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

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 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

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
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 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

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

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
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

* eatmorepies wrote :

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 18 lines snipped |=---]

Interested to hear your thoughts.

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.

Thanks for your thoughts, John.

--
Troy Piggins

* Markus Fuenfrocken wrote :
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
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.

--
Troy Piggins

Troy Piggins wrote:
* Markus Fuenfrocken wrote :
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
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.

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

* Paul Furman wrote :
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

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:32:38 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:

* Paul Furman wrote :
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...

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

* Robert Spanjaard wrote :
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:32:38 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 12 lines snipped |=---]
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

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?

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. :-)

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com