I want both of these lenses badly. I love a very shallow DOF and even use the Brenizer Method to get an even shallower DOF. My question is to those who have used both lenses which lens has better bokeh? Or are they even comparable?
pwp said:Those two lenses are very different beasts. Both highly desirable. Both brilliant. And both really need to deliver immediate and strong ROI, especially the high priced 200 f/2. Why not jump into the middle and pick up a 135 f/2? Ever read anything but high praise for this lens?
Have you noticed whenever WickedWombat gets a chance to mention his Sigma 85 f/1.4 he's relentlessly 110% positive. He's just about got me convinced to get one. WW, are you listening in here? Is the AF on the Sigma quick, unlike the Canon 85 f/1.2?
A review...http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
PW
jaayres20 said:I want both of these lenses badly. I love a very shallow DOF and even use the Brenizer Method to get an even shallower DOF. My question is to those who have used both lenses which lens has better bokeh? Or are they even comparable?
Daniel Flather said:Ahhh, my 200/2. It's special, it's expensive, and it's heavy...
It was the 200/2 over a motorcycle, so in theory I saved about $10,000 with the purchase of the 200/2.
pwp said:Have you noticed whenever WickedWombat gets a chance to mention his Sigma 85 f/1.4 he's relentlessly 110% positive. He's just about got me convinced to get one. WW, are you listening in here? Is the AF on the Sigma quick, unlike the Canon 85 f/1.2?
A review...http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
PW
pwp said:Daniel Flather said:Ahhh, my 200/2. It's special, it's expensive, and it's heavy...
It was the 200/2 over a motorcycle, so in theory I saved about $10,000 with the purchase of the 200/2.
...which leaves you with $10k for quite a nice motorcycle. Yah!!!
PW
Chewngum said:Daniel talks about the 200 f2L never missing a shot and it being amazing, I would love to know what the reaction to it would be if the 200L focused like the 85L, makes it an entirely different beast and most of all the shooting technique required is worlds apart.
Daniel Flather said:Chewngum said:Daniel talks about the 200 f2L never missing a shot and it being amazing, I would love to know what the reaction to it would be if the 200L focused like the 85L, makes it an entirely different beast and most of all the shooting technique required is worlds apart.
Yes, but I knew the 200's AF was excellent before I bought it, so your point is moot. I researched the 200L before I bought it and I knew the AF was excellent, much like the whole lens. I have the 50L and I was fully aware of everyone's issues with it and that did not deter me from buying the 50L, nor will the 85's documented AF issues curtail my 85L acquisition. The 50L is a great lens despite its over emphasized issues online, I'm glad I have the joy of using it. The 50L bests the 50 1.4 in EVERY way, yet the 50L gets a nasty reputation for focus issues (yes, I own a 50 1.4 too).
Buy the lens you want, don't compromise and buy a lens twice, like I did with my 50 an 85 non-L lenses. (both are for sale).
dirtcastle said:The 135mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck, by far. It's a telephoto, but not too long. It's DOF is as shallow as you'll probably need. It's relatively light and short compared to comparable lenses in that range. And it focuses MUCH quicker than the 85 f/1.2.
Compared to the 135mm, the 85mm f/1.2 simply allows you to be a little closer to your subject. So I would make your distance from subject (and desired crop) the deciding factor.
wickidwombat said:did you get the 200 f2 new or second hand?
how much did it cost?
you seem to jag amazing prices on used kit