(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)

* Robert Coe wrote :
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:32:18 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:
: * Bob Larter wrote :
: Troy Piggins wrote:
: [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 16 lines snipped |=---]
:
: 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.

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.

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

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
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.

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:03:09 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
:
: "Robert Coe" wrote in message
: ...
: 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 :-)

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