Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
- Thread starter metacove
- Start date
BLFPhoto
Canon EOS user since '91...
I've had my Canon 50mm f/1.4 for nearly as long as I've had EOS cameras...19 or 20 years. The only lens I've had longer is the original 50mm f/1.8 mk I with the metal mount. I loved it(the 1.4)...until I didn't. And that was starting about with the 40D. It was still good on the 5Dc, though mine probably suffered from the lack of AFMA on early digital bodies. Now I mainly use it for detail shots and street shooting from f/4-f/8. It still shines in that mode. But I love the focal length for composition and really want a great 50 1.4. I never liked the focus shift on Canon's 50 L, so that lens is not on my list.
Hoping the 50 Art is as good as anticipated and as good as the 35 Art that I already have.
Hoping the 50 Art is as good as anticipated and as good as the 35 Art that I already have.
Upvote
0
Seeing as you're shooting FF, I'd recommend the 135mm over the 50mm. As other posters have said, you've got the short end really well covered. Maybe you don't need any new glass. Spend the money on a holiday.
FWIW, I had a nice sharp copy of the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 and also a very sharp 135 f/2. You know what? I sold them both because of lack of use. The stellar 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII are my go-to workhorses and boy do they deliver. These two lenses and their previous incarnations have been the foundations of my business since last century. They've fed us, schooled my kids, built our studio/residence, put the cars in the garage, delivered creative and personal wins and made lots of clients very happy.
For the way I work, the sheer quality of today's zooms make primes below 300mm an inconvenient irrelevance.
-pw
FWIW, I had a nice sharp copy of the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 and also a very sharp 135 f/2. You know what? I sold them both because of lack of use. The stellar 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII are my go-to workhorses and boy do they deliver. These two lenses and their previous incarnations have been the foundations of my business since last century. They've fed us, schooled my kids, built our studio/residence, put the cars in the garage, delivered creative and personal wins and made lots of clients very happy.
For the way I work, the sheer quality of today's zooms make primes below 300mm an inconvenient irrelevance.
-pw
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
I'd say the 135L is better for indoor sports photography... and you could definitely get some quality images outdoors as well... but I guess we can see how the AF system holds up.
Actually for outdoor sports... I wouldn't want to get too close and the 50 would be too close for comfort... so... but that is a small segment of your argument... and I agree... mostly... except for the canon 50's which I don't care for wide open... well... not the L... but I haven't used that one.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:sagittariansrock said:jdramirez said:
JD, you live in some parallel universe (read: you are incredibly resourceful with second hand lens buying and selling).
Wish I had your skills in getting me a 35L...
I had a chance to buy a 35L for $900... but the new 35 art just came out and I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I regret that one... Then last December I had a chance at a 35 art for $700... and I didn't pull the trigger. There's something about the 35's that just cause me waffle.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20409.msg385645#msg385645
If you don't get it this time you will know you really didn't want it
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:sagittariansrock said:
Start with a simple dream, work hard & save up and get to it
Look at my signature, you can see I have tried this method many times. It works ;D
Good advice
However this was literally a dream, and quite unexpected since the 85L is not really on my list of priorities.
The sweetness came purely from the feeling of acquiring new gear
Upvote
0
There are so many different kinds of portraiture that it's hard to say which of the two lenses would serve you better. I know you've already ordered the 135/2L and I'm sure you'll be thrilled with it. And the Sigma 50/1.4 Art isn't for sale yet.
The 135/2L is a fantastic lens. It's got very even, smooth bokeh, with excellent sharpness and contrast throughout most of the frame. It's also fast to focus. I would say its only disadvantage is that it tends to be passed up because there are other, more popular and versatile lenses in that range (for example, the popular 70-200/2.8L IS II) which photographers tend to choose first, and then they find less value in the 135/2L.
I would disagree that there's less of a need for you to have a fast 50mm lens. Personally, I shoot with the 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II, and I frequently find myself wanting a focal length in between. The only reason why I don't actually have a fast 50mm is because, until now, no one has made one that satisfied my criteria for price, optical performance, autofocus, and durability. I'd like to go with Canon but their offerings are appalling in this area--the 50/1.2L is optically inferior for the asking price; the 50/1.4 and 1.8 have a reputation for being fragile/cheap. That's why the Sigma lens is making such headlines--it promises to do something that Canon and Nikon have completely neglected, at a fraction of the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4's astronomical price.
But back to your situation: I think you'll be very happy with the 135/2L, and between the two lenses, it's probably the more suitable choice for you. But like me, I think you'll also want to take the Sigma for a spin when it does come out. I am tired of Canon making overpriced, low-quality designs (or ridiculously expensive super-telephotos). Their current idea of updating a lens seems to be to slap IS on it and raise the price by 50%. They haven't released any new designs faster than f/2 in ages.
The 135/2L is a fantastic lens. It's got very even, smooth bokeh, with excellent sharpness and contrast throughout most of the frame. It's also fast to focus. I would say its only disadvantage is that it tends to be passed up because there are other, more popular and versatile lenses in that range (for example, the popular 70-200/2.8L IS II) which photographers tend to choose first, and then they find less value in the 135/2L.
I would disagree that there's less of a need for you to have a fast 50mm lens. Personally, I shoot with the 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II, and I frequently find myself wanting a focal length in between. The only reason why I don't actually have a fast 50mm is because, until now, no one has made one that satisfied my criteria for price, optical performance, autofocus, and durability. I'd like to go with Canon but their offerings are appalling in this area--the 50/1.2L is optically inferior for the asking price; the 50/1.4 and 1.8 have a reputation for being fragile/cheap. That's why the Sigma lens is making such headlines--it promises to do something that Canon and Nikon have completely neglected, at a fraction of the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4's astronomical price.
But back to your situation: I think you'll be very happy with the 135/2L, and between the two lenses, it's probably the more suitable choice for you. But like me, I think you'll also want to take the Sigma for a spin when it does come out. I am tired of Canon making overpriced, low-quality designs (or ridiculously expensive super-telephotos). Their current idea of updating a lens seems to be to slap IS on it and raise the price by 50%. They haven't released any new designs faster than f/2 in ages.
Upvote
0
sagittariansrock said:jdramirez said:sagittariansrock said:jdramirez said:
JD, you live in some parallel universe (read: you are incredibly resourceful with second hand lens buying and selling).
Wish I had your skills in getting me a 35L...
I had a chance to buy a 35L for $900... but the new 35 art just came out and I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I regret that one... Then last December I had a chance at a 35 art for $700... and I didn't pull the trigger. There's something about the 35's that just cause me waffle.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20409.msg385645#msg385645
If you don't get it this time you will know you really didn't want it
I'd rather have it new for 700 than 679 as a refurb... so no.... again.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:sagittariansrock said:jdramirez said:sagittariansrock said:jdramirez said:
JD, you live in some parallel universe (read: you are incredibly resourceful with second hand lens buying and selling).
Wish I had your skills in getting me a 35L...
I had a chance to buy a 35L for $900... but the new 35 art just came out and I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I regret that one... Then last December I had a chance at a 35 art for $700... and I didn't pull the trigger. There's something about the 35's that just cause me waffle.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20409.msg385645#msg385645
If you don't get it this time you will know you really didn't want it
I'd rather have it new for 700 than 679 as a refurb... so no.... again.
Lol, makes sense. And knowing you, you'll surely get it. Cheers!
Upvote
0
surapon said:
These are dangerous photos for those of us that suffer from G.A.S
@OP I use the 135 for portrait and indoorsports
Upvote
0
candyman said:surapon said:
These are dangerous photos for those of us that suffer from G.A.S
@OP I use the 135 for portrait and indoorsports
+1.
I hardly use the 85mm FL and have no particular need for a designated portrait lens, but that front element looks sexy! (Although, reportedly it isn't very ergonomic)
Upvote
0
metacove said:
The torrent of responses probably means you have some very good advice already.
My feeling is that 50 mm is covered very well by your 24-70 and the only advantage is the speed and additional increment of sharpness that would go unnoticed in most, if not all, applications.
If you like portraiture the 50 would not be my choice. To get good framing one has to be so close the facial features are distorted or one cannot get far enough back to make a satisfactory environmental portrait.
I think the real driver of interest in this lens is its other-worldly sharpness which is fine but IME not something that the viewer of a print will be aware of or appreciate.
I cannot comment on the value of pleasure at pixel peeping the files but I would be honest about it as it is a solitary pleasure.
The 135 would , IMO, be the answer but I would rent both to see what rings your bell.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
