Canon 50mm/85mm 2.8 and larger opinion

[dwdallam]

I think I want to try a sub 2.8 lens. I'm considering these options and would like to get some opinions on why one rather than the other, and one thing that is very important is will any of these lens resolve for the 21+ MPs cameras?

50mm 1.2L      1550.00US
50mm 1.4        360.00US
50mm 1.8 II    100.00US
85mm 1.2L  II 1840.00US B&H sale!!
85mm 1.8        380.00US

Let's do this!

[bigalbest]

What would you use them for? The 1.2 lenses are heavy and slow to focus.

[dwdallam]

What would you use them for? The 1.2 lenses are heavy and slow to focus.

Portraiture and other people photography, commercial product photography, stock, auto photography--anytime I need extremely low DoF. Fair question, since you pay for what you get larger than 2.8. Lotta money for three extra stops.

[Ken Bennett]

I have the 50/1.2, 50/1.4, and both 85's.

No reason to carry these things unless you're shooting wide open or close to it, of course. The slower lenses are still quite fast and have a nice look to them (the 85/1.8 is very nice), but the f/1.2 lens have a dreamy soft effect wide open that is striking. Even down to f/2 I still see a difference.

Downsides:

1. Huge color fringing at wide apertures. Many high contrast edges shows a strong magenta/purple line.

2. Very hard to nail the focus. The 85, especially, has a touchy focus ring. DOF is so shallow wide open that I tend to shoot about 10x more photos to get a few that are dead on.

BUT, those that are dead on are gorgeous.

Shooting on the 1.3x 1D series, I like to carry either the 24 and 50, or the 35 and 85. The 35/1.4 is hands down my favorite lens on those cameras. The 85/1.2 II is also terrific (and I like the tighter FOV.)

I'm not sure resolving power on 21 megapixels is particularly important -- so much of the frame is soft.

[Sheldon N]

I use the 35L, 50mm 1.4, and 85L II on the 1Ds III, and have also used the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

If you're looking to try out shallow depth of field and your initial interest is portraiture, etc, I'd recommend starting with the 85 1.8. It does better than the either of the non-L 50's when shot wide open, and is razor sharp and very fast to focus. The 85L II has a real magical quality between f/1.2 and f/2, but it's a nuanced difference when compared to the 85 1.8 and is slower to focus. I also really like the 35L, love its rendition and wider FOV with shallow DOF.

I find the 50mm to be a bit of an in-between focal length, usually I want 35 or 85. I suppose that might change if I had the 50L, but with as good as the 35L and 85L are I don't see a need to add the 50L.

So I say buy the 85 1.8, if you really like shallow DOF then move up to the 35L and 85L II combo.

[billthecat]

Deleted.

[dergiman]

let´s not forget the 90-TSE !!! it is one of the sharpest lenses in the canon line. it lets you go to 0.3x magnification, and is able to produce extremely thin DoF that is where you want it.

Felipe

[archivue]

if you don't need af :
90 TSE
ZEISS ZE



otherwise Sigma 50 1,4 seems good

[James Godman]

I prefer the Sigma 50 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 (strange I know), but I love the Canon 85 1.2.  These are the two lenses I use most often.

[stever]

if f1.8 is fast enough, the 50 1.4 is okay, but wide open IQ is not good  - it starts to get okay at 1.8, and from f2.8 to diffraction it's great

if you really need sharp wide open and don't need autofocus, then look at Zeiss

[eronald]

The 85/1.2 is in a class by itself wide open, and very very sharp when closed down. However, I don't know if the 5DII can focus it wide open. Portraits with this lens need to be focused on the eyeball *or* on the eyelashes. The 50/1.4 is nice for portraits, soft but sharp. The Canon 50/1.8 might be worth testing, at $100 you cannot really lose anything - the Nikon lens is spectacular IMHO, while the Canon is a bit harsh.

Edmund

[vandevanterSH]

if you really need sharp wide open and don't need autofocus, then look at Zeiss
***********
With a large sensor digital back,  I am quite happy with the Zeiss 110 f/2

Steve

[Yanick Dery]

I agree about the 90 tse. I use it a lot for most of my beauty work and portraits. The 50 f1.4 is good, but not impressive... unless you stop down to f:4 - f:5.6

[Brent McCombs]

I think I want to try a sub 2.8 lens. I'm considering these options and would like to get some opinions on why one rather than the other, and one thing that is very important is will any of these lens resolve for the 21+ MPs cameras?

50mm 1.2L      1550.00US
50mm 1.4        360.00US
50mm 1.8 II    100.00US
85mm 1.2L  II 1840.00US B&H sale!!
85mm 1.8        380.00US

Let's do this!

The only lens I don't have experience with above is the 50 1.2. The 85 1.2 is fantastic for anything not moving too swiftly, as people have mentioned, it's slow to focus.

You don't include the 35 f/1.4 in that group, but it's also a fantastic lens.

For my money, the 85 1.2 is the choice, and the prime lens from Canon I would most least like to give up, and the one which despite it's pain-in-the-butt size, I tend to carry around all the time.

That said, picking up the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4 would save you a ton of coin, and let you play with two different focal lengths in low light and shallow DOF.

When I trave around with my prime-kit, I tend to have the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.2 and the 135 f/2. I recently added a 14 f/2.8 to round out the set. The 24 f/1.4 gets left behind far too much, and as a result I'm likely going to sell it in the new year. The 100 f/2.8 macro has kind of made a come back for me in studio for portraits, so I leave that there now.

But you can do a lot worse than have a kit of 3-4 good to great primes. It saves a bunch of weight and space compaired to hiking around 70-200 and 24-70 zooms, and in some ways (low light/DOF) gives you greater flexibility.

B

[narikin]

why did you post this in MF forum?
please post in applicable category to keep forums On Topic. thanks.

[bcooter]

why did you post this in MF forum?
please post in applicable category to keep forums On Topic. thanks.

Yes Brent where are your manners.

A lot of people on the Antiques Roadshow section of the forum are at Denny's in the morning.

BC

[dwdallam]

why did you post this in MF forum?
please post in applicable category to keep forums On Topic. thanks.

Oh GEEZE, I didn't even notice that until now!! Thanks for posting. Perhaps a mod can swap this thread to the appropriate location?

Thanks again and much apologies.

[vgogolak]

Oh GEEZE, I didn't even notice that until now!! Thanks for posting. Perhaps a mod can swap this thread to the appropriate location?

Thanks again and much apologies.

Dear DWWALLAM

DO NOT APOLOGIZE!!  LOL
I KNEW this would happen, and of course someone would comment. and as  a 67+ YO I think I can point out siliness when I see it

This thread was started BEFORE Michael changed the title and ground rules. Yes, I am propagating a meta discussion, but Doug (I think that is your name? ) not your fault.

Just change the title to "Are MF lenses better than the Canon 50mm etc etc ..." and all will be fine.! (not rolling on floor-too old!)

To borrow a quote from Michael

"sigh"

:-)