I think the 85 is too close to your 50mm, I'd get the 135mm f/2.0.
I think the 85 is too close to your 50mm, I'd get the 135mm f/2.0.
Originally Posted by crosbyharbison
My eye originally was on the 135mm f/2.0 for the longest timebut when I saw photos taken with the 85 and then saw the price of it, it sure sold me as a heck of a deal. I also thought with the 100mm 2.8L, do I really need the 135mm f/2.0 for $1000? It is a tough decision to make. I think I'm back on the fence again! [^o)]
Denise
These are amazing and you have succeeded in reaffirming it is a great lens!
Thanks!!
Denise
Looking at your kit again your missing something in the 200 range. Might I suggest either
70-200 2.8 is II
or
200 f/2 is
Yeah, if you can also suggest winning lottery numbers with it or if you have a used one for a low, low, low price that you'll sell me! []
Seriously, yes I know that would be a great area for meto filland they are awesome lensesbut all in that range are way more than I could spend on one lens right now...unless I was getting some financial return on my investment.
Denise
You know, now that I look at each more carefully ...I see what you are referring to and you are right, none of them are soft. Hmmmm...I'm going to have to think about this some more and look at a few more photos.
I think it was Gina that mentioned earlier in the post that she gets a creamy background from this lens. If so, I wonder if she wouldn't mind posting a few.
Does anyone else have a photo or two using this lens that you wouldn't mind posting?
Denise
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Hi Denise, Hi Keith,
Just to respond quickly: Keith is right about OOF elements and aperture blades--you're going to see them, just as you do with your 50 1.4, especially stopped down, and if you're hoping for the gorgeous perfectly round highlights you can achieve with some L lenses, well, eh, not so much.
That said, I don't think the quality of the background blur, even with bright OOF elements, is necessarily jagged. Again, I think it depends a great deal on the distance of the background to the subject. Here is a test shot I took when I first bought the lens. I was specifically looking for the shape and quality of the OOF highlights. This is the non-L 85mm at f2:
Now, this ain't a great picture, but in my (truly) humble opinion, the highlights are lovely. Yes, if you look for them, you see aperture blades, but they're not jagged. And wide open, they would have been softer yet. Compare (and this isn't really fair, I know, but I want to point out that even the stellar 85 L doesn't always achieve soft OOF elements) these highlights to some I found on the very first page of the Flickr "Canon 85mm 1.2 L Open" group:
Oval-shaped and jagged:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/floriopics/4546832549/sizes/l/in/pool-690714@N20/
Are those aperture blades?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rohicks/4536543172/in/pool-85-12open
Yes, I think so:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yutsang/4531107931/in/pool-85-12open
Sorry you'll need to copy and paste the links. I don't know how to make links here. Anyway, since you own the 50 1.4, you have some idea of what the 85 1.8 can do in terms of image quality. The 85 1.8 outperforms the 50 1.4 (I own them both and love them both) in image quality wide open, though stopped down, they are similar. I think the 85mm is a tad sharper than the 50mm. There is more dreaminess and less contrast and color to the 50 wide open. I also think the 85 1.8 focuses more quickly and more accurately. On a crop sensor camera--my Rebel XSI--the difference in the angle between the two lenses seemed significant to me. The 50mm was more useful for what I usually shoot. I used to reserve the 85 for creative projects or for taking photos of my God kids in the yard. The 85 is the longest lens I own, and on the Rebel it was my 135 equivalent: great for portraits from across the room, great for isolating subjects from their backgrounds and delighting later in the sharpness of the detail.
Someone made the point that you may not need both the 50mm and the 85mm. That could be true if you don't know what you'd like to shoot with the 85mm. Neither of mine is for sale!
Hope this helps,
Gina
P.S. Since you also have the 100mm 2.8, I'm thinking that the 85mm and the 100mm are going to be very similar in terms of millimeters. That macro lens isn't as fast as the 85mm but it's more versatile in terms of MFD, and I hear the 100mm is also tack sharp. I specifically wanted the 85mm for it's razor thin DoF capabilities. I love its characteristic wide-open look--images at 1.8 are very appealing to me. Remind me again what you really want in your next-lens-purchase?
Hi Gina,
Thank you once again for posting, you have been extremely helpful and I sincerely appreciate your input! I use my 50mm for actual sit-down portraits when I'm using my softbox or umbrella and it has worked out awesome! The 100mm is a fantastic macro lens of course and I do use it for taking more candd shots of the the dogs in the backyard (when they interrupt my macro shooting) and of the grandkids but sometimes the seems a little more than I'd prefer. I don't want to have to get in the grandkids face at the park and lose the moment I'm trying to capture butdon't want to be too far from them either. The 85mm seems to be a happy middle for those reasons. I alsowant theDOF capabilities and extreme sharpness.
For the most part, my kit serves me very well and I am not in dire need of another lens and if the 85mm costed much more than it does, I would probably pass for now and get a few other things on my short list. I only started photography about 8 months ago and with everything I have aquired in that short amount of time ...another "L" lens can wait a year or two.
Thanks again forALL your help! []
Denise
Denise,
You have had lots of input, but after reading the thread, it seems that the obvious choice for all you want to do is the new 70-200 f/2.8L II. It has the 85mm range covered, it has the 135mm range covered. If 85 is slightly tight, you can open up to 70, and obviously the other way if necessary. It is fast, sharp, and has the most advanced IS that money can buy today. If you combine the cost of the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 you're 60% of the way there, and if you account for the fact that it will likely neatly replace a future 200/2.8, you're all the way.
Just my 2c, but I have been struggling with the prime vs. zoom thing, too, and it seems the zooms just keep getting better every year, making their case more compelling than ever before.
You definitely have a very good point here! Now you have put in my head to possibly sell my 300mm (since I recently purchased the 100-400mm) and 1.4 extender & also put that money toward the new70-200. I will have to mull that thought over a bit today!
As soon as I think I have it all figured out ...my train of thought takes a detour!
Denise
Denise,
Just a thought, but apparently the 1.4 is fairly simpatico with the 70-200 f/2.8L II, so maybe just sell the 300 f/4. That would be even more versatility. That is the combo I am looking at right now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote