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

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message

* 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.

* 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.

Thanks for your feedback on the non-L's. Must admit they're
tempting.

--
Troy Piggins

* Annika1980 wrote :
I've rented both the 50 and 85 L lenses and I prefer the 85 for it's
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

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" 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



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.

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

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Giving you have a 17-55, I would guess you are using a crop body.

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

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

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 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.

Thanks.

--
Troy Piggins

* Bob Larter wrote :
Troy Piggins wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 12 lines snipped |=---]
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

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:19:12 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
: 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

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.

Bob