Wallet full of $100 bills

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

I get the same impression looking at Bryan's charts, but it is so close I wouldn't even consider IQ as a differentiating factor. In real wold use, I'm very impressed with the IQ of the 35.

For sharpness, yes. But I have the sense that color and contrast are better with the 24L II (from both Rick's comments and some images of 35L vs. 135L that Denise shared with me where the 135L and the Sigma 85/1.4 appeared to do better in those areas than the 35L, indicating room for improvement in the 35L's performance.
</div>

But the real feel in difference of the two lenses is the DOF. Here is a good comparison, you want a really good background blur on someone standing 4' in front of you.

Ahhh...but, do I? If I want a portrait with a really good background blur, I'd likely use a longer fast lens (85/1.2, for example). My current thinking is that for situational low-light shooting - capturing family moments in ambient light indoors - a thinner DoF might be a disadvantage, as those types of shots are likely to include more than one person that I want within the DoF. Thus, the shorter focal length (and correspondingly deeper DoF) may be preferable for my uses.



<div>

Here's a couple sample photos I took only 2 days after receiving the lens...Bokeh-licious!

<div>Thanks for sharing! Same concern here as my response to Rick, but even more true at 50mm. However, I'm getting more interested in the 50/1.2 for portraits with a larger FOV. With the 85/1.2, it can be challenging to get more than one person in a portrait in a normal-sized room. Plus, there's a rebate available now... </div>
<div></div>
<div>Question for you, Troswki - how's the AF speed on the 50L? </div>
</div>
<div></div>

[HDNitehawk]

Ahhh...but, do I? If I want a portrait with a really good background blur, I'd likely use a longer fast lens (85/1.2, for example). My current thinking is that for situational low-light shooting - capturing family moments in ambient light indoors - a thinner DoF might be a disadvantage, as those types of shots are likely to include more than one person that I want within the DoF. Thus, the shorter focal length (and correspondingly deeper DoF) may be preferable for my uses.

Well, only if you want that person in focus, and still capture enouogh of what is going on around them to get a sense of their location but draw the focus back to that person. I have similar pic I took of my sons graduation with him surronded by people holding up his diploma. The 35mm to me seems like that focal length is a sweet spot for that kind of thing. The only real downside I see to you getting the 24mm is that you will be using it for that one specific use. Since the TS-E will probably be your go to landscape and architecture lens.


Maybe I am wrong on this, and you can correct me if I am since you have the TS-E 24mm now. Even though you don't have autofocus if you manual focus you get confirmation by the focus light in the camera and possibly a tone? If your shooting outside with the TS-E 24mm and your shooting smaller apertures your DOF is going to be so great that manual focus with its confirmation would be adequate. Do you feel this would be the true?

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I am wrong on this, and you can correct me if I am since you have the TS-E 24mm now. Even though you don't have autofocus if you manual focus you get confirmation by the focus light in the camera and possibly a tone?

It sort-of works. If shift and tilt are centered, you get AF confirmation and metering works - so, if you're using it just as a 24mm MF prime lens, it's fine. As you apply increasing amounts of shift and/or tilt, metering gets progressively less accurate, and once you reach a certain degree of shift or tilt, AF confirmation stops working, too. The metering issue can be solved by taking the meter reading before applying tilt/shift, but that doesn't solve the AF issue. So, the easiest way to use the lens is with Live View, where metering is correct and 10x mag works for focusing.

[Kayaker72]

However, I'm getting more interested in the 50/1.2 for portraits with a larger FOV. With the 85/1.2, it can be challenging to get more than one person in a portrait in a normal-sized room. Plus, there's a rebate available now...

I only have the 50 mm f/1.8....so all of my thoughts on the 50 mm f/1.2 come from reading in this forum and a few reviews. Part of the reason that I suggested the 50 mm f/1.2 was I recall several people speaking highly of it, such as some of the wedding photographers. I haven't been able to find those threads (the forum search doesn't seem to be working), but I did recallthis discussion (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/14/p/812/46514.aspx?PageIndex=34) between Keith B and Jan in the "Post your best Portraits" thread (about half way down the page).Keith has portrait shotswith the 50 mm f/1.2 and 85 mm f/1.2. Since you are considering it, I thoughtthe linkmight be helpful.

[jks_photo]

might I suggest a deviation from your listed ideas......


If you'd be so KIND as to just donate the 3300 to me so I can use it to improve my kit.... I will use the funds wisely and get me a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a fast prime like say a 35 1.4L ... I must admit that $3300 might be around $100 short of what the 2 lenses I listed might cost but I guess I can manage to put it up.... []


Of Course I will eternally be grateful for your contribuiton....[]

[Trowski]

Question for you, Troswki - how's the AF speed on the 50L?

The AF speed isn't as fast as my other L glass, for example, the 24-105L is faster. I don't own an 85L for comparison, but from what I've read online the 50L is faster than the 85L. If you can get a decent hit rate out of your 85L, you'll probably get similar or better results from the 50L. In the few times I've had time to play with the lens, I've had a decent hit rate with it. It's been a learning experience for me, since the DoF is so much thinner than the DoF at f/2.8 to which I've become accustomed. I seem to get better results every time I use the lens. Since you have experience with the 85L, you should have no trouble with it at all.

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, still debating the 35mm f/1.4L vs. the 24mm f/1.4L II. I did some testing with my 24-105mm f/4L on indoor shots (with flash), and looked over my EXIF. I do like the 35mm focal length a lot. 50mm is too long for my purposes now (especially with the 85L in my kit for portraits). Looking back at my EXIF, I have quite a few shots I like at 24mm with the 24-105mm - and it seems that most of them are cropped a bit, meaning 35mm is the better choice overall for focal length.


So, why am I debating? Depth of field. To that end, I have a specific question about which I'd like opinions. Keeping in mind my primary use - low ambient light situational shooting, mostly around the house, and many times with more than one subject - am I better off shooting with the 24mm at f/1.4 and cropping to get the desired framing? By the numbers, I'd need to shoot with the 35mm at f/2.8 to get the same DoF as the 24mm at f/1.4, and of course shooting at f/2.8 negates much of the advantage of an f/1.4 lens for low-light shots...


Opinions appreciated!


--John

[HDNitehawk]

John


I think your comment really nails the difference and what separates the two lens in low light doing close up indoor work.


These are my impressions:


I have found doing a crop of either of those lenses to be satisfactory with landscapes. BUT with people, close up the IQ seems to suffer a little when I crop. The wide lenses do not perform as sharp close up as the tele's do. For instance I can go 200% sometimes 400% and still see sharpness and decent IQ with some tele's, but close up with these two wide lenses after 100% it looses it. If its a far away landscape you can go much deeper.


Overall I would say your better of getting 1/3 closer to the subject with the 24mm. That narrow DOF is what makes the 35mm unique really close up, but if its not the effect you want other choices might serve as well.


From what you have described you want the 24mm seems to be the choice, I think if you didn't have so many other options at 24mm you would have already bought it and been telling us how well it performs.


One other suggestion. You might make a side by side chart of the DOF of each at various distances, at 1.4. When you get out about 10' or so the effect really is not as pronounced. So the real difference we are talking about is the real close up work, 3 to 10 feet. Make the comparison and see if it fits what you want to do.

[Jon Ruyle]

am I better off shooting with the 24mm at f/1.4 and cropping to get the desired framing?

By the numbers, I'd need to shoot with the 35mm at f/2.8 to get the same DoF as the 24mm at f/1.4

I don't understand, John. In what sense does a 35mm at f/2.8 have the same DOF as the 24mm at f/1.4? Do you mean at the same subject distance, and then cropping the 24 to make it the same angle of view? That seems like a bizarre comparison, but I can't think what else you could mean. And in that case, it would be more like f/2.1, right?


It seems clear that buying a 24 with the idea of cropping is sub optimal. I think that in general zooms do better than primes + cropping. Not only does IQ suffer when you crop, but you make your lens slower- negating much of the advantage of the fast prime (as you yourself say).


If 35mm is the focal length you prefer, I would say it is a no brainer.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Rick and Jon.


Jon, yes - I meant same subject distance. Shooting indoors - meaning in our house, in this case, means distances are usually in the 4-10 foot range. If I plug a distance like 6.5 feet into a DoF calculator, I get a 2