If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
(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 donīt. And thereīs the constant bitching about focus shift at wide apertures. Look at the new review at photozone ... So iīd go for the second setup. The 50 1.4 is a solid perfomer, but itīs 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
* 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
* 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
* 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
* 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
* 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
(50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8) vs (50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2L)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|