60 macro and 85 f/1.8?

I currently have a Canon 28-75 for everyday use and a Canon 60 macro, and am considering adding an 85 f/1.8 for indoor sports, my kid's ballet recitals and concerts, and portraits (although the 60 macro is an awesome portrait lens on my XTi). However, I'm questioning whether it's different enough from my current lineup to be worth the financial outlay. Any advice would be appreciated. I've always enjoyed the convenience of zooms, but the quality of the 60 macro has made me think I'd enjoy another prime.

I have and regularly use both. The 60mm is sharper wide-open (macros tend to be), but sometimes you'll want/need the extra aperture. Particularly if you're looking at low-light action.

You also get very nice out-of-focus blur with the additional focal-length/aperture of the 85.

For most portraits, you may find the 60mm a better focal length (on APS-C sensors anyway) than the 85mm. But the 85mm is a great lens for indoor/low-light action.

You are looking at 1.5 stops speed, when hand held speed matters. The 60mm cannot do that as it's limited at 2.8. The 85 F1.8 is such a nice lens from what I have seen/read that if you can afford it get it.

ceegee wrote in post #7082627
I currently have a Canon 28-75 for everyday use and a Canon 60 macro, and am considering adding an 85 f/1.8 for indoor sports, my kid's ballet recitals and concerts, and portraits (although the 60 macro is an awesome portrait lens on my XTi). However, I'm questioning whether it's different enough from my current lineup to be worth the financial outlay. Any advice would be appreciated. I've always enjoyed the convenience of zooms, but the quality of the 60 macro has made me think I'd enjoy another prime.

One of the reasons I went with the 100 f/2 instead of the 85 f/1.8 was that it seemed too close to my 60 mm macro. Just another option to throw into the mix ...

JHutter wrote in post #7085456
One of the reasons I went with the 100 f/2 instead of the 85 f/1.8 was that it seemed too close to my 60 mm macro. Just another option to throw into the mix ...

+1

Exactly my thoughts, even though I did get a 85 F/1.8 . But then, I already had the 100 macro by that time.

Essentially, an FL of 85 is 1.4X of a 60, which means the FoV is twice as small areawise (1.4X1.4). With 100 it is approx. 1.7X, which gives an approx. 3X smaller FoV. All from the same distance, of course.

Kind regards, Wim

JHutter is right about that 100mm 2.0. About the same size and the same sharpness as the 85mm 1.8 but almost twice the focal length as the 60mm. The 100mm at 2.0 is great for portraits!

JHutter wrote in post #7085456
One of the reasons I went with the 100 f/2 instead of the 85 f/1.8 was that it seemed too close to my 60 mm macro. Just another option to throw into the mix ...

If I had the 60 macro and not the 85/1.8... I might have also bought the 100 instead of the 85. I do think the 85 would be a bit more usuable indoors and the 100 slightly more outdoors.

I shoot a LOT of head/head & shoulder type stuff.

I have both the 60 macro and the 85 f1.8, and they serve very different purposes for me. The 60mm is my favorite portrait lens and of course it is great for closeup/macro. The 85mm f1.8 also does portraits but I use it mainly for indoor sports.

I also had the 100 f2 and I agree it is a great lens, but it was a bit long for portraits on crop bodies. I also prefer the extra 1/3 stop on the 85 for sports.

For $325, the 85 1.8 is just too good not to have in your arsenal.

Every arsenal should have the 85 f/1.8.
It's been a part of my arsenal for just over a year.

Thanks, guys. This has been very helpful. I have a terrific opportunity to buy a used version of this lens locally, and have decided to go ahead. I'm collecting it next week and will, of course, post the obligatory duck!

I own both (I shoot with a Canon XTi). I shoot half-body or bigger with the 60mm. I shoot head and shoulders and head-only with the 85mm. YMMV.