 for a while, I've learned that I'm beginning to need faster lenses for doing indoors and more creative shots. Most importantly, I'm getting ready to have a portfolio review (to determine whether my degree will be a BFA degree in Photography or a BA in Art). I'm trying to get some really artistic digital AND film shots in my portfolio and find the shallow DoF in primes and faster lenses quite adequate. I'm trying to do a bit of a series of a ballerina friend of mine dancing indoors with creative lighting.

So, my thought was to sell the 70-200 F/4L and pick up an 85mm 1.8 prime and keeping the extra money (since I am a student and every little bit helps). I think it would help for portraits and for when I start doing weddings later on.... maybe a fast wider prime, also.... Thoughts?

(Oh, and please don't suggest the 70-200 F/2.8 IS or anything. The only money i'd have for a new lens would be the money made from selling the F/4).

Well, the 85 F/1.8 is a good lens, but I would try a few copies if you can. I needed three to find a good one without decentering and/or light fall-off problems .

Considering the money you'd make from the 70-200 F/4, I'd suggest a 35 F/2 as a wider prime, in addition to the 85 F/1.8 that is.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Sounds like a good plan. The 85 is great.

As for the 70-200 f/4, great lens, but I thought about it for a while and realised that I also would never, ever use it.

perryge wrote in post #4832618
As for the 70-200 f/4, great lens, but I thought about it for a while and realised that I also would never, ever use it.

Thanks for the advice, all. Yup, that's exactly how I feel about it now that I've gotten a taste for fast glass. Aside from the quick headshots, I don't think I've used it once in the last year.

Yup. In the 70-200 range, 200 is too short for tele work like wildlife and birds, 70 is too long for it to be a walkaround, and in the range are a bunch of faster, cheaper, lighter, smaller primes with great IQ.

Perryge, you sound like you've been though my situation or have heard about it before. LoL. I found I was using the 70-200 F/4L for portraits and such for friends, but as soon as the sun went behind the trees, I was toast. I think I'm going to go ahead and put it up for sale on here and pick up the 85 1.8 and MAYBE a wider prime, but probably just the 85 first. I have a big chance to photograph a friend for a bike magazine and think that and the 50 would be great tools.

madhatter04 wrote in post #4833661
Perryge, you sound like you've been though my situation or have heard about it before. LoL. I found I was using the 70-200 F/4L for portraits and such for friends, but as soon as the sun went behind the trees, I was toast. I think I'm going to go ahead and put it up for sale on here and pick up the 85 1.8 and MAYBE a wider prime, but probably just the 85 first. I have a big chance to photograph a friend for a bike magazine and think that and the 50 would be great tools.

Pretty much . Everyone recommends this as the first L, and I wanted it at first, because of that, but then I thought about it for a minute and was like, wait, I have no use for this whatsoever, haha. Grabbed the 85 1.8 and never looked back.

I used to think having the 35, 50 and 85 would be a nice set of primes. But I now feel like those focal lengths are too close to be that different.

The 50 f/1.8 was the first prime I bought and then the 85 f/1.8 and finally the Sigma 30 f/1.4. Now, I think I could do without the 50mm focal length and would like to give the 135 a whirl. JMHO.

Regards,
Jeff

Depends on your camera really and your shooting style. 30/85/135 might be more useful on a crop, but ideally I'd still think 28/50/85/135 would be very useful. I used the 50 and 85 a lot when I had a cropped camera, and 28mm (on a zoom) quite often too. On a full frame, it's different of course.

Yeah, I'd imagine the 35/50/85 being a bit similar... I think my 17-40 has me covered pretty well in that area, being primarily a landscape photographer.

The 7-200 f/4 is my favourite lens, and I would only sell it if upgrading to the IS version - something I would do if it didn't mean losing a chunk of cash to depreciation as I bought it new a few months before the IS lens was announced and the price for even LNIB used copies has dropped markedly.

But the bottom line is, if you don't use it and have a need for something else, then changing it for the 85 can only be a good thing. An unused lens is not doing you much good, and you clearly have a need for the 85, so go for it.

madhatter04 wrote in post #4833871
Yeah, I'd imagine the 35/50/85 being a bit similar... I think my 17-40 has me covered pretty well in that area, being primarily a landscape photographer.

Nice . I do landscapes too, and used the Sigma 10-20 (wonderful, wonderful lens!) until I upgraded to a 5D.

You should try the 5D + 17-40L combo , it's a piece of work heh .

But yeah I agree, I'd prefer a 50/85/135/200 combo (that's what I'm going for actually).

Im glad i stumbled across this thread. I feel the same way. But then everyone gives me a bar of soap saying i need a telephoto and blah blah. But i seriously feel that it does not suit my style of photography. Im real hands on, love to get nice and close...

Telephoto lenses dont tickle my fancy. But then i get pressured into the whole old mind of thought "BUT YOU NEED A TELEPHOTO BLAH BLAH!!"

I feel that a 10-22mm would suit my a lot. Thoughts? I love urban photography.

Mediation wrote in post #4835092
Im glad i stumbled across this thread. I feel the same way. But then everyone gives me a bar of soap saying i need a telephoto and blah blah. But i seriously feel that it does not suit my style of photography. Im real hands on, love to get nice and close...

Telephoto lenses dont tickle my fancy. But then i get pressured into the whole old mind of thought "BUT YOU NEED A TELEPHOTO BLAH BLAH!!"

I feel that a 10-22mm would suit my a lot. Thoughts? I love urban photography.

I have, and always will vouch for the Sigma 10-20 over the Canon and Tokina alternatives. Cheaper than the Canon, same price as the toki, 2mm wider, HSM so better AF than the tokina, built better than the canon.

Great focal length though, might be too wide for urban photography - I am a fan of walking around with a standard prime.

But yes I agree, lots of people play the 'get a 70-200 f/4L, it's a fantastic lens for the price' card. I know for a fact that I will never own a 70-200 zoom, let alone one at f/4.

perryge wrote in post #4835094
I have, and always will vouch for the Sigma 10-20 over the Canon and Tokina alternatives. Cheaper than the Canon, same price as the toki, 2mm wider, HSM so better AF than the tokina, built better than the canon.

Great focal length though, might be too wide for urban photography - I am a fan of walking around with a standard prime.

But yes I agree, lots of people play the 'get a 70-200 f/4L, it's a fantastic lens for the price' card. I know for a fact that I will never own a 70-200 zoom, let alone one at f/4.

But 10mm in urban photography... but but! lol I see people getting cool perspectives with the 10mm in urban though. awww. What kind of prime would you recommend for urban?

im so confused now. But do you guys at least agree that telephoto lenses are not everyones cup of tea. Ive seen some great photographs achieved with the 10mm. awww I just want to throw my telephoto lens over a bridge. Thats how i feel about it. In all honesty. Sigma 30mm Prime?? thoughts?