I get to post a help me pick thread!

Back story: I have a Sigma 30 and Tamron 28 - 75 and love the images that both produce, but noticed that when I use the zoom I am always at the extremes and generally don't think about composition of photos. And I prefer to use the Sigma (awesome lens!!!) For this reason I was going to sell the Tamron and pick up a Canon 85 1.8. The other lens on my wish list that I thought I would get 3 - 6 months from now was going to be the 200 2.8 L. I figured this would be a great 3 lens prime setup.

So, currently my Tamron is up for sale (to be replaced with the 85 1.8) and last night as part of a deal between my wife and I she gave me the go ahead to purchase the other lens (200 2.8) that I wanted. This got me thinking, do I really want the 85 1.8 and 200 2.8 or should I get the 70 - 200 2.8? And then I started thinking, maybe I should get the 135L and either the 1.4 or 2x extenders.

Now, keep in mind that I'm a dad who likes to take good (once in a while great) pictures of his daughter. Often indoors, so I need to stop motion.

Budget is approximately $1100...and my current options are:

1) 85 1.8 and 200 2.8
2) Canon 70 - 200 2.8
3) 135 2.0 and 1.4 (or 2x) extender

Any other options or thoughts?

Thanks!!!

Well ... all of the lenses you list are great ones.

If you already know you don't care for using zooms though, seems that the 70-20 2.8 doesn't belong in your list? (still a great lens, imo).

Where in the Mpls area are you?

I'm in Burnsville.

snowshark13 wrote in post #9673510
I'm in Burnsville.

Interesting. I'm in Lakeville.

FWIW - I don't have the (exceptional) 200 2.8, but I've got the rest of those lenses. I'm tied up for the next couple weeks, but if you're not in a hurry we could get together so you can get a hands on with most of the glass you're interested in.

Thanks for the offer! I'm tied up for a few weeks after you are...so it could be a while before we could get together to check out the lenses. I've actually owned a 70-200 f4 and 85 1.8 in the past...the biggest unknown to me is the 135 f/2. With a 1.4 x I could get to 200 at 2.8, but the gap between 30 and 135 might be too large for me.

I am pretty positive I'm going with the 85 1.8 and 200 2.8, now I just need to watch the sell boards. Of course, if I see a great deal on a different lens all bets are off.

There's nothing at all wrong with the thought of a 200 f/2.8 & 85 f/1.8.

Maybe we can get together some time in the future and you can check out the 135 - you might find it's the next lens you save for.

ETA: Just thought of this. Not that I'm a "fill the gap" kind of guy, but the jump from 85->200 is larger than 30-135.

[QUOTE=snowshark13;967​2310]Now, keep in mind that I'm a dad who likes to take good (once in a while great) pictures of his daughter. Often indoors, so I need to stop motion./QUOTE]
FWIW, at f/1.8-2.0 I often have trouble getting my toddler's face in focus shooting indoors with my 85 -- part of the problem is tracking an eye accurately enough when he's moving around. At f/2.2 and smaller my in-focus rate improves quite a bit. Do you have a flash? I use mine M, 1/200, FEC ~+1-1 2/3 indoors bouncing off walls/ceilings. There's definitely a curve when it comes to aiming and exposing bounce, but the results can be very nice.

I'm a prime guy, so I like choice 1 the best. Choice 3 would be next (with the 1.4X, NOT the 2X). But even choice 2 is excellent. The black beauties... 135mm 2.0 and 200mm 2.8 are outstanding primes!

Yeah, I bounce lights all over the place! I have the 430 EX II. What I noticed was that even in good daylight indoors with a f4 I needed the flash. That's when I started to go with primes!

RandyS - Sounds good about getting together to shoot. I've been recently trying to think of interesting things to go shoot in the southern suburbs. They have a northern suburb group getting together, but I haven't seen one for the southern suburbs.

The 85 1.8 and the 200 2.8 are on the way!!!