Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
changing a winning team ?85f1.8 instead of 50f1.4
#1
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
No reason to have two 50mm lenses - that's the start, and you work from here. Smile

#3
Quote:No reason to have two 50mm lenses - that's the start, and you work from here. Smile
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
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 Smile. It is razor sharp from F/2.

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#5
Quote: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 Smile. 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
   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!

Dave's clichés
#7
That highly depends on which f/1.4 glass, dave, but the lens surely is something to look at before buying.

#8
 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!

Dave's clichés
#9
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
Quote: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 Smile.

 

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 Smile.

 

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

 

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

 

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)