Printable View
So...
I'm going on my honeymoon in August and am considering renting a Canon 50mm f/1.0. My question is, does anyone have experience with that lens and the 50mm f/1.2 being sold these days?
While I am considering buying either the 50mm or 85mm L f/1.2's I'm curious if the 50mm f/1.0 would make a noticeable difference when shooting night shots (will be in Paris and Venice)... or does the technological age of it compared to the others render it more of a novelty?
I've never owned or shot with either. However, strom what I've read, you're be better off with the f/1.2 then the f/1. While the f/1 has a mystique about it, image quality compared to the f/1.2 is quite poor especially considering the demands of today's high quality sensors. Its rarity is what makes it so valuable.
So then the question becomes whether I want to pick up the 50mm or 85mm 1.2... I'd lean more towards the 85mm as it has been upgraded to the II version and I already own a Sigma 30mm 1.4.
I own the 50 1.2 and though I love it, I would go for th 85 instead---I think the 85 is simply a more useable lens. Tighter landscapes, people, night work etc. If you buy the 85L and decide you don't like it, I will gladly trade you for my 50 1.2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
Bob
That's so kind of you Bob... :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
Just on the pricing, is it costing you any more to rent the 50/1.0?
I've seen 1 or 2 go on ebay lately, up around the $3000 mark, and that's purely based on the rarity rather than the IQ. You can get 3 of the 50/1.2 for the same price (that said, I saw a Nikkor 58/1.2 go for $3200, it can't be that great, just rare).
Given that most people say that the 50/1.2 is better (i've used one of them but never seen an f/1.0 irl), then it's got to be better for the price, unless you like collecting...
You know, for $3k, he could simply buy a refurbished 50mm f/1.2 and an 85mm f/1.2. Now that seems like a plan to me...
I quit using the 85 1.2 for weddings because the autofocus is so slow.
I actually moved my 85 prime to the 1.8 which much smaller, much much cheaper, and is very fast on autofocus.
Now I will still use the 85 1.2 in the studio as its image quality is extremely good, but my keeper rate for moving targets was dismal.
It might just be me but I need the studio setting to get the razor thin 1.2 to the exact plane.
Good luck
Renting the 50mm 1.0 is in the ball park of not quite twice as much as renting the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2. I kinda figured the 85mm would be the way to go. I don't think I'd ever buy a 50mm 1.0 even if I had the 5k or so to blow on it. Not only does it sound like the 50mm 1.2 performs better, but the 50mm 1.0 is quite likely unrepairable if anything ever happens to it. Also, while I am sure I have spent far more than the average person on camera gear, I'm no collector.
I'm very careful with my lenses, however accidents happen (I'm actually putting together a list of camera gear to send to my insurance company). It's in the area of $9.00 a month to insure it all, but the one time I actually dropped a lens and had to have it repaired ran the usual $250. That would have paid for more than two years of insurance alone. Luckily we'd already been through the city where it was most useful.
I have...
Canon 10-22mm EF-S 3.5-4.5
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II
Canon 17-55mm EF-S 2.8
Canon 24-104mm L EF 4.0
Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX DC HSM
Canon 70-200mm L EF IS 2.8
Canon 100mm EF 2.8
Sigma 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO
I'm looking to pick up...
Canon 65mm x1-5 Macro
Canon 85mm L 2.8 ...and/or... Canon 50mm L 1.2
Canon 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6
...and one of the fisheyes (possibly the Sigma 4.5mm or 10mm depending on if I want circular or rectangular photos).
Someday I might get the 100mm L 2.8 Macro, but the only reason I can see to buy it right now is for the IS, which I don't really need. The Fiancees 100mm 2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses we have (and the 10-22mm performs remarkably well too).
Why the canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I'd be selling one, unless you have a reason to use both that I don't know about (like how many bodies do you have?). (But then, i'm not one to talk, i've got 7 primes and a zoom covering 50-55mm)
I presume you'll sell the Sigma 120-400 when you get the canon 100-400L? There's probably going to be a replacement of the L within a year or two, depends how long you can wait.
I'm contemplating a fisheye too, the Samyang is an interesting one because it's Stereographic (ie you get more definition on the edges), but the sigma 4.5mm is the only circular fisheye for crop, depends what you want (or you could always get both :) )
Rest of the kit looks good, i'm kinda jealous. 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 would both slot in nicely there...
I knew someone would ask that question. :)
The Tamron was my first lens purchase for my 50D, I purchased the body and it at the same time. The Canon 17-55mm was my Fiancee's first lens purchase when she bought her 50D. I didn't know her when I bought mine and she barely knew me when she bought hers (she actually had the same original Digi Rebel I did, plus the stock lens for it and the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro).
I'll probably give the Tamron to my brother as a gift (I've gifted him my original, the first, Digital Rebel, the starter lens that came with it, and the first Canon 70-300 USM with IS for it). He always thinks I'm being overly generous, but I don't think he's ever tried to figure out how much money he's saved me in car and home electrical work and, realistically, I wouldn't have got much for older equipment like that anyhow. My nephew is showing some interest in photography too, so I like to encourage that - he actually took the first photograph we sold off our web site (granted it was bought by my sister... but it's a damn good picture, we even tried to do some post editing and just never could improve on it). The Sigma, on the other hand, that's a bit too pricey for me to just hand it over for free, but if I don't sell or trade it I just might hand that one down too some day.
For the price the Tamron is an excellent lens and is smaller/lighter than the Canon, but I just don't use it anymore. I have a number of B+W filters that fit the Canon and not the Tamron and the two of us (Fiancee and I) are just never shooting with the same range lens at the same time. One of us usually has one of the 10-22mm, 100mm or the 70-200mm while the other is shooting with either the 17-55mm or 24-105mm.
Oh, and regarding the Sigma... I found the 70-200mm L 2.8 IS USM only weeks after purchasing the Sigma. I bought the Sigma to take to England and just found it too large to be convenient for my tastes. When I bought the Canon a few weeks later I found that it took ALMOST as good of shots with a doubler than the Sigma did without, plus the Canon is smaller, lighter and the zoom is internal. Granted the Canon cost a decent amount more even used... but I get far more use out of it because I don't mind carrying it around. I think the Sigma would be great for someone who doesn't want to spend the money on a Canon 100-400mm, but I eventually will. If I can swing it I'll buy it before our honeymoon in August.
Personaly I would go try the 1.0, it's the 50mm's 50mm. While it's not quite as sharp as the 1.2 it's 2/3rd stops faster and makes a noticeable difference in bokeh and low light. Here is a link to a review by Juza http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&article=59 and http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&article=105. Right now the english version is down but you can still compare the IQ to the 85mm f/1.2, which is sharper than the 50mm f1/2 and the 1.0 is not that much worse.
Cheers,
John.