(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
Troy Piggins
happy with my 17-55 as a walkaround, it's always bothered me
about the overlap with my 10-22 and then a big gap to the
100-400. No way I'm getting rid of the 10-22 or 100-400, so might
sell the 17-55 and get some primes. I have a Sigma 150mm macro on
the way already, so won't be getting or need the 135L. I have had
the 24-70L in the past. Loved it, but thinking about faster
primes.
Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the 50L and
85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just can't justify
both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4
and 85L.
I suspect I'd get more use out of the 50mm range than 85mm, so
that leans me towards the 50L/85 1.8 combo, but read a review
about the 50L's AF being dodgy. Also it seems the 85L gets rave
reviews all over the place, so that leans me the other way.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
--
Troy Piggins
eatmorepies
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:2009113...@usenet.piggo.com...
1. If you don't have a 70-200 f4 L IS get one today. It is very very sharp
and has IS that allows me handhold as low as 1/30s.
2. I have a 50mm f1.4. On the 40D it didn't produce the sharp images the
reviews said it was capable of. I bought a 50D and had to dial in -17 on the
microfocus adjust for this lens. Then it produced sharp images. On the 5D
mkII it produces very sharp images with zero microfocus adjust - go figure.
At f1.4 it's soft - as said in reviews. At f1.8 it's sharp. At f2 it's very
sharp and produces well saturated colours with good contrast. I tend to use
it at f2 and for the price it makes an excellent fast lens. It's fairly
small compared with L lenses. The focus is not as swift as the L lenses and
it's a bit noisy.
John
Markus Fuenfrocken
> Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the
> 50L and 85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just
> can't justify both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L
> and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4 and 85L.
i use the 85 1,8 and the 50 1,4 on a 5D(I) and never used any of the two Ls.
Both are very good. But i would never spend so much money for the 50L, while
i would definitely go for the 85L without any doubt if i had the money.
Having looked at several images from both lenses, and while the images from
the 85L impress me even wide open, the images from the 50L don�t. And
there�s the constant bitching about focus shift at wide apertures. Look at
the new review at photozone ....
So i�d go for the second setup. The 50 1.4 is a solid perfomer, but it�s NOT
a bokeh lens like the 85L. Oh, and if you have the money skip the 50mm
primes and go for the 35 1,4 L :-)
regards,
Markus
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the
>> 50L and 85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just
>> can't justify both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L
>> and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4 and 85L.
>
> Hi,
>
> i use the 85 1,8 and the 50 1,4 on a 5D(I) and never used any of the two Ls.
> Both are very good. But i would never spend so much money for the 50L, while
> i would definitely go for the 85L without any doubt if i had the money.
> Having looked at several images from both lenses, and while the images from
> there´s the constant bitching about focus shift at wide apertures. Look at
> primes and go for the 35 1,4 L :-)
Hmm, you're not the first to suggest the 35L over the 50. More
food for thought. Thanks.
--
Troy Piggins
Troy Piggins
>>
>> Interested to hear your thoughts.
>
> and has IS that allows me handhold as low as 1/30s.
>
> 2. I have a 50mm f1.4. On the 40D it didn't produce the sharp images the
> reviews said it was capable of. I bought a 50D and had to dial in -17 on the
> microfocus adjust for this lens. Then it produced sharp images. On the 5D
> mkII it produces very sharp images with zero microfocus adjust - go figure.
> At f1.4 it's soft - as said in reviews. At f1.8 it's sharp. At f2 it's very
> sharp and produces well saturated colours with good contrast. I tend to use
> it at f2 and for the price it makes an excellent fast lens. It's fairly
> small compared with L lenses. The focus is not as swift as the L lenses and
> it's a bit noisy.
Thanks for your thoughts, John.
--
Troy Piggins
Paul Furman
Fast & wide is really handy, it gives you speed for low light and
subject isolation. I use my Nikkor 34/1.4 a lot & seldom touch my
85/1.4, it is just too extreme. For low light work, using a longish lens
defeats hand holdability, even though I'm a nerd who loves silly shallow
DOF shots, it's rare that I have a real use for the 85 wide open.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 16 lines snipped |=---]
>>> a bokeh lens like the 85L. Oh, and if you have the money skip the 50mm
>>> primes and go for the 35 1,4 L :-)
>>
>> Hmm, you're not the first to suggest the 35L over the 50. More
>> food for thought. Thanks.
>
> Fast & wide is really handy, it gives you speed for low light and
> subject isolation. I use my Nikkor 34/1.4 a lot & seldom touch my
> 85/1.4, it is just too extreme. For low light work, using a longish lens
> defeats hand holdability, even though I'm a nerd who loves silly shallow
> DOF shots, it's rare that I have a real use for the 85 wide open.
Hmm, thanks Paul. Maybe the 35L and 85 f/1.8 are on the table
now...
--
Troy Piggins
Robert Spanjaard
But then, the gap between 35mm and 85mm is bigger than the gap you're
trying to get rid of.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Troy Piggins
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:32:38 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>>> lens defeats hand holdability, even though I'm a nerd who loves silly
>>> shallow DOF shots, it's rare that I have a real use for the 85 wide
>>> open.
>>
>> Hmm, thanks Paul. Maybe the 35L and 85 f/1.8 are on the table now...
>
> But then, the gap between 35mm and 85mm is bigger than the gap you're
> trying to get rid of.
I'm not just trying to get rid of a gap, but also an overlap and
also trying to get some faster glass. But you're starting to see
my dilemma :)
--
Troy Piggins
Robert Spanjaard
>>> Hmm, thanks Paul. Maybe the 35L and 85 f/1.8 are on the table now...
>>
>> But then, the gap between 35mm and 85mm is bigger than the gap you're
>> trying to get rid of.
>
> I'm not just trying to get rid of a gap, but also an overlap and also
> trying to get some faster glass. But you're starting to see my dilemma
> :)
Then how about 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8?
If you have to throw at least one L in the bag, the 85mm would be the one
that benefits most from the upgrade. But if you're not into shooting test
charts, you may have to think if the soft corners of the regular 1.8
version are going to bother you. If not, you can always use the money you
just saved to get a fourth fast prime (like the 35/2.0). And a new bag to
carry all that new equipment. :-)
DRS
> * Markus Fuenfrocken wrote :
[...]
>> i use the 85 1,8 and the 50 1,4 on a 5D(I) and never used any of the
>> two Ls. Both are very good. But i would never spend so much money
>> for the 50L, while i would definitely go for the 85L without any
>> doubt if i had the money. Having looked at several images from both
>> lenses, and while the images from the 85L impress me even wide open,
>> the images from the 50L don�t. And there�s the constant bitching
>> about focus shift at wide apertures. Look at the new review at
>> photozone ...
>> So i�d go for the second setup. The 50 1.4 is a solid perfomer, but
>> it�s NOT a bokeh lens like the 85L. Oh, and if you have the money
>> skip the 50mm primes and go for the 35 1,4 L :-)
>
> Hmm, you're not the first to suggest the 35L over the 50. More
> food for thought. Thanks.
Given the crop factor on the 40D the 35 is effectively a 56.
Annika1980
awesome bokeh. Not so great on the AF, however, so don't expect to
shoot much action with it.
Of course, your choice is largely dependent on what you intend to
shoot.
An 85L on a 40D might be too long for portraits, given the 1.6x crop
factor of the 40D.
I think it would work better on a full frame like the FAB 5D2.
Both the 50 and 85mm non-L lenses are also excellent performers,
falling short only in the bokeh department. The 50mm f/1.8 can be had
for a song, while the 50mm f/1.4 will cost a bit more.
That's a lens I've been considering for a while now.
Here's a few shot wide open with the 85L and the 85L II:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108185646
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452
Bob Larter
> I'm rethinking my current lens lineup. Again. While I've been
> happy with my 17-55 as a walkaround, it's always bothered me
> about the overlap with my 10-22 and then a big gap to the
> 100-400. No way I'm getting rid of the 10-22 or 100-400, so might
> sell the 17-55 and get some primes. I have a Sigma 150mm macro on
> the way already, so won't be getting or need the 135L. I have had
> the 24-70L in the past. Loved it, but thinking about faster
> primes.
>
> Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the 50L and
> 85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just can't justify
> both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4
> and 85L.
I have the 85/1.8 & the 50/1.4, & they're both excellent lenses.
> I suspect I'd get more use out of the 50mm range than 85mm, so
> that leans me towards the 50L/85 1.8 combo, but read a review
> about the 50L's AF being dodgy. Also it seems the 85L gets rave
> reviews all over the place, so that leans me the other way.
What body are you shooting with?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:12:25 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>>>> Hmm, thanks Paul. Maybe the 35L and 85 f/1.8 are on the table now...
>>> But then, the gap between 35mm and 85mm is bigger than the gap you're
>>> trying to get rid of.
>> I'm not just trying to get rid of a gap, but also an overlap and also
>> trying to get some faster glass. But you're starting to see my dilemma
>> :)
>
> Then how about 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8?
I've been shooting with all those lenses for years, & wouldn't hesitate
to recommend them.
> If you have to throw at least one L in the bag, the 85mm would be the one
> that benefits most from the upgrade. But if you're not into shooting test
> charts, you may have to think if the soft corners of the regular 1.8
> version are going to bother you.
Personally, I think that those primes are good enough that going to the
'L' versions is overkill. I just don't think they're enough better that
they justify the steep price.
If not, you can always use the money you
> just saved to get a fourth fast prime (like the 35/2.0). And a new bag to
> carry all that new equipment. :-)
Indeed. ;^)
Troy Piggins
I've pulled the trigger on the 35L, completely contrary to what
my post here was all about. Reasons:
- it's smack bang in the middle of what my 17-55 does for me now,
so not too different from my current setup that I am relatively
happy with
- it's faster than what I have now
- good focal length for indoor portraits (baby on the way, wanted
indoor fast portrait lens)
I'll be selling the 17-55 soon. It'll buy me more time to decide
on whether to go 50 or 85. Damn those shots of yours have nice
bokeh.
--
Troy Piggins
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 8 lines snipped |=---]
>>
>> Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the 50L and
>> 85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just can't justify
>> both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4
>> and 85L.
>
> I have the 85/1.8 & the 50/1.4, & they're both excellent lenses.
>
>> I suspect I'd get more use out of the 50mm range than 85mm, so
>> that leans me towards the 50L/85 1.8 combo, but read a review
>> about the 50L's AF being dodgy. Also it seems the 85L gets rave
>> reviews all over the place, so that leans me the other way.
>
> What body are you shooting with?
40D (crop body)
Been reading, reading some more, thinking, thinking some more...
and just pulled the trigger on none of the above. Went with the
35L for now. I'll take a little more time and decide on the 50
or 85 later.
Thanks for your feedback on the non-L's. Must admit they're
tempting.
--
Troy Piggins
Jim Bob
Giving you have a 17-55, I would guess you are using a crop body.
Therefore, I personally don't see the point in having a 50 and an 85 prime.
Unless, there is a reason you can't use foot zoom, for example if you are in
a small studio where walls get in the way.
So, I would say none of the above.
If you are only going for one L lens, I would go for a 24L and a 50 1.4. I
have used both those lenses as well as a 50 1.8 and a 50 1.2. Personally, I
don't like the 50 1.8 (although it is good value). I like both the 50 1.4
and the 50 1.2. They are very close (visually, not MTF charts and all that
rubbish), however the 50L does seem to produce nicer OOF specular
highlights.
Troy Piggins
>>
>> Interested to hear your thoughts.
>
Correct, I have a 40D.
> Therefore, I personally don't see the point in having a 50 and an 85 prime.
> Unless, there is a reason you can't use foot zoom, for example if you are in
> a small studio where walls get in the way.
>
> So, I would say none of the above.
I've actually ordered none of the above, so am taking your advice
:)
Ended up getting the 35L, and will think some more about a 50 or
85.
> If you are only going for one L lens, I would go for a 24L and a 50 1.4. I
> have used both those lenses as well as a 50 1.8 and a 50 1.2. Personally, I
> don't like the 50 1.8 (although it is good value). I like both the 50 1.4
> and the 50 1.2. They are very close (visually, not MTF charts and all that
> rubbish), however the 50L does seem to produce nicer OOF specular
> highlights.
Wow, you must really like 50mm lenses :) I had the 50 1.8, but
didn't like the feel of it. Sold it.
Thanks for your thoughts.
--
Troy Piggins
Jim Bob
>> Therefore, I personally don't see the point in having a 50 and an 85
>> prime.
>> Unless, there is a reason you can't use foot zoom, for example if you are
>> in
>> a small studio where walls get in the way.
>>
>> So, I would say none of the above.
>
> I've actually ordered none of the above, so am taking your advice
> :)
>
> Ended up getting the 35L, and will think some more about a 50 or
> 85.
Same goes for having both a 35 and 50. For me personally, I think they are
a bit close in focal length to justify having those two, as most of the
time foot zoom isn't a problem and the difference in perspective won't be
huge. I think a 35/85 combo would be more useful (and is possibly the most
common prime combo (especially on full frame)). That said, each to their
own, as I suppose it depends on what you are shooting. For me, the 24/50
combo works, for others it may not. It really is a personal choice that
only you can decide. Once you get your 35 and start reeling off some shots,
you will get a better idea of what suits you. Hell, you may even want to go
back to a zoom... ;-)
>> If you are only going for one L lens, I would go for a 24L and a 50 1.4.
>> I
>> have used both those lenses as well as a 50 1.8 and a 50 1.2.
>> Personally, I
>> don't like the 50 1.8 (although it is good value). I like both the 50
>> 1.4
>> and the 50 1.2. They are very close (visually, not MTF charts and all
>> that
>> rubbish), however the 50L does seem to produce nicer OOF specular
>> highlights.
>
> Wow, you must really like 50mm lenses :) I had the 50 1.8, but
> didn't like the feel of it. Sold it.
LOL. Yeah, I like the 50mm on a cropped body for sure, mainly for people
shots. Although, I only own one 50mm now (not all three), as I can't afford
to hoard lenses. Basically I work on trial and error. Over the years I've
gone through quite a few different lenses, kept the ones I liked and sold
the ones I didn't like so much. The good thing about branded lenses is they
generally hold their price, so you usually don't take too big a hit when you
sell them again, especially if you don't batter them and keep the original
receipt, box, packaging, booklet, etc.
Bob Larter
On a 1.6x crop body, the 50/1.4 is a perfect portrait lens. You'd be
insane not to get it. ;^)
> Thanks for your feedback on the non-L's. Must admit they're
> tempting.
Seriously, the 85L is nice, but too slow on AF for many purposes. The
85/1.8 is much more useful - as well as being cheaper.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>
>> Been reading, reading some more, thinking, thinking some more...
>> and just pulled the trigger on none of the above. Went with the
>> 35L for now. I'll take a little more time and decide on the 50
>> or 85 later.
>
> On a 1.6x crop body, the 50/1.4 is a perfect portrait lens. You'd be
> insane not to get it. ;^)
>
>> Thanks for your feedback on the non-L's. Must admit they're
>> tempting.
>
> Seriously, the 85L is nice, but too slow on AF for many purposes. The
> 85/1.8 is much more useful - as well as being cheaper.
I'm in a holding pattern on the "other lens". Top of the list is
the 85 f/1.8 I think.
Thanks.
--
Troy Piggins
Bob Larter
No problem. Sing out if you'd like a sample image from the 85/1.8.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>> Seriously, the 85L is nice, but too slow on AF for many purposes. The
>>> 85/1.8 is much more useful - as well as being cheaper.
>>
>> I'm in a holding pattern on the "other lens". Top of the list is
>> the 85 f/1.8 I think.
>
> No problem. Sing out if you'd like a sample image from the 85/1.8.
Of course! Post here, or email is valid. Thanks!
--
Troy Piggins
Robert Coe
: Troy Piggins wrote:
: > * Bob Larter wrote :
: >> Troy Piggins wrote:
: >> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 8 lines snipped |=---]
: >>> Doing some reading on the 50 and 85 primes. Man, both the 50L and
: >>> 85L look absolutely beautiful on a 40D, but just can't justify
: >>> both L's. Thinking about getting either 50L and 85 1.8, or 50 1.4
: >>> and 85L.
: >> I have the 85/1.8 & the 50/1.4, & they're both excellent lenses.
: >>
: >>> I suspect I'd get more use out of the 50mm range than 85mm, so
: >>> that leans me towards the 50L/85 1.8 combo, but read a review
: >>> about the 50L's AF being dodgy. Also it seems the 85L gets rave
: >>> reviews all over the place, so that leans me the other way.
: >> What body are you shooting with?
: >
: > 40D (crop body)
: >
: > Been reading, reading some more, thinking, thinking some more...
: > and just pulled the trigger on none of the above. Went with the
: > 35L for now. I'll take a little more time and decide on the 50
: > or 85 later.
:
: On a 1.6x crop body, the 50/1.4 is a perfect portrait lens. You'd be
: insane not to get it. ;^)
The 60mm f/2.8 macro is also a good (and inexpensive) portrait lens. And Troy
does a lot of macro work.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: * Bob Larter wrote :
I've probably come to this thread too late to be of any help, but have you
considered the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8? It's affordable, and it fills your gap
nicely if you don't unload the 17-55. It's a bit heavy, but I've been very
happy with it otherwise. I find myself doing a lot of indoor event
photography, for which the lens is well suited because of its speed. I also
have a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, and those two CA zooms are all I usually ever
need.
Bob
Troy Piggins
Thanks Bob. I'll put it on the list, but TBH I'd probably put
the Canon 70-200 f/4 above it as my preference. I wouldn't need
the extra stop for what I shoot at that focal range. I had the
70-200 2.8 IS and sold it because I wasn't using it. My brother
has the 70-200 f/4 and I've used it - wonderfully sharp and
light. Much more convenient than the 2.8, and much cheaper. But
this range is pretty low on my priorities. The 85 would be as
long as I'd want I think, because I already have access to 105
f/2.8, 150 f/2.8, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.
--
Troy Piggins
Mr.T
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:bhlnh5p4n6r7c3uob...@4ax.com...
> The 60mm f/2.8 macro is also a good (and inexpensive) portrait lens. And
Troy
> does a lot of macro work.
Yeah but the extra two stops is handy for really throwing backgrounds out of
focus, or "available dark" photography.
Buy both :-)
MrT.
Robert Coe
:
: "Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
I like your attitude! (Would that I were rich enough to follow your advice.)
OTOH, the more equipment one has, the harder it is to doecide what to take
along on any given shoot. And the older I get, the heavier every piece of gear
seems to be. :^|
Bob