Which lens do I buy?
August 23, 2008 1:03 PM Subscribe
Photofilter: Which lens should I buy?
I'm in the market for a new prime. I've narrowed it down (for various reasons) to either Canon 85/1.8 or the new Sigma 50/1.4.
Do any fellow photogs out there have experience with either one or have a recommendation. Eventually, I want to go with the 85/1.2II but it'll be awhile before I have the cash.
I'm looking for something with good bokeh as I like to shoot wide open and get short DOF. Currently, I'm using an old OM Zuiko 50/1.4 to achieve that but since it's not autofocus, I miss more in-focus shots than I like.
In case you need to know to answer I shoot on a 30D and a 5D.
Thanks!
For what it's worth, DPReview now has a few lens reviews and one of them happens to be the Sigma 50/1.4. They like it a lot. I haven't shot with it, but I trust them. If you don't have a 50 and you're shooting primarily on your 30D, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything when i tell you it's an 85 equivalent on that body. If you're shooting on BOTH the 30D and the 5D, it would seem that the 50 would be the more versatile prime for what you're shooting, especially if you're saving up for an 85 later.
posted by The Bellman at 1:36 PM on August 23, 2008
posted by The Bellman at 1:36 PM on August 23, 2008
Have you looked at the Canon 50 1.8? Yeah, it's a plastic body, and not quite a 1.4, but for the budget minded it's really hard to beat.
posted by friezer at 2:03 PM on August 23, 2008
posted by friezer at 2:03 PM on August 23, 2008
It looks to me like you could buy both the Canon 85/1.8 and a Canon 50/1.8 for less than the cost of the Sigma 50/1.4, wich is what I'd do in this case.
You'd have two genuine Canon products known to be good optics.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:18 PM on August 23, 2008
You'd have two genuine Canon products known to be good optics.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:18 PM on August 23, 2008
Unless you REALLY need that F/1.4, I would pick up the thrifty fifty (Canon 50mm F1.8). If you NEED F/1.4, why not just go with the Canon? The Sigma does feel like a higher quality lens (than the Canon F/1.4), and is more like a Canon L lens than a standard EF Canon lens. That being said, Sigma's are plagued with mis-focus issues.
So really.. the 85 is better for farther away, the 50 for closer (obviously, not insulting your intelligence). The Sigma is higher quality, the Canon will be golden out of the box.
My vote? Get a Canon (#2) 50 F/1.4 or (#3) F/1.8. You should be able to buy the Canon 85 F/1.8 AND the thrifty fifty, so thats vote #1.
posted by SirStan at 2:25 PM on August 23, 2008
So really.. the 85 is better for farther away, the 50 for closer (obviously, not insulting your intelligence). The Sigma is higher quality, the Canon will be golden out of the box.
My vote? Get a Canon (#2) 50 F/1.4 or (#3) F/1.8. You should be able to buy the Canon 85 F/1.8 AND the thrifty fifty, so thats vote #1.
posted by SirStan at 2:25 PM on August 23, 2008
The 85 will take better portraits on the 5D than the 50mm.
The 85 on the 5D will be complemented nicely by a thrifty on the 30D (80mm eff.)
posted by SirStan at 2:27 PM on August 23, 2008
The 85 on the 5D will be complemented nicely by a thrifty on the 30D (80mm eff.)
posted by SirStan at 2:27 PM on August 23, 2008
Response by poster: Clarification:
I do already own the 50/1.8. And hate it. It's sharp, it's cheap and has given me no problems but the bokeh on it is so harsh it kills me.
That's why I'm trying to go for the other two. They both are known for great bokeh.
posted by damiano99 at 3:16 PM on August 23, 2008
I do already own the 50/1.8. And hate it. It's sharp, it's cheap and has given me no problems but the bokeh on it is so harsh it kills me.
That's why I'm trying to go for the other two. They both are known for great bokeh.
posted by damiano99 at 3:16 PM on August 23, 2008
I'd think the 85, on a 30D, would be too long for good streetwork. Question to clarify: Why aren't you looking at the Canon 50/1.4?
posted by Tomorrowful at 4:17 PM on August 23, 2008
posted by Tomorrowful at 4:17 PM on August 23, 2008
I have worked with the 85mm f1.2 II (read this review and all others on this excellent site) and absolutely loved it. fast focussing, solidly built (unlike the 50mm f1.8 you have) and the bokeh is to die for. I realize this is the lens you only want to ultimately go for but it's the only one you are considering I can really comment on.
the 1.2 is huge. no, it's huuuuuge. and heavy. just so you know.
it's also fast both in the amount of light it needs and the time required to lock in a focus.
it's so huge you can't really stop it down all that much. I think f14 is the furthest you can go down to (an example) but shooting portraits in a studio environment with a large softbox gets tricky - the lens will be too quick for many camera synch speeds and you'll need to overexpose. cranking the aperture over to smaller f-stop numbers on the other hand will make little skin blemished look like natural disaster impact zones - you will need models with good skin and a capable makeup artist for that. of course all this isn't a concern when you're outside. my point here is that this lens does not work at f22 or whatever you'd normally use for studio portraits but it's quick enough that you can get a decent exposure even shooting straight into a softbox.
knowing all this, I loved the f1.2. it's a fantastic lens for a serious outdoors-shooter if you are comfortable with its focal length. it's probably going to be the second lens I will acquire after my next purchase, which is going to be the 24mm TS.
posted by krautland at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2008
the 1.2 is huge. no, it's huuuuuge. and heavy. just so you know.
it's also fast both in the amount of light it needs and the time required to lock in a focus.
it's so huge you can't really stop it down all that much. I think f14 is the furthest you can go down to (an example) but shooting portraits in a studio environment with a large softbox gets tricky - the lens will be too quick for many camera synch speeds and you'll need to overexpose. cranking the aperture over to smaller f-stop numbers on the other hand will make little skin blemished look like natural disaster impact zones - you will need models with good skin and a capable makeup artist for that. of course all this isn't a concern when you're outside. my point here is that this lens does not work at f22 or whatever you'd normally use for studio portraits but it's quick enough that you can get a decent exposure even shooting straight into a softbox.
knowing all this, I loved the f1.2. it's a fantastic lens for a serious outdoors-shooter if you are comfortable with its focal length. it's probably going to be the second lens I will acquire after my next purchase, which is going to be the 24mm TS.
posted by krautland at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2008
85mm is an excellent focal length for portraiture -- it lets you get far enough away to make the subject comfortable, and it flattens the figure just enough -- solving the "Nice Nose!" problem.
For street work? Depends on how you shoot. It lets you be further away, but if that's not how you work, that's going to be a problem.
You realize that the "correct" answer is "both, and maybe a 32mm, and wow, wouldn't that 18mm full frame be fun once in a while?"
posted by eriko at 7:56 PM on August 23, 2008
For street work? Depends on how you shoot. It lets you be further away, but if that's not how you work, that's going to be a problem.
You realize that the "correct" answer is "both, and maybe a 32mm, and wow, wouldn't that 18mm full frame be fun once in a while?"
posted by eriko at 7:56 PM on August 23, 2008
A friend of mine that shoots weddings professionally has the 85mm and it's her absolute favourite for portraits, both indoors & out. And despite the good reviews, I've personally had crap luck with Sigma in general.
posted by kattyann at 9:12 PM on August 23, 2008
posted by kattyann at 9:12 PM on August 23, 2008
I'm going to agree with Tomorrowful. The Canon 50/1.4 is just a gorgeous lens. It's my usual walk around lens and the bokeh is pretty, pretty, pretty.
posted by twiki at 9:46 PM on August 23, 2008
posted by twiki at 9:46 PM on August 23, 2008
Finally a subject I can sink my teeth into, as it were:
* The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty crappy lens. While you might find a nice copy optically, chances are it'll be pretty weak until you stop it down to f/2-f/2.8. The USM system/motor they use in this particular lens is horrible, and if you're like at least 5 of my friends, you will end up having it break and getting it fixed/tossing the lens.
* Do you have an Ee-S focusing screen for your 5D? If you manual focus at all, you have to get this screen. It's a very cheap ($30 iirc) microprism screen that does wonders for your ability to manual focus. In fact, I can't imagine using the 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L without it. Sure, there are drawbacks - dark lenses become much darker (focusing at night with the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L is a huge PITA), but if you know you're going to be using something dark, swapping the screen out takes about 30s, and won't void your warranty.
* An alternative to the 85mm f/1.8 is the 100mm f/2, which I got before I picked up the 85mm f/1.2L. It's also a great lens, also very compact and renders bokeh very well. But if you're a bokeh nerd (it's ok, there's a lot of us out there), it's just a stop on the way to your own f/1.2L.
Oh, and the 50 and 85 f/1.2s from canon stop down to f/16.
posted by jedrek at 4:44 AM on August 24, 2008
* The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty crappy lens. While you might find a nice copy optically, chances are it'll be pretty weak until you stop it down to f/2-f/2.8. The USM system/motor they use in this particular lens is horrible, and if you're like at least 5 of my friends, you will end up having it break and getting it fixed/tossing the lens.
* Do you have an Ee-S focusing screen for your 5D? If you manual focus at all, you have to get this screen. It's a very cheap ($30 iirc) microprism screen that does wonders for your ability to manual focus. In fact, I can't imagine using the 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L without it. Sure, there are drawbacks - dark lenses become much darker (focusing at night with the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L is a huge PITA), but if you know you're going to be using something dark, swapping the screen out takes about 30s, and won't void your warranty.
* An alternative to the 85mm f/1.8 is the 100mm f/2, which I got before I picked up the 85mm f/1.2L. It's also a great lens, also very compact and renders bokeh very well. But if you're a bokeh nerd (it's ok, there's a lot of us out there), it's just a stop on the way to your own f/1.2L.
Oh, and the 50 and 85 f/1.2s from canon stop down to f/16.
posted by jedrek at 4:44 AM on August 24, 2008
I have the 85mm f/1.8. It's a nice solid lens. I don't use it that often, as it's very long on my Rebel XT, but as others have pointed out, it is great for portraits. I've also had good luck with it at concerts. (Esthero I love you!) It also focuses wicked fast, and is very quiet, thanks to the USM.
I'd buy this one, skip the 85mm f/1.2 which i've been told is gigantic, and get the 135mm L lens.
posted by chunking express at 10:51 AM on August 25, 2008
I'd buy this one, skip the 85mm f/1.2 which i've been told is gigantic, and get the 135mm L lens.
posted by chunking express at 10:51 AM on August 25, 2008
« Older Natural-looking (read: undetectable) highlights in... | Dammit, IRS, I'm an actor not a tax lawyer. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by damiano99 at 1:04 PM on August 23, 2008