Advise me Canon 85 1.8 or 50 1.4/1.8 on 30D?

Torque124 said:

I have to disagree... The Tamron is VERY sharp wide open and at
17mm too... It is an awesome lens, you gotta own it to believe it.
It is that good, really.

Click to expand...

i'm glad it works for you, but many disagree.

Torque124 said:

You can't really leave the flash home... At 1.4 the depth of filed
is too narrow to be useable for anything than tip of the nose pics.

Click to expand...

this is totally incorrect. i say this having used it as recently as saturday without a flash, in a very confined space. you should actually try the lens ;-)

85mm is too long for indoor party pictures imho on a 1.6x crop. on a 5D sure and maybe on a 1D...

Curiosity - what percentage of shots did you use the 85mm for on the wedding day? Thanks.

Gordon

Ronnie,you're changing the rules from your first message.

Anyway...

A 50 is a waste of money. You've already got a good 50mm lens in your zoom.

Shallow depth of field is, first of all, annoying to viewrs who have not read all the threads here saying it is arty. Real people just think your pictures are blurry.

A 50 f1.8 is fun to have becaue it's nice and light, but that's only if you want to buy yourself a treat.

The 85 is a bad choice, if we stick with your first message. You are right. It is too long.

BUT YOUR SECOND MESSAGE... that changes things. If you are trying to shoot school plays, take pictures of individual kids in a class room or play room where you can;t get as close as you would at home, that 85mm length is not bad at all, the lens just plain feels nice, and the phtos it takes are technically fine, leaving the composition and decisive moment stuff to you.

To me, based on your second message, the decision making moves to 85 f1.8 or 100mm f2, or 100mm f2.8 macro. And this decision will drive you nuts, too.

Good luck.

BAK

I have the 50 1.8, the 100mm macro and the 85 1.8. The 85 is a great lens. I find the 50mm I have to get right in their face and the 100mm is too long and not fast enough. The 85 is just right on my 20D.

If I were you I would get both.

BAK said:

Shallow depth of field is, first of all, annoying to viewrs who
have not read all the threads here saying it is arty. Real people
just think your pictures are blurry.

Click to expand...

most of what you posted was informative but this is laughable.

subject isolation is so basic and obvious you'd have to be legally blind to miss the imporance, especially when photographing people with people in the background who you wish not to be in the photo.

plus the benefit of fast lenses is they give you choice (shallow or deep) vs being stuck with a deep DOF.

I have the tamron 28-75, sigma 30 1.4, canon 50 1.8, and canon 85 1.8. The 30 gets 80% of the use indoors of the primes. The 85 is just too long for anything other than head and shoulder portrait, and the 50 needs to be at least at 2.2, to be reasonable sharp. the tamron is as sharp at 2.8 as the 50 prime. 85 1.8 is not fast enough for hand holding indoors, as you need shutter speeds of 1/100 sec or faster, which is hard at f 1.8 with indoors lighting, with iso 800 or less.

the 85 is a great lens to complement tamron, just dont expect to use too much indoors on a 30D.

The answers I have got, from all of you, who have taken the trouble to reply, has really given me very useful insight in to my prime lens purchase dilema.

Summary as I see it:

50 f1.4 or 1.8 - My Tamron 17-50 f2.8 will cover that focal length.The 50mm is also considered long for indoor house use on a 1.6 FOV.I think I will opt out of this.(but my troubles do not end here)!

80 f1.8 Excellent for creative DOF shots,my kids indoor school plays,head and shoulder portraiture,low light.This lens needs its space to shoot H&S portraits though.Although that may not be so bad,as my wife hates me,when I take my P&S camara very close to her face.

Will cover the mid tele range which is not covered by my setup, at least till I can spring for a 70-200 f4.(still the 85 1.8 is a fast lens).

A new twist- (not making this easy)

Sigma 30 f1.4 :Sounds like the perfect indoor low light lens.

Many of you have recommended this lens,which you say is apt on a 1.6 FOV as it will give me an approx 50mm equivalent.Will start reading up the reviews on this and also visit 'lightrules' pbase site.

But it will be short for my sons indoor school plays.(although I do not know how many of those there will be).
Also excellent for indoor party use.

Decisions,decisions....so for now I'll stick with the Tamy (experimenting with the the range and speed).Will delay the purchase of the prime upto a month until I know for sure what factors I will get frustrated about- range or speed!!

Thanks to you all once again, for the wealth of info you have provided me in this thread.

Cheers Ron

--
'The Road is long.....with many a winding turn...'

Ron,

I think you made a good decision. Also the Sigma 30mm will be too short for plays unless you get right up at the front of the stage...and then you will be shooting a large area and not close up.
--
http://www.pbase.com/cp73
350xt
17-40L
50 1.8
85 1.8
70-200 F4L

Get the Sigma 30mm f1.4 if you have a 20D/30D/350D/400D (XTi)

.. absolute no brainer...

It is ideal compromise between wide and telephoto (48mm full frame equiv.)

It has wonderful colour (Velvia-like) when using wide open or near to wide open in good quality light (even if a bit on the low EV side). Bokeh not bad either. Focus = very quick on centre point AF (20D) ... but a tad slow or innacurate (if the light levels are not high enough) wehn using off centre AF point.

My fave lens on my 20D now.

OK who wants to help me with my dilemma ??

Ronnie Fdes said:

I have just upgraded from 20D (now 2nd body) to 1D MKIIN.

Click to expand...

I cannot use 30mm f1,4 (DC or EF-S type) Sigma EX on my 1D MkIIN. My other lenses are 24-105 L f4 IS, 80-200 L f2.8, (17-40 L now my dad's because did not use 17-24 range enough to justify keeping since bought 24-105 and wonderful 30mm Sigma).

I like shooting people shots (models and brides / kids) using farly large aperture (f2.2 or less). I guess on 1.25x crop (for me) 3%L is too expensive and a tad too wide (42mm ish equiv.) ....

So ... (FOR a 1.25x crop camera) ...what to buy 1st ? Very very tempted by 135L f2 (but I have fast glass 80-200L f2.8 .. so will have to wait). 35L and 85L also have lovely lovely bokeh ... but too expensive. So that leaves:

50mm f1.4, 50mm 1.8 ?? (or too cheap/slow focus?), 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 & 100mm MACRO.

Hmmmm ?? Any 1D MkII people out there ?
--

Good digital workflow is like washing my car - when I bother to do it's done meticulously, but sometimes I just end up cleaning the lights so I can see where I'm going

In this debate about the relative merits of 30mm, 50mm and 85mm prime lenses, some people have called 85mm too long to be practical for indoor shooting. But I say it depends what kind of pics you're looking for - whether you're focusing on groups of people or individuals.

Last Christmas, while shooting photos for my sister's family, I started with the trusty Tamron 28-75mm zoom but soon found the f/2.8 max aperture too slow for the fading afternoon light on a cloudy day. I had my pick of a 50mm f/1.8 (Mark II) and my 85mm f/1.8, and chose the latter - and boy, am I glad I did! Because I wasn't taking any posed shots, I had no need to line the family up in groups. Instead, I took a few hundred candids, and the 85's extra length really helped pull the subjects close while letting me stand back, not calling attention to myself.

I actually do have the 30, 50 and 85 in my collection (the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the newest member of the family), and I suggest thinking about the kind of shots you plan to take before saying one is intrinsically better than the other, indoors, outdoors or elsewhere.

As Michael Reichmann is wont to say: "Horses for courses."

Cheers,
Howard

it depends on the wedding settings and lighting. If its dark then the F4 will not work well. The 1.4 or 1.8 can work but will have shallow DoF.

Have you tired the 30 on the 1dm2? I am thinking of upgrading to a 1.3 crop and am wondering how much I lose on the sig 30. could you post a pic with the sig 30 mounted on your new 1dm2? thanks.

chinch said:

chinch said:

Shallow depth of field is, first of all, annoying to viewrs who
have not read all the threads here saying it is arty. Real people
just think your pictures are blurry.

Click to expand...

most of what you posted was informative but this is laughable.

subject isolation is so basic and obvious you'd have to be legally
blind to miss the imporance, especially when photographing people
with people in the background who you wish not to be in the photo.

plus the benefit of fast lenses is they give you choice (shallow or
deep) vs being stuck with a deep DOF.

Click to expand...

Not really: real people do really think the picture is out of focus. Like my mother in law when she saw a picture taken at 30mm ISO800 at F/1.6 in which she was sharp, but not her husband .

--

dfbb said:

Not really: real people do really think the picture is out of
focus. Like my mother in law when she saw a picture taken at 30mm
ISO800 at F/1.6 in which she was sharp, but not her husband .

Click to expand...

sorry but one person does not a rule make.

your case sounds like photographer error. YOU obviously didn't convey your point of your photo enough to her. maybe you tried too hard to be cute when insted of a bandsaw a simple scissor would suffice.

for example, if her husband was standing NEXT to her or on a different focal plane but still part of the "action" you'd expect them both to be in focus. i see some "CHECK THESE OUT" shots here that are totally devoid of artistic and technical quality and that is fine because photography is a simple hobby for most of us typing here (any working pro would be silly to come here and spend much time imho as they'd want a "hobby" to go to on their downtime).

even the worst photo can bring alot of joy to regular people

but i can show you dozens of photos taken this weekend where shallow DOF makes the picture look great and similar photos (from digital elph with flash tweaking my nonflash exposure f/1.4) looks horrendous with the large DOF to infiinity.

particularly if you ilked the 30 on a 1.6x, get the 50/1.4. there isn't really a better lens out there for the price. on the 1.3x it approaches the classic portrait fl too--though ff 50 can also be a nice portrait angle.

it is true that the lens isn't the highest build quality in the world, but it isn't horrible either, and the results are very nice. this also allows you to go for the 100/macro later without feeling like you are encroaching on existing fl, which is a nice combo to the 50 and gives a more dramatic glamour perspective. and macro! which is too fun to deny yourself.

chinch said:

chinch said:

Not really: real people do really think the picture is out of
focus. Like my mother in law when she saw a picture taken at 30mm
ISO800 at F/1.6 in which she was sharp, but not her husband .

Click to expand...

sorry but one person does not a rule make.

Click to expand...

I was just trying to point out that al lot of people do not understand the concept of a small DOF. Of course we here at the forums all know, but the majority of people don't know what DOF is.

chinch said:

your case sounds like photographer error. YOU obviously didn't
convey your point of your photo enough to her. maybe you tried too
hard to be cute when insted of a bandsaw a simple scissor would
suffice.

Click to expand...

Off course I explained her, but her first reaction was that the picture was out of focus.

chinch said:

for example, if her husband was standing NEXT to her or on a
different focal plane but still part of the "action" you'd expect
them both to be in focus. i see some "CHECK THESE OUT" shots here
that are totally devoid of artistic and technical quality and that
is fine because photography is a simple hobby for most of us typing
here (any working pro would be silly to come here and spend much
time imho as they'd want a "hobby" to go to on their downtime).

Click to expand...

She was sitting at a table next to her husband. Since she was at least 1.5m behind her husband I had to take two pictures or use the flash (which would probably would have looked awful).

chinch said:

but i can show you dozens of photos taken this weekend where
shallow DOF makes the picture look great and similar photos (from
digital elph with flash tweaking my nonflash exposure f/1.4) looks
horrendous with the large DOF to infiinity.

Click to expand...

I of course agree with the fact that a small DOF can be great, I use it too a lot myself.

Tom

--