profoto pro b4 is a good choice to shoot almost everything you could imagine
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
+1 here. 85L is amazingly sharp wide open.the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af on all, excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8, decent bokeh, but better on the 1.2, but no is.
so what I want is to buy a 1.2 or 1.4 50mm that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh... and I really want af and I can do without is, but I'd like that too. sho Canon needs to get off their duffs and make that happen... and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.
The 50L is not a compromise. Apparently, IS on f/1.2 is technically impossible now. The 50L is designed for bokeh, not for sharpness. Even Zeiss says that you cannot have both (in their "bokeh" document).
I've heard that from multiple sources, but people live the Canon 85's and the 135 L for their sharpness and the bokeh...
and the sigma 35 gets a ton of praise for being sharp wide open... and I know we are comparing apples to oranges, but I just can't seem to accept that it has to be one or the other
I used the 100L for sports as well, tracking football players at all distances... and the lens is a champ when it comes to ai servo. I had significantly more keepers than not. I've since sold it... but indoor and our... works like a champ.It's not I think 100L is not capable to do that, but it's not aimed to do that. IQ from 70-200F2.8IS m2 I love significantly more for this (again, except portraits and macros).
As I can see all 85mm primes are mostly equal in image quality.You are using 100L for action shots? Really?
I don't realy need AF. For action shots I have 100L and 70-200/4LIS. I am using 5D3.
I am considering Samyang, Sigma and Canon f/1.8. Canon f/1.2 and zeiss are out of price range.
I will be using it mostly 1.4-2.0 for shots from distance in dark conditions and low light video.
So my primary conserns are resolution (so I can crop image, if I only could afford 200 f/2) and manual operation.
As I can assume Samyang have better focusing ring? Are Sigma and Canon f/1.8 good for manual operation?
its highly subjectiveyes, it is subjective. and for me there is a huge difference in a place you (subjectively) don't see that
and bokeh is unquantifiable however if you look at brians comparisons there is not alot in it
the extra 1/3rd of a stop aperture probably plays a big part in the bokeh
but if you want bokeh over all else i think the 135L leave both 85s in its dust... and then there is the 200f2L IS...
anyway i have never said the sigma is better than the canon 1.2 in any way other than AF speed
the differences are pretty marginal and not worth the massive price gulf between the two
dont think its a million times betterfrom artistic point of view - it is significantly better. but, yes, art is a question of taste
its not even 3 times better to reflect the nutty price tag
it is a little better
but AF speed on a non 1D body is a big factor also physical size and coupled with the monster price difference....
Sigma 85 comparing Canon 85 1.2 is crap. period.Forget about Sigma, their 85 is a simply crap.
And what makes you say that? Do unqualified remarks like this help anyone?
I could've bought the Canon f1.2 but got the Sigma instead. Superb lens, great results (I've posted many portrait shots taken wide open on this site). Yes, focus at f1.4 is critical but do you really think every shot ever taken with the Canon is a keeper?
Perhaps I got lucky with my copy of the lens but it's naive to think Sigma can't make quality lenses. If they were that bad, would they stay in business?