Canon 35 f1 + Canon 85 f1.8

Started Jan 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 13,438
Re: Do not like the focal length

brightcolours wrote:

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.

That you think that is "how bokeh is measured" is your problem.

care to provide your own link to bokeh measurement with visuals?

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

Nonsense (again) The Sigma does NOT have nice bokeh. Just a fact. That you think it is fine for you, that is... fine. That I will want nicer bokeh for a 35mm f1.4, will just mean I will have to get a Zeiss 35mm f1.4. And if I do not want a 35mm f1.4: a 35mm f2 IS USM, because that lens is so much lighter and compact. With added bonus f1.4.

Bokeh is EVERYWHERE where something is not in focus. It is not limited to big apertures. Just another misconception. You seem to confuse the amount of blur with bokeh there.

where did I disagree?  in fact the tamy 60 f2 that you tout - but will not answer the question when asked if you own - the tamy has nervous bokeh in front of the focal plane.  It also has cat's eye bokeh in the corners.

so I find myself fact checking your statements

for the 35 mm focal length you're thinking about a large 2 LBS 35 f1.4 zeiss brick that costs $1800 and then piggybacking the purchase of a $849 canon 35 f2 IS.  I dunno.  That is a new one from my view.  Just get the 6d.  Use your 35 f2.  Save the $700

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

It is better. Just that. Except in AF. It considerably vignets less at f2 than the Canon does at f2.8. Both are very sharp, with the Canon having a slight edge. Where the Tamron shines is the very smooth bokeh, it is an exceptional lens in that respect. The Canon is not, it has one of the least smooth bokeh characters among macro lenses.

So, you choose which is better for YOU.

answer the question - do you own the Tamy?  I'd say you are guessing.

the canon has mtf 2532 at F2.8  The tamy has mtf at f2 of 2239.  so why bother with f2?  besides the lack of good usm type AF on the tamy and not being fast to focus, and having cat's eye bokeh in the corners, and having nervous bokeh in front of the focal plane, I chose the canon for sharpness - why bother with mtf of 2239.  Anyway - I can just see adding BF/FF to the potential receipt of something I think needs either IS, or usb docking, or a $275 price.

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

There you go, you are starting to understand. 35mm f1.4 will get a shallow DOF and a shorter exposure time than 35mm f2. So, for normal work I would prefer the 35mm f2 IS USM. As it is smaller, lighter, offers IS for when A long exposure time is needed.

And I would choose a Zeiss 35mm f1.4 for when shallow DOF pops up. Because the Sigma has not such a nice bokeh characteristic, and the Zeiss is quite a bit better in that respect.

starting to understand?  hmm..

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

That is why I have a 35mm f2. Nice and compact, very affordable.

$289 for mine, hard to beat for price and fov

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

No you do not. You forget that an equivalent on FF would be a 50-55mm f2.24. There still will remain a gap, because of sensor technology differences.

you're not understanding equivalence.  the FF is the standard.  the ss stays the same between formats.  the iso on the FF is raised by 1.6x1.6

it is the faster ss that I'm after - remember - stopping motion!

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

It is not logic, it is fact and preference. If I want an f2.8 200mm lens, it will be for shallow DOF. If an certain f2.8 200mm lens has unattractive bokeh, it will then not be one I will choose.

your choice,

but for many - significant sharpness trumps bokeh; better blur ops, trumps bokeh; better mechanical operations trumps bokeh

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

Because that photo of photozone is not characteristic in normal photos. Every 35mm will make an unattractive image from that scene, 5 sided aperture or not. Maybe a few Zeiss designs might make a passable result, but most will make a crappy image anyway.

I chose the 35mm f2 because in reality it does have quite smooth bokeh for a 35mm f2, and yes, it has 5 sided highlights when closed down.

well I agree, the cherry picked a bad target that manu lenses would not do well

nice photos btw

It focusses accurately and fast, it is affordable, light, small, has relatively smooth bokeh, is sharp, and behaves very well as close up lens. And the 5 sided highlights when closed down can be charming even.

nope - penta ain't charming

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

Horses for courses (again). Guess what, I am not a wedding photographer.

why does that not surprise us? 

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.

The difference in DOF between f5.6 on APS-C and f4 on FF is HUGE. (2 1/3rd stop). Silly comparison. I explain why it is not a lens for ME, and you want to "prove" what exactly? Just try to understand someone else's points (which are valid) instead of trying to prove them wrong just because YOUR wants/needs are different.

what I'm trying to advise you on is your future consideration of a FF system.

f2.8 on new 24-70 F2.8 II zoom can remove backdrop clutter on FF

F4 on FF is meh in removing backdrop clutter -- so why bother with zooms on FF - stick with great primes.  The 100L is my all time favorite lens on FF

you can stop it down to f5-f5.6 in low light (dpreview shows off the charts sharpness at these settings) and use your 4 stop IS and iso 3200 to get the following

iso 3200 - 100 L 5d

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 EOS Rebel T7i Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow