canon 85 1.8 vs canon 50mm 1.4

[Cozen]

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on the tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and the 85mm 1.8


My only concern with the tamron is the auto focus. Anyone have experience with this? Is it really that loud? is it fast and accurate?

[Chuck Lee]

My only concern with the tamron is the auto focus. Anyone have experience with this? Is it really that loud? is it fast and accurate?

This is a mixed bag depending on who's reviews you listen to. I've used the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII quitea lot and subjectively I can't say I've noticed anything odd. The only objective points I can stateare:


1) I tested two copies at a local shop and found the first to be sub-par in the IQ department. I own the second which is spot on.


2) Very sharp from 17 to 40 wide open fading a bit toward the long end. I don't use this lens very much at f2.8. f4.0 is optimum.


3) I've never noticed any AF noise and still have no clue what reviewers are talking about. Maybe I just don't pay attention.


4) I've never noticed any hunting in low light unless I was as low as 1600 ISO f4.0 1/30th or slower. Then again my 70-200 f2.8 USM will hunt in that level of light. I'm still wondering why folks blame the glass but that's just me.


It is a screw focus mechanism which means that accuracy will depend on the resolution of the screw mechanism. USM will most of the time have a higher keeper rate whencontending with shallow dof shots. I can't say that I've ever come home froma shoot and been disatisfied with this len's AF performance. I would say that I have about the same keeper rate as the 28-70 f2.8L on my 5D as I do with the Tammy on my 40D.


Personally, I like the the EF 50 1.4 on the 40D as a portrait/candid lens and on the 5D as a scene lens. I am still looking for a good deal on a 85 1.8 for my 5D.


It sounds like you have choosen wisely.


Hope my observation helps.

[Cozen]

Hope my observation helps.

Very helpful. That's what I was looking for. an honest, hands on experience. Reading reviews are sometimes hand to soak in because it seems so distant (not that I don't appreciate them). So I just have to make sure I get a good copy. I haven't been able to find a copy in stock locally, so I might have to order from B&H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?





I'll be using the 17-50 mostly for group shots and when I need to be changing focal lengths a lot. I really liked how my 50mm 1.8 did at the wedding I attended over the weekend, so I'll be using that and the 85 1.8 for portraits. At least until I can get the 50mm 1.4 too

[clemmb]

I might have to order from B&H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I once purchased a Sigma lense from B&amp;H. I found I hated the zoom range and wished I had purchased a different lens. They traded it and only had to pay the additional $20 plus shipping.


I have always found B&amp;H to be honest and trustworthy to deal with.


Mark

[Chuck Lee]

I haven't been able to find a copy in stock locally, so I might have to order from B&amp;H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?

May I also recommend Adorama. They readily accept returns as well. I have always been very satisfied doing busines with them.


I test my lenses with http://focustestchart.com/chart.html


Lucky me, we have a 17x11 HP 8100 Laser printer at work!

[Cozen]

I'm bumping this thread up because I now have a 5D markii. I'm still debating this choice. It's like a never ending merry-go-round =)





my current lens line up is:





canon 24-105 L


canon 135L


canon 50 1.8


canon 20-35 3.5





I really like the versatility of the 24-105 but it's slow. Also, I was shooting some behind the scenes recently on a dark movie set, and I loved the reach of the 135l, but at f2 and around a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed, it wasn't quite fast enough. I was forced to shoot at 2000-2400 iso and the images suffered a bit from it. For something super fast, which would you choose on a FF?

[Sheiky]

Personally I just bought the Sigma 50mm 1.4 on my 5D2, since now I finally understand why 50mm was the standard focal length for FF. It's awsome! Much better than the Canon version I tried out. But I should say it front-focused originally, but that was solveable with AF-micro-adjustment.


In your case a 50mm makes more sense in the way that you've already got the 135L for head-shots etc. And the 50mm would make a great upgrade over the 1.8 [:P] (I really hated that lens, also hated the 50mm prime on a crop-body)


Jan

[Chuck Lee]

Totally agree with Sheiky.


50 has always been the kit lens on full frame. Why?


Also, the longer the focal the shorter the shutter speed needs to be for handheld. That's why some love the 35mm and 24mm primes.


My vote... 50 1.4...[Y]

[Jon Ruyle]

Also, I was shooting some behind the scenes recently on a dark movie set, and I loved the reach of the 135l, but at f2 and around a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed, it wasn't quite fast enough.

It's just a question of reach vs. hand holdability. The 50 is more hand holdable, the 85 has more reach.


Try your 50 f/1.8 to see if that focal length works for you.

[clemmb]

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on the tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and the 85mm 1.8


My only concern with the tamron is the auto focus. Anyone have experience with this? Is it really that loud? is it fast and accurate?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I am a professional and used the Tamron 17-50 2.8 when I first went to digital. I found this lens to be great for the price and the IQ quite good. When it is said that the auto focus is noisy, it is noisy compared to USM but not bad at all. The auto focus is fast and accurate. Not as fast and accurate as USM but very good.


I agree you should get the 17-50 and the 85 1.8. Upgrade your 50 later.


Go ahead, pull the trigger.


Mark