(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.

* DRS wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 9 lines snipped |=---]

I'm in the market for a 17-55 but I think I'm in the wrong country.

Wrong country for what? Don't they allow you to have camera
lenses there?

I was thinking of shipping and stuff. Never mind.

I know, I was just messing with you. I'm in Australia too -
Brisbane.

--
Troy Piggins

* 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

* 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