Help please: 75/1.8 instead of 35-100?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP S. Miller Contributing Member • Posts: 878
Re: Help please: 75/1.8 instead of 35-100?

Once again, thanks for all your replies and suggestions. As Abrak noted, this will really come down to personal preference and the recommendations appear to be in line with each poster's view: convenience of the 35-100 without sacrificing too much speed vs. the outstanding sharpness, speed, and the ability to really separate the subject from the background with the 75. Here are my thoughts on some of the comments made overnight:

@mehriirae: Owning both? Nice. Can't go down that road. I'm not worried about the 75 being too short, but as you said, it's when it's too long that will be a problem. Of course, there are plenty of options for that situation.

@mark: I hadn't really thought about the 75 allowing too much light on to the sensor. Not sure why this would be more of a problem than when I shoot with my 45/1.8. If it's too sunny, I could just use an ND.

@mick: Spot on assessment. I've actually tried the 35-100 for a few days and while it is a great piece of craftsmanship, I wasn't SO blown away by the IQ outdoors in good light compared to my 40-150, especially for a $1,500 lens. I've pretty much decided that I won't pay that much for the 35-100 when it doesn't give me the sports functionality of my Canon 70-200/2.8 IS (if it did, there would be no decision). As far as putting the $600 towards a second body, I would be laughed out of the house by my wife and daughters if I started hauling two bodies. You understand it, readers on this forum understand it, as do I. They wouldn't...and their vote is more important!

@zabatman: I actually did try the 35-100 on my E-M5 for soccer. I appreciate the comments of others who have found that if you learn how to use the combo in just the right way, it works. Good for them (seriously). However, I have to say, that it wasn't close to a fair fight and I'm not even shooting with Canon's (or Nikon's) latest sports camera. The ability to track action (AI Servo? I forget what Canon calls it) is SO much better with the Canon. The 8fps I get with the 7D with no black out is a HUGE difference between the two cameras. In theory, the E-M5 doesn't black out with 4 fps, but the difference between 4 and 8 fps in unpredictable movement sports like kids soccer is the difference between getting the shot and missing it. I also haven't touched on the fact that the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC on my 7D is the equivalent of 156-448 compared to 70-200 on the E-M5. That also makes a huge difference when shooting on a large field (or pitch, not sure where you live).

@rrr_hhh: Sorry if I wasn't clear about the type of portraiture I enjoy. I like Arnold Newman environmental shots AND tighter head and shoulder or street portraits with totally blown out backgrounds. The 75 would be for the latter. As an aside, you could argue that Fred's shots with the 75 are environmental portraits. I think the 75 could be ideal for the tighter outdoor shots, and as I realized yesterday when shooting my 40-150 at 78mm 7 feet away from my daughter, it makes for a nice tight head and shoulders shot. I like your idea about leaving it set at 74/78 to test the FL. And lastly, I loved the 85/1.8 on my 7D, which as you noted was 136 EFL.

@Johann: I don't like MF for fast moving subjects (i.e. people). I'll try rrr_hhh's idea and see how constricted I feel with the FL over a few days.

Again, thanks everyone for your comments. At this point I just have to decide if I'll be able to frequently use the 75/1.8, a lens which everyone seems to agree is one fine piece of Oly glass. If it ends up sitting in my bag most of the time, then no matter how nice it is, it wouldn't be the best use of $900.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow