50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
- Thread starter codewizpt
- Start date
- Status
If it were me, I'd get a 70-200 or 17-40(16-35) just to be a little bit flexible before I get an 85. Anyway, you know what you need most. 
Upvote
0
Having 1.3x with the same lenses and question some time ago.codewizpt said:
I owned 85/1.8 and upgraded to S 85/1.4. (C1.8 = too much violet fringing and inconsistent AF)
Upvote
0
codewizpt said:
1) how often do you shoot wide open on the 50, if a lot then the L would be a nice upgrade, if you're more or less at f2 or smaller all the time then there is little advantage in the L
2) a good lens indeed (caveat I don't own it), but the 85 1.8 is just as good IMHO and costs a lot less plus just be careful not to shoot wide open in high contrast or you get purple fringing, but even that is easily correctable in post and gone by f2.2.
3) due to money sounds like it's not really an option, but if you can afford it it's one of the pieces of glass you will likely hold on to for a long time.
Upvote
0
I have the 50L and 85L and have shot with the 85 1.8.
If you have the 50 1.4 and you can afford the 85L - I would definitely recommend the 85L. It is such an awesome lens for portraits and the 85L blows away the 85 1.8 in color and contrast. People forget sometimes that sharpness is only one part of what makes a lens awesome.
And of course there is the bokeh!
If you have the 50 1.4 and you can afford the 85L - I would definitely recommend the 85L. It is such an awesome lens for portraits and the 85L blows away the 85 1.8 in color and contrast. People forget sometimes that sharpness is only one part of what makes a lens awesome.
And of course there is the bokeh!
Upvote
0
I've owned and used the 85 1.8 for a couple of years and it is indeed a very good lens but the Sigma 85 1.4 is another beast altogether. Suggest it is a more marked IQ and visual impact lens vs the 85 1.8 than the 50 1.2 is vs the 50 1.4.
The 85 1.4 has a considerable x- factor to its output - much like the 85L however I think the 85L is somewhat slow and specialized whereas the Sigma is just more versatile and very very close in IQ etc
The 85 1.4 has a considerable x- factor to its output - much like the 85L however I think the 85L is somewhat slow and specialized whereas the Sigma is just more versatile and very very close in IQ etc
Upvote
0
I
IIIHobbs
Guest
I have the 24L, 50L, and 135L and have pondered getting an 85 or the 100 Macro. Every time I shoot with the 135L, I say, :I love this lens" and doubt if I would use either of the other. Every time I shoot with the 50L, I am so very satisfied, I also doubt I would take out the 85 instead.
I would love to have the 35L, 85L and 200L to technically fill the voids of my current kit, but I have never had a situation yet where the lenses I have left me wanting something more/different.
I would love to have the 35L, 85L and 200L to technically fill the voids of my current kit, but I have never had a situation yet where the lenses I have left me wanting something more/different.
Upvote
0
IIIHobbs said:
That's almost the same situation I am in, got the 24L, a converted FD 55 1.2 and a soon to be EF converted FD 135/2. Well I also own the 100L, which I don't know if I really need it and the 15mm fisheye which is always nice to have and the 200/2.8! Now I want to sell the 200 because I don't use it, not even with my 1.4x II but don't know if I should buy the sigma 85 to complete my set...or just sell the 100 as well
and keep the 3 firstly mentioned lenses and the fisheye... ??? After all the sigma 85 1.4 is pretty similar to the 55mm 1.2, you can always crop the pictures from the latter...
Upvote
0
Someone mentioned that the Canon 85mm 1.8 has more unreliable autofocus. I am just posting to say that I have not found that to be the case. The Canon 85mm 1.8 has the best autofocus on any possible lens that I have tried, better for sure than the 70-200 II, for instance. It's never unreliable unless user error causes it to be so. (I.e., you mis-place your focusing points, such as accidentally beginning to press the button before the AF points are actually on your desired subject.)
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 has slightly unreliable autofocus, I have found, but good enough that I can still rely on it at a basketball game (not 100% reliable). But Sigma's image quality at f/2.0 is far better than the Canon just because of the CA problem (chromatic aberration) that the Canon has.
With the Canon, you will get purple reflections from the out of focus stadium lights reflecting off of glasses, for example (ruining an otherwise good dunk photo, for example) if you shoot below f/2.8. So basically you are wasting more than one stop of the len's potential in order to avoid CA.
I don't have to worry at all about CA with the Sigma lens at f/2.0.
CA is the problem with the Canon, but its auto focus is as close to perfect as possible on all of my copies and every else's that I know. So I had to chime in and say something.
Yes, I have had disappointing focus experiences myself, but it has always been user error of my own like getting too eager and starting to lock focus before a subject is close enough to even register on the AF sensor. If I make a mistake like that, the lens will do a perfect job of tracking focus on the background. The way to fix that mistake is to take my finger completely off the shutter and re-acquire focus on the proper subject. So if you are experiencing any focusing problems with the 85mm 1.8, just wait a little bit. AF takes technique from the photographer as well as capability and accuracy from the lens. I am still learning and improving every day.
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 has slightly unreliable autofocus, I have found, but good enough that I can still rely on it at a basketball game (not 100% reliable). But Sigma's image quality at f/2.0 is far better than the Canon just because of the CA problem (chromatic aberration) that the Canon has.
With the Canon, you will get purple reflections from the out of focus stadium lights reflecting off of glasses, for example (ruining an otherwise good dunk photo, for example) if you shoot below f/2.8. So basically you are wasting more than one stop of the len's potential in order to avoid CA.
I don't have to worry at all about CA with the Sigma lens at f/2.0.
CA is the problem with the Canon, but its auto focus is as close to perfect as possible on all of my copies and every else's that I know. So I had to chime in and say something.
Yes, I have had disappointing focus experiences myself, but it has always been user error of my own like getting too eager and starting to lock focus before a subject is close enough to even register on the AF sensor. If I make a mistake like that, the lens will do a perfect job of tracking focus on the background. The way to fix that mistake is to take my finger completely off the shutter and re-acquire focus on the proper subject. So if you are experiencing any focusing problems with the 85mm 1.8, just wait a little bit. AF takes technique from the photographer as well as capability and accuracy from the lens. I am still learning and improving every day.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
