lenses

I have the following lenses I want to discuss:

Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 85mm f1.8
and now have been talked in to buying a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. it is my only real macro.

Is there any lens here which his redundant or not that useful on a tight budget. if it were you, would you sell the 85mm?

think of all the uses of these lenses and please comment on whether all 3 should be kept on a tight budget and why.

I think you get the drift?

Regards,
Gedeon

please send copy of reply to gedeon_h@tpg.com.au

What are you trying to shoot and what camera are you using?

The 85/1.8 and the 90mm macro are potentially redundant if you do not have a need for the optical and AF speed of the 85mm prime or if you are not needing the macro capabilities of the 90mm.

The 50/1.4 is not redundant, but without some idea of subject matter it's difficult to give any useful advice.

gedeon wrote in post #11226681
Is there any lens here which his redundant or not that useful on a tight budget?

No, not redundant; and they are all useful on a tight budget. However, when budget (or weight or space) is limited, you have to choose the tools that will give you the best photographs.

gedeon wrote in post #11226681
if it were you, would you sell the 85mm?

No, if it were me, I'd replace the 50mm f/1.4 and 90mm tamron with a used Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 macro for $100 from KEH, then I'd get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 L USM.

JeffreyG -
I do not know what you mean by "redundant" for the 85 and the 90mms.
I have used the 85mm for portraits and they looked great but I had no macro lens and got the 90mm Tamron. I will check it against the others but wanted other general opinions on macro work and portraiture work with a macro lens such as the Tamron and whether anyone thinks they would be happy with it as a portrait lens to take the place of the Canon 85,, f1.8. obviously i will have to deiced when comparing myself. There may be points other make to give me more knowledge of these matters.
As far as general photography of my surroundings and scenery have found recently that the primes are obviously so me much better than a carry about zoom such as my Tamron 28-300 stabilised. In theory this sounds good but I can see the quality of a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 and am using the Tamron zoom less and less. I can not afford better zooms so am going with some primes. Hence the questions regarding the Tamron 90mm macro - in case any one has been using it for various purposes. Has it a place in other situations - other than macro work? - if one has a 50 and 85 prime -.

I'd suggest disposing of the 85/1.8.

The 90 has that focal length covered. If you do need the speed, you have the 501.4 and can crop if necessary.

gedeon wrote in post #11228475
JeffreyG -
I do not know what you mean by "redundant" for the 85 and the 90mms.

If you were using the 85/1.8 to shoot basketball games and the 90/2.8 Macro to shoot insects then the two lenses would not be redundant for you as the 90mm would absolutely suck for basketball and the 85mm has very low maximum magnification and is poor for macro.

But if you are using both lenses to shoot portraits then they are redundant. Both the 85 and 90 will be fine for portraits and they have essentially the same focal length.

If you are shooting macro plus portraits, keep the 90.

I recently acquired both the 85/1.8 and the 100/2.8L in close enough proximity that I could return one if I chose. After seeing the incredible results of the 100L, I almost sent the 85 back, but found that it really is a very different lens. It is capable of making images that the 100L cannot, and vice versa. So I kept them both and am glad I did.

Looking for some input on a good lens to shoot indoor high school basketball. I have a canon T2i and new to photography.

STUMP1982 wrote in post #11229055
Looking for some input on a good lens to shoot indoor high school basketball. I have a canon T2i and new to photography.

Canon 85mm f/1.8.