• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

changing a winning team ?85f1.8 instead of 50f1.4


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 13 August 2017 - 09:57 PM

My prefered lens has long been Canon 50mmf1.4, its sharpness, color rendering are amazingly, I use it mostly at f2.8 and am very happy with it.
Should I change a winning team and get 85mmf1.8 instead? Would it be a good replacement on a crop camera ? I already have the 50f1.8 STM collecting dust since its f1.4 sister is here.
What would you recommend?

#2 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:23 PM

No reason to have two 50mm lenses - that's the start, and you work from here. :)



#3 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 14 August 2017 - 02:51 PM

No reason to have two 50mm lenses - that's the start, and you work from here. :)

Totally agree, I should sell one of them, most likely the f1.4 but you know it's hard to get separated from a lens that has been your best lens since ten years



#4 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:43 PM

Having tried 3 copies of a 85 F/1.8 in the past, I'd say, don't bother. I absolutely hated the purple fringing at large apertures, its IMO bad IQ at F/1.8 and F/2, and its seeming unability to properly focus at relatively close distances when it really counts and when you really want to use such a lens, e.g, at weddings and parties, without flash.

 

As to your 50 mm lenses, if you do not use the 50 F/1.8 STM, you could just as well get rid of it.

 

For your crop camera, if you do not mind F/2.8, rather get the 60 EF-S macro (excellent), or alternatively the EF 100 Macro, preferably the L if that is within your budget. If you don't mind a longer FL, and your budget will allow it, the lens to really go for, IMO, is the 135L :). It is razor sharp from F/2.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#5 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:11 PM

Having tried 3 copies of a 85 F/1.8 in the past, I'd say, don't bother. I absolutely hated the purple fringing at large apertures, its IMO bad IQ at F/1.8 and F/2, and its seeming unability to properly focus at relatively close distances when it really counts and when you really want to use such a lens, e.g, at weddings and parties, without flash.

 

As to your 50 mm lenses, if you do not use the 50 F/1.8 STM, you could just as well get rid of it.

 

For your crop camera, if you do not mind F/2.8, rather get the 60 EF-S macro (excellent), or alternatively the EF 100 Macro, preferably the L if that is within your budget. If you don't mind a longer FL, and your budget will allow it, the lens to really go for, IMO, is the 135L :). It is razor sharp from F/2.

 

Kind regards, Wim

I already own th2 109mm macro and love it, flawless portrait lens.

So if 85mm f1.8 will add nothing to what I have I will skip it

PS I prefer crop system but I also have full frame



#6 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,684 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 06:53 AM

   Why not look at the Tamron 85mm F1.8 VC?

 

    It seems to knock spots off the competition with the benefits of  VC, testers have found very little background blur difference between it and F1.4 glass!



#7 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:53 AM

That highly depends on which f/1.4 glass, dave, but the lens surely is something to look at before buying.



#8 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,684 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 08:54 AM

 If I remember correctly it was a comparison between the Sigma and the Tamron done by Dustin Abbot, part of the reason was the Sigma is shorter in actual FL than the Tamron.....hence the result!

 

    I'm not suggesting an aberration in the laws of optics!



#9 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 August 2017 - 09:23 AM

If you ever get hands on both lenses, you might ask yourself how much sense can be found in a comparison between these two.

 

The Sigma weighs 1130 grams, the Tamron 660 (Nikon version). It's not just a bit heavier. It's super massive and needs a lot of space in a bag. So, by comparing bokeh, I strongly recommend to stay in the same class. Also, my impression is, that "bokeh" says a lot and nothing at the same time. Blur quality depends in my experience from a lot of parameters. It's very difficult to create meaningful tests of that - one has a beautiful background blur, but the foreground sucks as soon as highlights are involved, the other is rendering double contours, but only at close distances, the next gives a nice bokeh at the cost of massive aberrations... I think, anybody who dares to place a "bokeh" verdict, puts himself in a questionable position.



#10 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:51 PM

I already own th2 109mm macro and love it, flawless portrait lens.

So if 85mm f1.8 will add nothing to what I have I will skip it

PS I prefer crop system but I also have full frame

 

In that case it won't add anything, not IMO anyway :).

 

I was aware you had FF as well. With FF an 85 F/1.8 is even less different from a 100 F/2.8; the difference is really insignificant from an FL POV, and the macro is way better from an optical and IQ POV anyway :).

 

Some people swear by the 85 F/1.8, I am well aware of that. I used to swear at it. :)

 

Considering you have the macro, you may be better off getting a135L or Sigma 135 F/1.8.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#11 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,684 posts

Posted 17 August 2017 - 07:42 AM

If you ever get hands on both lenses, you might ask yourself how much sense can be found in a comparison between these two.

 

The Sigma weighs 1130 grams, the Tamron 660 (Nikon version). It's not just a bit heavier. It's super massive and needs a lot of space in a bag. So, by comparing bokeh, I strongly recommend to stay in the same class. Also, my impression is, that "bokeh" says a lot and nothing at the same time. Blur quality depends in my experience from a lot of parameters. It's very difficult to create meaningful tests of that - one has a beautiful background blur, but the foreground sucks as soon as highlights are involved, the other is rendering double contours, but only at close distances, the next gives a nice bokeh at the cost of massive aberrations... I think, anybody who dares to place a "bokeh" verdict, puts himself in a questionable position.

   Well we all know that "bokeh beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

 

 But I think both lenses do well......a portrait lens is a bit of a one trick pony....away from there it has little benefit in most situations over a decent 70-200mm F2.8.

 

    The Sigma with it's size and weight is restrictive as you say.

  

    I don't shoot many portraits so my clunky old 85mm AF-F1.8D will have to do, although the Sigma 150mm macro does a better job!



#12 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 18 August 2017 - 01:33 PM

Maybe the old Sigma 85/1.4 is an option too... (by far not as large/heavy as the Art). I wanted one for ages until the Tamron came out and messed up my priorities. :D



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 18 August 2017 - 02:31 PM

Yeah, but did you buy the Tamron at the end?


  • Rover likes this

#14 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 August 2017 - 07:07 AM

Maybe the old Sigma 85/1.4 is an option too... (by far not as large/heavy as the Art). I wanted one for ages until the Tamron came out and messed up my priorities. :D

The old Sigma 85mm f1.4 has about the DOF as the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM. Also, it has also very strong LoCA like the Canon 85mm f1.8 STM. It lacks the Canon's low weight and fast AF.

 

The Csnon is a better idea, and the Tarmon a way better idea.



#15 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 19 August 2017 - 11:52 PM

Yeah, but did you buy the Tamron at the end?

Nope, but only because I have hit a financial rough spot and had to refrain from buying gear altogether (for the foreseeable future, at the very least). The only purchase of this year was the cheap Canon 24-85 lens.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de