canon 85 1.8 vs canon 50mm 1.4

[BryanKing]

I have been personally lusting the 85 1.8 and wonder if anyone can tell me if I'm crazy? I have a 24-105 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/4L IS already, so I have this focal length covered on two high-quality lenses already. I'm using a 50D by the way...


The reason I think I need the 85 1.8 is just to get some fast glass to take advantage of the higher precision focusing capability of the 50D, as well as giving me more capacity for indoor available light photography. I have a 480EX flash head, but my style is more non-intrusive. I like to shoot candid portraits, as well as exterior action sports. Do you all think the relatively minor investment in the prime would be worth it? I know a lot of folks will likely say the 85 is too tight indoors on the crop body, but I'm not thrilled about the slower focusing or less pleasing bokeh on the 50 1.4.... Have I justified it enough? Please talk me out of it to help save my marriage. (Not really at risk, but one never knows)

[Rob Gardner]

I have been personally lusting the 85 1.8 and wonder if anyone can tell me if I'm crazy? I have a 24-105 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/4L IS already, so I have this focal length covered on two high-quality lenses already. I'm using a 50D by the way...The reason I think I need the 85 1.8 is just to get some fast glass to take advantage of the higher precision focusing capability of the 50D, as well as giving me more capacity for indoor available light photography. Do you all think the relatively minor investment in the prime would be worth it?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

An unbiased YES! If you don't feel the 50mm f/1.4 isn't going to work for you, then the 85 is clearly the choice. Although, I'm not too thrilled with my 50D - the IQ is nowhere near what I get from my older 1D Mk II. In fact, I just played a game today and took identical shots with the 50D (15mp) and 1D Mk II (8.2mp) and the same lenses. I took the 1D file (which was significantly sharper BTW with both a 85 1.8 and 24-105 f/4 L) and res'd it up in Photoshop to the 50D file size and voil&aacute; - the same file IQ. In all honesty, the only thing that matters to me that my 50D has over my 1D Mk II is ISO sensitivity. Go figure.


But still, the 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens in the right hands...

[BryanKing]

But still, the 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens in the right hands...

Darn, that last qualification might exclude me.

[Sean Setters]

Rob-


You might want to try microadjusting the focus of each lens when using the 50D. I had to do a microadjustment with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, and now the images are much, much better.

[Rob Gardner]

You might want to try microadjusting the focus of each lens when using the 50D. I had to do a microadjustment with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, and now the images are much, much better.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yeah, I've been reading up on that. I would hope that the stock settings of the 50D were not so out of whack - my old 10D produces sharper images from the same lens - but I'll give it a shot. It should really be a better camera than it is...maybe I just have a bum copy.


As always, you da man!

[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&amp;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'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

[clemmb]

I might have to order from B&amp;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