Thanks Sean. I was just being lazy on the linking, and already had edited the OP. LOOOOOVE your work!
Thanks Sean. I was just being lazy on the linking, and already had edited the OP. LOOOOOVE your work!
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Some very nice work in there.
I'm just confused as to how you talked that snake into posing for a portrait (82/99). When I see snakes, or rather when they see me, they turn around and slither off into the tall grasses, never to be seen again. What's the trick? Luck? Have an assistant hold their tail? Purina snake chow?
On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L
I realized you had edited the original post, so I edited mine to reflect that! ;-)
I've been looking at your site this evening. It's very well put-together, and you've got a really good set of images. I like the wide variety of subject matter (from architecture and interiors to portraiture). I particularly love your use of depth of field (the 85mm f/1.8 is certainly well-suited for you)...
I'm just confused as to how you talked that snake into posing for a portrait (82/99). When I see snakes, or rather when they see me, they turn around and slither off into the tall grasses, never to be seen again. What's the trick? Luck? Have an assistant hold their tail? Purina snake chow?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
LUCK!! And a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro lens. That's my second-favourite portrait lens. Shot with a 1D Mk II, ISO 200, 150mm at f/2.8, 1/200 sec.
Thanks for the compliments, Sean. As an admirer of your work (your Flickr site is bookmarked in the Strobist section, and I've often referred others to how you experiment with your lighting setups), I really appreciate the compliment! You're right about how the 85mm suits me. It's funny how we gravitate towards certain lenses. I've owned most of Canon's lineup from 20mm to 300mm, and just about every L lens made. But only a fraction of them have I kept. It's a matter of what 'clicks' with you. There is no rational reason why I sold my 24-70 2.8L - everybody raves about it - but it never clicked with me. In contrast, the 24-105 f/4 L almost never leaves one of my bodies. Nowadays, I am down to the 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 17-35 f/2.8, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro, and Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. And a Lensbaby in there somewhere. Those are the lenses I keep and use all the time. Everything else comes and goes.
Go figure.
I have both, use both for indoor and outdoor portraits, use them on a 1.6 crop body, love both. To me from a working standpoint and the standpoint of image quality, the fundamental difference is the focal length. If you like to work close to your subjects, the 50 is probably better for you. If you like a little space, the 85 is lovely. When I'm working with people, I tend to use the 85 more; when I'm working with dogs, the 50.
As for the other stuff like focusing speed, yes the 85 is quicker and quieter but the 50 isn't all that bad. I've not noticed any flare issues with either lens and I use a lens hood on both. Bokeh is a little smoother/creamier from the 85 but you would only notice it if you shot the same image side-by-side with both lenses. Get both[].
Jim
I would love to get both lenses as I'm sure they are both very nice. But looking at my current line up of lenses, Sigma10-20 f4 and the Canon 50mm 1.8, I need a general zoom lens as well. I was looking at the 24-70 2.8, but it is very pricey, and I'm about to pick up a 7D. So I'm now considering the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 as these 2 lenses combined are cheaper than the canon 24-70. What do you think about that?
I have the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS and it's a GREAT lens. If you hear anything different, they aren't using it to make $$$. I'm a professional and it's truly a great, sharp, lens. Which is my perspective on the 50 F1.4 and the 85 F1.8. They are great lenses for what I do professionally. I'm not talking about a "nice to have" lens; I'm talking about "they make the images that make the $$$" type lenses. I've owned my fair share of Canon L Zooms and they are great lenses for flexibility. But, when you're looking for the best IQ and need it for reproduction purposes, the primes are unbeatable. Although I must admit the 17-55IS makes me think twice before I put it on the camera vs the 50 F1.4. But, in the end, the image quality and bokeh is unbeatable with the 50 F1.4 and the 85 F1.8.
Jim
I think that's a pretty wise decision...
I don't have the 80 1.8, but have heard nothing but praise for it. My friend has one on a 1.6 crop and has taken some awesome pictures. However, I use the 50 1.4 almost as much as the 24-70 and have nothing but great things to say about it. It handles flare and CA fairly well and you can get sun shots to look good by adding some post production contrast.
I primarily shoot with a full frame camera, last time I shot with the 50 on a 1.6 crop, I found subjects closer than 8-10 ft. were just to close. I would evaluate distances of persons you plan on shooting and choose by that means, or...
A deciding factor might also be the Bokeh with the 80 is amore pleasing circle and the 50 bokeh is more ovalish despite both being an 8 blade lens.
I think you would be happy with either!
stephen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote