Canon 35 f1 + Canon 85 f1.8

Started Jan 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,265Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to brightcolours, Feb 2, 2013

brightcolours wrote:

TDP's crops are not in any way reputable. DXO's lens tests are not in any way reputable. Did dpreview test the 85mm f1.8?

It does not matter anyway, both lenses are sharp. It was you who dismissed the 85mm for not being sharp (which is nonsense) and for having LoCA (which the 100mm L has in equal amounts when both at f2.8).

As I said, both are very nice lenses, but different horses for different courses. Will you keep on arguing just for the sake of it?

you've dismissed bryan's TDP visuals that I've linked to.  so I'll ask again, do you have an 85 f1.8 and can you post a f1.8 sharp photo?  I know GB's 100 f2 is sharp at f2.  I've seen his f2 photos.  Please post your own sharp 85 f1.8 @ f1.8 photo.  The lens is ok sharp, but I have a hint for you -- there is a reason it costs in the $300

You didn't trust photozone for their assessment of bokeh on your 35 f2

With good arguments, yes.

penta bokeh sucks - vast majority of photographers would agree.

as I said - Game, Set, Match

and here is what Bryan says at the digital picture site for the 85:

“I didn't find myself using the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens very much after getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens. Although 1 1/3 stop slower, I found the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens to be far more versatile."

So, nice for brian that he likes a slower zoom over a prime. Brian can have his very own preferences. I like my 70-200mm L too, and use it a lot. I will however not use it for 85mm f1.8/2.0/2.8 portraits.

Because you have F4L on crop. I know this. F2.8L on FF and even crop changes everything. As GB pointed out, in equivalency - 70-200 F2.8 at F2.8 on FF provides the dof equivalent of F1.8 dof on crop. It is called -- flexibility.

You can make everything crooked, can't you? GB was making fun of you/us. Any f2.8 lens on FF will have less shallow DOF than a comparable f1.8 lens on FF.

shallow dof isn't that discernible between the two apertures on FF.  both are shallow.  what ff gives you is hi iso, low noise to shoot in low light, even with f2.8, to remove backdrop clutter.  what crop does not give you is shallow at f2.8 which is equivalent to f4.5.  17-55 IS is meh at f2.8 for removing backdrop clutter

GB btw gave me the tip to buy the $275 60 f2.8.  He wasn't making fun of anyone with his comment.  you call things strange - "arguing", "crooked", etc

The 85mm f1.8 lens will have a more shallow DOF than any 85mm f2.8 lens, which then includes any 70-200mm f2.8 lens at 85mm. Do you get that simple fact? It is true on FF, on Canon APS-C, on Nikon APS-C, on 1.3x crop, on MFT.

it is not true when you use both formats, like I do

That is one reason why I updated my beloved F4L to my F2.8L. Suggest you consider the same when you get FF. Then there isn't much reason for 85 f1.8.

There you go again, the same odd glitch in your arguments. If I go FF, a 85mm f1.8 lens will have much more shallow DOF than any comparable f2.8 lens. (If I stay with APS-C, that is equally true).

So the reason for a 85mm f1.8 remains.

And of course... the less than 500 grams and small size of the 85mm f1.8 are a stark contrast to the 1.5 kilo 70-200mm f2.8 L's. Another thing you like to dispute?

I rather value the light weight of my 70-200mm f4 L, too. And its rather smooth bokeh.

there you go again about an f4 lens...

f4 lens on FF -is meh -- you might as well stay with your crop camera

BTW -- we established that you didn't have the tamy 60 f2 ( at least you didn't answer the question). Can you show some shots from your 85 f1.8?

Why are you going on about whether or not I own a Tamron 60mm f2? Do YOU have one? You really can not keep any argument clean?

but I wasn't making the claims that the tamy 60 is the best.  you were.  and I expect those claims to be backed up by ownership.  if they put IS on the lens and gave us good AF, I might consider one

and here is what Bryan says about the 100L

"I called the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Canon's "Most fun per dollar lens". While that lens is less expensive, I'm thinking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens may be the new holder of this title. The improvements in this lens, especially the Hybrid IS, go a long way toward increasing the fun-ness. And the results are definitely fun-inducing. This is a highly recommended lens."

Nice that Brian likes the 100mm L as macro lens. on FF I will most probably like it as macro lens on FF too. Not on APS-C, as I have explained before.

My Flexibility comments are not lame. The 70-200 F2.8 versions are much more flexible on FF than the F4L version. When it was me - that is the investment I made first. Then the 100L came later. No place for an 85.

If Canon comes out with a new 50 F1.4 IS -- I'll get that one instead of my 50 f1.8II and 50 f1.4

remaining 50 mm apart for prime sets is a smart idea

You said if you got the sigma F1.4 art you'd use it between F4-F8. Ouch.

Yes, I said that. And you left out the WHY (which I also typed up): its meh bokeh. clap clap clap.

here is our big difference.  I think the sigma has good bokeh f1.4-f2 where it was designed to be used.  the aperture blades are not as round at f4--that don't look as good of bokeh as the new canon 35f2is.  Schmegg showed good bokeh on the siggy shot where it is designed to be used.  And schmegg itemized how the siggy trumps the zeiss in all other aspects.  No brainer 

Hence, no sense in buying that f1.4 Sigma for me, if I do not like using it below f4. For me it will have to be that very expensive Zeiss without AF, for large aperture images.

we can't wait to see some shots 

Look at the bokeh samples at F4 at the Digital Picture Site -- the bokeh does not look so hot at F4. But the fact of the matter is -- I wouldn't buy the sigma F1.4 unless I intended to use it F1.4 - F2.2 That is the reason to buy the sigma. And Schmegg has shown it has good bokeh at these wide open or near wide open settings.

Schmegg has not shown good bokeh, schmegg has linked to a thread on fred miranda with many shots with very problematic bokeh for the Sigma. I have shown the difference in bokeh of the Zeiss and the Sigma of the same view point of the same scene, from Lens tip. Just a shame the seasons are different, but they do show the busy double lines bokeh of the Sigma and the lack of that in the Zeiss.

give me a break - one taken in the winter and one in the summer?

So what I've said is not lame. I've had to debunk your unique viewpoint on gear. What I've said is flexibility for the $ spent.

I said it was lame that you said I showed no facts on that the 85mm f1.8 USM is a sharp lens. When in fact I did show that, and from the same source you were pointing to all the time. THAT was lame. I nowhere said that it was lame for you to want a Sigma 35mm f1.4. I have explained why I do not want a Sigma 35mm f1.4 You have not debunked anything, you are just making a mockery of a good argument. Which is a shame.

85f1.8 is sharp f2.2.  --unless you show us your sharp f1.8 shots from the lens you own

please don't post someone else's winter and summer shots as a legit comparison - which was the joke

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
SighNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow