So I'm in a bit of a quandary... Although I'm still very much a beginner, my main "thing" thus far has been low light, gig photography so f-stops are very important to me. I've been using the cheap as chips but nonetheless very wonderful "nifty fifty" for my low light shots. This has allowed me to keep the exposure up around 100th while keeping the ISO. However, I'm really rather hankering for something which is still reasonably priced but which will give a little more reach.
The two lenses to which I'm rather attracted at the moment are the:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM lens
Generally I'm tending towards the EF 85mm f/1.8 at the moment but on the basis of practically no information or insight.
While I'd love to go for a more expensive lens - an L series or one of the f1.2 models - that's just out of the question as far as funds are concerned. I reckon I've got about £300-£400 to play with which puts either of these lenses in my sights. Of course, because I'm using a 500D that of course makes their effective focal length quite a bit longer too... 136mm vs 160mm. Is that right? Is this an issue?
I wondered whether anyone here has any experience with these lenses or thoughts about which would be a better choice?
Of course, to complicate matters there's the question of what else I might do should I have a nice prime to be playing with. I'm quite interested in the idea of macro photography and have done a few flower shots and the like which were fun. Would either lens be useful for an intro into that sort of activity. Or usage for semi formal portraits? All the books and magazines seem to talk about primes from between 50mm and 100mm being useful for this... What about sports photography? So which would be more versatile? Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Really grateful for any insights or thoughts. So which should I be going for?
The two lenses to which I'm rather attracted at the moment are the:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM lens
Generally I'm tending towards the EF 85mm f/1.8 at the moment but on the basis of practically no information or insight.
While I'd love to go for a more expensive lens - an L series or one of the f1.2 models - that's just out of the question as far as funds are concerned. I reckon I've got about £300-£400 to play with which puts either of these lenses in my sights. Of course, because I'm using a 500D that of course makes their effective focal length quite a bit longer too... 136mm vs 160mm. Is that right? Is this an issue?
I wondered whether anyone here has any experience with these lenses or thoughts about which would be a better choice?
Of course, to complicate matters there's the question of what else I might do should I have a nice prime to be playing with. I'm quite interested in the idea of macro photography and have done a few flower shots and the like which were fun. Would either lens be useful for an intro into that sort of activity. Or usage for semi formal portraits? All the books and magazines seem to talk about primes from between 50mm and 100mm being useful for this... What about sports photography? So which would be more versatile? Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Really grateful for any insights or thoughts. So which should I be going for?
Comment