Canon 35 f1 + Canon 85 f1.8

Started Jan 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 13,209Gear list
Re: Do not like the focal length
In reply to brightcolours, Feb 1, 2013

brightcolours wrote:

MAC wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Nonsense, the 100mm f2.8 L does NOT have the best bokeh around. And it is not about "OOF disks", it is just and only about how everything that is not in focus is rendered. It is not awful, but even the 100mm f2.8 USM renders smoother.

The 100mm f2.8 L is not awful bokeh wise, and I did not type that. I just said that it does not have the smoothest bokeh around. Which is a fact.

Sorry – Learn What the heck is bokeh

I typed what bokeh is above, (how everything OOF is rendered). So what is your point? If you think that the shape and outlining of highlights are the sole aspects that determine the bokeh of a lens, you are just mistaken.

did you read the article above? this is how bokeh is measured.  how bokeh renders - visible highlights or invisible disks - is a correlation on how it compares when it is measured by the article's method.

if you think the bokeh of the siggy is ugly at f1.4 - f2 where this lens will be used, you are mistaken.  note - the bokeh at f4 shown in the link is not where the lens is used primarily.  bokeh is round f1.4 - f2

100L Bokeh

"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."

100 F2.8 non-L Bokeh

"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens is a good performer here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular at f/2.8. The highlights deteriorate a little when stopping down - upon closer observation you can spot some small traces of outlining at f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are decently rendered but not as as smooth as on the 100mm L lens for instance."

you are right about 160 fov on crop, but the min. focus distance of 1 foot on the 100L helps alot.

Helps a lot with what? The 1 foot does not make the field of view any more attractive to me.

I combo my 100L on crop with the 60 f2.8

I shoot new born feet 3 ft away and rings.

the 100L on my 5d is perfect portrait length and I routinely drag the shutter down to ss 1/40 without flash. The 100L on crop comes into play in the church during ceremony

I have the 60 f2.8 macro for crop and the 100L for FF and crop.

The 60mm f2.8 is another macro lens that does not have the most lovely bokeh. The Tamron 60mm f2 macro has much smoother bokeh for instance. But, still, the 60mm EF-S is quite a nice lens, with good AF to boot. I have 2 lenses that cover that focal length already, though... The original version of the Nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro (the very sharp version, with the nice bokeh) and the Ultra Micro Nikkor 55mm f2.

I looked at Tamy. Then it was a no brainer when I got my 60 f2.8 for $275

The Tamron is better though. Just not in AF.

better for who?  do you own one?  the AF of the tamy is the Achilles heal

I like them both.

That is understandable, they both are nice lenses. For me no 100mm for macro/close up stuff on APS-C, though... Doesn't have "it" for me. Just a field of view thing incompatible with me.

actually, many macro shooters prefer the 160 fov so as to not scare the subject

That is a whole different aspect. It doesn't change the uninspiring FOV on APS-C. If you do not want to scare the subject, you can go for a longer lens too.

About not scaring the subject... with 35mm f2 with 12mm ext. tube(click on the link as dpreview's gallery has a bug):

uninspiring to you.  Canon and sigma were wrong then - according to you--in building THEIR best macro lenses in the same 160fov range

I would agree 100 mm fov for portraits rocks on my FF

The 100L is the all time most fun lens -- as the digital picture sit says also. Pair it with sigma 35 f1.4 art and a new 50 that hopefully comes out and crop cameras will survive imo with

I will probably like the 100mm f2.8 L when I can afford to go 6D or something. I for sure will never get a Sigma 35mm f1.4. I know it is nice and sharp, and has a reasonable price for e 35mm f1.4. But I dislike its bokeh, so for me either a 35mm f2 IS as 35mm lens, or when I want f1.4 it will have to be the expensive Zeiss 35mm f1.4. And then a Canon 40mm f2.8 STF and a Nikon 50mm f1.2 Ai-S. Because I can not afford a Canon EF 50mm f1.0 L USM.

well, go to the digital picture site and pull up the 35 f2IS and 35 art lense reviews. You'll see what bokeh is and the 35 f2IS wins - by a small margin -- but people usually don't shop bokeh for this focal length with this small differeintial

The 35mm f2 does not open to f1.4 That is my main point. You get an f1.4 lens for the shallow DOF, and then it has bokeh that is not pretty. Does not make sense to me. So, I rather have a much lighter, much more compact 35mm lens, which includes IS as a bonus. And when I need/want f1.4, I will go for the Zeiss, which does have a much smoother bokeh.

you seem to be talking a different application - I'm talking stopping motion in low light at hi iso without flash with twice the shutter speed

look at the iso lens charts - the siggy is sharp throughout enen at f1.4

I know, I wrote that it is sharp. And unattractive wide open. So what is the use?

so why update to a 6d + 35 f2 IS for $3000 when for half the price you can have a 35 f1.4 siggy art lens which is only 1 stop less in high iso noise -- you gained a stop with the siggy in the 2 stop advantage

This makes no sense. a 6D is full frame. On FF a 35mm lens... has a wider FOV. You know this, so why this odd reasoning? If I go FF, i go FF. Has NOTHING to do with that Sigma. And then there is the IS in the 35mm f2, which gives it a 3 stop advantage depending on the subject anyway.

for static subjects one can use a whole bunch of lenses and methods vs IS on a 35mm.

what you are missing is this.  35mm on crop is almost a perfect, most popular fov for people photography indoors.  many FF users consider 50 mm their most used lens

6d/5d3 has a 1.5-2 stop high noise iso advantage on my 60d/T4i.

by getting a super sharp 35 f1.4 for crop - vs a weak 50 f1.4 for FF that doesn't get sharp til f2, I close the gap in noise differential by one stop between these setups to be used to stop motion in low light at high iso where the lens will primarily be used

using your logic - one shouldn't  buy the super sharp 70-200 II over the other versions because the II has more nervous bokeh

also - why did you buy the old 35f2 - it has terrible penta bokeh - see

I bought one for $289 to be used at f2.2 to hold me over until I afford the better 35 lens

My point is simple. You get a 35mm f1.4 for shallow DOF at 35mm. But the Sigma has unattractive bokeh in my view. And then that will ruin many a photo taken with shallow DOF. So no use for the f1,4, and the size and weight it comes with. Then I rather have a 35mm f2 with small size and weight, and IS thrown in for good measure. If I want a 35mm f1.4, it will have to have good bokeh. Hence the Zeiss. I know that the Sigma is priced much nicer, but it does not give what I want...

wedding photographers get 35 f1.4 not primarily for shallow dof.  At the distances they shoot the 35 f1.4 at f1.4, there is plenty of dof.  They get the 1.4 version primarily to stop motion in low light without flash - with twice the shutter speed you'll have with your blurry photos at f2

2 crop cameras - 60d + T4i

10-17 Toki FE

15-85 IS

Not a lens for me either.

too bad - the 15-23mm is great in Lightroom and only 1/2-1 stop away from f2.8 - but is sharper wide open and has the better IS

The 15mm side has very strong barrel distortion. There are better solutions there. Then there is the portrait range with small max aperture. As I said, not a lens for me.

Lightroom lens correction - works fine.  Also the new version of photoshop it can be tweaked additionally if needed.

I sold my tamy 28-75 because I was always stopped down and the 15-85 with IS is much better on crop than the tamy was on FF.  People buying an F4 lens -  24-105 for FF will not see it sing over my 15-85 60d.  One needs fast primes to make a FF sing.  One needs to position themselves better with prime glass before going FF.

35 F1.4 sigma art

new canon or sigma 50 art when it is launched

100L with kenko 1.4

I have a Soligor 1.7x (also built by Kenko)


many times - leave the 70-200 at home

The 70-200mm f4 L USM is my most used lens by far.

I loved mine before I sold it for the F2.8 L

view the T4i as your M4/3

I dislike MFT a lot. Its small aperture lenses, the under-corrected lenses (both CA and distortion), the 3:4 image format...

me too - my T4i is my third camera I carry to events

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow