Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: brivard on November 08, 2009, 05:22:19 pm
-
I recently purchased a used Canon 5D and a 17-40 f/4L, but the 17-40 is now my only lens. I need something with a little more reach than 40 mm for certain landscapes, and something much faster for indoor shooting. I want to know which of the two Canon primes are a better choice. I know 85 would give me the extra reach I want, but I feel the 50 is a more usable lens. Or would it be better to save up for the 85 1.2L?
Thanks
-
I recently purchased a used Canon 5D and a 17-40 f/4L, but the 17-40 is now my only lens. I need something with a little more reach than 40 mm for certain landscapes, and something much faster for indoor shooting. I want to know which of the two Canon primes are a better choice. I know 85 would give me the extra reach I want, but I feel the 50 is a more usable lens. Or would it be better to save up for the 85 1.2L?
Thanks
I use the 85mm f/1.8 on a crop sensor camera, and it is exceptionally sharp, compact and light, and incredibly affordable. From the technical reviews I've read, the f/1.2L is only marginally better (if at all), and only necessary if you need the wider aperture.
The difference between your 40mm end and a 50mm is negligible. But note that the 50mm will most likely be quite a bit sharper than the zoom - but as I'm not familiar with either lens, that might not be the case.
-
I recently purchased a used Canon 5D and a 17-40 f/4L, but the 17-40 is now my only lens. I need something with a little more reach than 40 mm for certain landscapes, and something much faster for indoor shooting. I want to know which of the two Canon primes are a better choice. I know 85 would give me the extra reach I want, but I feel the 50 is a more usable lens. Or would it be better to save up for the 85 1.2L?
Thanks
I've got both and use them on a 5D and 1Ds3. In my view the 50 is better than it's webrep would suggest and the 85 is excellent. Either should please you in use and both are very good value. Your choice will depend on your preferred focal length, but you should consider that 85 can feel very long very quickly indoors.
Mike
-
How is the build quality on the non L primes? I just want something that can withstand a little beating, being that I don't exactly baby my gear while in the field.
I was extremely disappointed with the 50 1.8 mark ii's build quality, but then again that was only 100 bucks or so. The build quality and usability wide open are the only things that make me consider the 85L.
-
I have both 50's, and both 85's.
The build quality on the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 is fine. Robust, even. I don't treat them very well, and they are holding up after years of service. Both are excellent lenses, very good at wide apertures and outstanding as you stop down.
The 50/1.2 and the 85/1.2 II are a whole different class of build quality. They are also a LOT heavier and a LOT more expensive. The 85/1.2 takes a while to focus sometimes (it has to move a big heavy lens element.)
Have you thought about the 100/2 ?? I find the 85 a little short with a full frame camera (my work cameras are 1D series, with the 1.3x crop factor.)
If I were buying lenses for a 5D and wanted good primes without spending a ton of money, I would get the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and the 100/2. The only one I don't own is the 100, and it's on my wish list.
If money were no object, I love the 24/1.4 and the 35/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is sweet. I'm still not sure about how the 85/1.2 fits with how I shoot. (Yes, I know, it's the greatest lens ever made and all, which may be true, and I do love the look. But I find myself shooting a lot of assignments with the 24 and the 50, and a 70-200 in the bag.)
-
I have a 5D like you, and my battery of medium primes are the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.8 (I also have a 300mm f/4L, but I guess that is not relevant to the discussion).
The 50mm probably just edges the 85mm in terms of optical quality, but it is a close run thing and both are seriously excellent. The only optical problem with the 50mm is that it shows a bit of barrel distortion, which may or may not be an issue for you. The 85mm is a bit of an oddball focal length, and is really only good for portraits (and boy oh boy is it good for those).
The 50mm has a rather flaky AF mechanism - it claims to be USM, but it isn't the same as the USM drives on Canon's classier / more recent lenses. My lens' AF occasionally sticks, especially when transitioning from long to short distance focus. Not a big problem because you just focus manually until you are close enough and then let AF take over again... however it is an irritant and I have lost several shots as a result, and I don't fully trust the lens. The 85mm doesn't have this issue.
The 35mm f/2 spends much more time on my camera than either of the other two lenses - it is tiny, unobtrusive and light as a feather, and optically it is very good - not quite as good as the others, but pretty damn good nonetheless. The only negative with this lens is the noisy non-USM AF, but personally it doesn't bother me. This, for me, is the ideal lens for street and candids.
What you might consider doing is borrowing a wide to tele zoom, eg the 24-105mm f/4L IS, and playing with it for a while. You will quickly discover your preferred focal length, and that could determine your choice of prime. Or, alternatively, you could just go ahead and buy all 3 primes, as they are all exceptionally cheap considering their optical quality.
On the question of L versus non-L, obviously the cost will be much greater, and your return in terms of IQ and lens speed will be rather marginal. Build quality will be better, but that said the build quality on the three non-L versions is pretty good too. Personally, even if I had all the money in the world, I would probably stick with the non-L primes. The reason is that all the L versions are, relatively speaking, huge and heavy. For me, the whole point of primes is that they should be small, light and unobtrusive - the L class primes are the opposite.
Ed
-
I've been shooting weddings with both for years, they mainly live wide or near to wide open.
The 50mm is pretty unuseable till f1.8 where it is OK. Not incredible but very useable. Wider open than that the bokeh is very funky where you have specular highlights and it's just soft. From f2.8 the lens is spectacular and at f4 it beat my 70-200 f4L IS lens, widely touted as the sharpest canon zoom, hands down no questions asked for both sharpness and contrast. I see a slight sharpness drop off from f9 onwards on my 5D, not sure if it's the lens or diffraction.
The 85mm is an incredible lens. Sharp and contrasty througout. My copy when wide open is sharper than the three 24-70L's I've owned, when stopped down to f4! By f2 no one can deny just how good it is. Only problem when wide open is some pretty nasty CA on high contrast edges which apparently the 'L' version is better at. My 85 is sharper and more contrasty than my (calibrated) 100mm f2 which is apparently on par with the 135L, the 85L however is sharper still and with wonderful colour and bokeh in comparison to its f1.8 brother but then it's (the 85L) probably canon's best lens.
-
I am also looking for a fast prime for discrete low light street shooting, probably at about 800 - 1600 on my 5D. One solution is to use my LX3 which is even more discrete and f2 , but not at 60mm, and not really usable above 400 I need 50mm or above as I'm not brave enough to get in people's faces but he DP review of Canon 50/1.4 indicates image quality at 1.4 is not what I need. If I was just using it wide open, I'd go for Sigma 50/1.4 but I am leaning to Carl Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 or 85/1 as both more suitable for general use. - anyone used CZ on 5D?
-
Thing is that the 50mm 1.4 by f2.8 will kill any canon zoom period. Even at f2 it's great. For low light street work you just don't need better, you'll lose more photos to bad manual focus in the low light wide open than to 'soft' images. It's just not a genre that needs better than this lens is.
-
I recently purchased a used Canon 5D and a 17-40 f/4L, but the 17-40 is now my only lens. I need something with a little more reach than 40 mm for certain landscapes, and something much faster for indoor shooting. I want to know which of the two Canon primes are a better choice. I know 85 would give me the extra reach I want, but I feel the 50 is a more usable lens. Or would it be better to save up for the 85 1.2L?
Thanks
No brainer. Go for the 85 mm f:1.8. It's extremely sharp, lightweight, quick to focus and very affordable. Compared to the vastly heavier and hugely more expensive f:1.2 version it gives up a little edge sharpness wide open, but there's almost no difference at apertures smaller than f:2.4, and it autofocuses way faster. The 85 mm focal length is perfect for portraits on your 5D; I do have a 50 mm f:1.4, but I almost never use it because I find 85 mm is much more useful. I recently used the 85 mm f:1.8 to make copy photos of paintings that I later printed on canvas for the painter; extremely sharp results, and essentially zero distortion. Honestly, it's so light, small and affordable for the amazing image quality, it feels like cheating.
-
Another vote for the 50mm 1.4, but only from about f2 onwards. In addition, I do find it is slow to AF in low light, plus mine has developed a problem in that occasionally it will not autofocus at all. I think it may be a problem with the AF/MF switch on the side of the lens.
Jim
-
Thing is that the 50mm 1.4 by f2.8 will kill any canon zoom period. Even at f2 it's great. For low light street work you just don't need better, you'll lose more photos to bad manual focus in the low light wide open than to 'soft' images. It's just not a genre that needs better than this lens is.
Seconded. To add to that, with the 50mm 1.2L version you will probably lose more "street" shots due to your subjects being distracted by the big-shot photographer with his enormo-glass . If only they could update the 1.4 with a better USM, then it would be perfect.
-
Another vote for the 50mm 1.4, but only from about f2 onwards. In addition, I do find it is slow to AF in low light, plus mine has developed a problem in that occasionally it will not autofocus at all. I think it may be a problem with the AF/MF switch on the side of the lens.
Jim
Unfortunately this is a known issue with this lens - the Micro USM mechanism just isn't as good as Ring USM, and is prone to partial or even total failure. Mine has the same problem, and a quick google will show that we are not alone.
Ed
-
Unfortunately this is a known issue with this lens - the Micro USM mechanism just isn't as good as Ring USM, and is prone to partial or even total failure. Mine has the same problem, and a quick google will show that we are not alone.
Ed
Another reason not to discount the manual focussing Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE - my recollection from using an FD 50/1.4 was that it snapped into focus on the screen - however, that was with T90 - not sure 5D would be so easy to focus with in poor light.
-
I've been shooting weddings with both for years, they mainly live wide or near to wide open.
The 50mm is pretty unuseable till f1.8 where it is OK. Not incredible but very useable. Wider open than that the bokeh is very funky where you have specular highlights and it's just soft. From f2.8 the lens is spectacular and at f4 it beat my 70-200 f4L IS lens, widely touted as the sharpest canon zoom, hands down no questions asked for both sharpness and contrast. I see a slight sharpness drop off from f9 onwards on my 5D, not sure if it's the lens or diffraction.
The 85mm is an incredible lens. Sharp and contrasty througout. My copy when wide open is sharper than the three 24-70L's I've owned, when stopped down to f4! By f2 no one can deny just how good it is. Only problem when wide open is some pretty nasty CA on high contrast edges which apparently the 'L' version is better at. My 85 is sharper and more contrasty than my (calibrated) 100mm f2 which is apparently on par with the 135L, the 85L however is sharper still and with wonderful colour and bokeh in comparison to its f1.8 brother but then it's (the 85L) probably canon's best lens.
To be fair, unuseable is probably a bit strong. At 1.4 it sin't the sharpest chisel in the box, but whether it's useable depends on what you're doing with it and what you want. I use it at 1.4 outside at night on my 5D at iso1600 or 3200 and it does what I expect and need. For street work it will almost certainly be fine. As everyone says from about 2 to 2.8 it's excellent in all respects.
The 85 is great for head and shoulders portraits - but inside in most rooms that's all you can do. Just be aware that you can't always step back inside:) Anyway, you'll end up buying both in time.
Mike
-
So pretty much what I'm hearing is that they are all excellent stopped down, well except the grapefruit-of-a-lens 85 1.2 monster which is good no matter where it's at, and both have better than average build quality. So that just leaves me with deciding which focal length to go with. I think since my shooting style doesn't include a lot of candid portraits at night, or candid portraits period, then I don't really NEED the 100 mm focal length that was suggested. I think since I most likely will buy both eventually, I will go with the 85 1.8 first, since my main goal was a longer-than-40mm prime, and I just think the 100 f2 will be a little too slow for some of the indoor and low-light shooting I want to do.
-
Technically there is nothing wrong with the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Everything about this was already said. Its all better than any zoom.
The thing is HOW the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 render the image. The bokeh is something different. There is something in these images that you cannot reproduce with any other Canon primes. It is the way the background is blurred, but also comes from the shallower DOF.
That makes you forgive that a 50 1.2 is never becoming as sharp as a 50 1.4 gets. Which is not the case for a 85 1.2 - the MkI wide open is pretty ok for portraits, and very good when stopped down by one stop or more. Heavy CA at open apertures is the price you have to pay.
Remember that the AF of the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 is faster than those from the wide-open lenses.
Consider getting a used 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 if you are unsure whether this focal length works for you.
Remember that any USM glasses from Canon with a retractable front lens (I mean non-retro-focal such as the 85 1.2, the 50 1.4 and I think also the 85 1.8) is prone to physical damage of the USM. If you hit the front element the physical energy is directly transmitted to the USM. In any case the repair will be very expensive, it will exceed the cost of a new 50 1.4, for example.
EDIT: the 85 1.8 front element does not retract.
-
I own both lenses and they are both excellent additions to a kit.
If I were you I'd get the 85mm f/1.8. It will have more reach than a 50 and you can always get a 50mm later.
-
My vote is for the 85/1.8 I have both it and the 50/1.4 and the 85 is sharper and with has better contrast wide open. I find the 85 focal length to be much more useful for my preferences.
-
Well, you are approaching the issue from the wrong viewpoint, I think. There is a big difference between the 50 and 85mm focal lenghts. You have to decide first on the focal length you need, rather than worrying about tiny possible differences in performance between the two lenses.
They are both excellent lenses, so you are garanteed in that respect.
-
Well, you are approaching the issue from the wrong viewpoint, I think. There is a big difference between the 50 and 85mm focal lenghts. You have to decide first on the focal length you need, rather than worrying about tiny possible differences in performance between the two lenses.
They are both excellent lenses, so you are garanteed in that respect.
I think that's exactly right. Most of us have a very particular way of 'seeing', which leads us to specific focal lengths. I have access to lots of lenses from 16mm to 500mm, but I find that I end up taking 90% of my photos with 2 lenses and about 97% with just 3 lenses. When it comes to indoor and people pictures, I have a goodly selection of fast lenses to choose from, but I almost always end up defaulting to the 85 f:1.8 or occasionally the 135 f:2 L lens. Seems like every time I use something wider, I can't get a composition I like. I love the look of images taken wide open with the Sigma 50 f:1.4, yet I just can't seem to use it effectively. With the 85 mm lens I get a very high proportion of keepers, and lots more really good shots. Other people get beautiful images from their wider fast lenses, God bless 'em. But a 35 mm f:1.4 would be totally wasted on me.
-
I recently purchased a used Canon 5D and a 17-40 f/4L, but the 17-40 is now my only lens. I need something with a little more reach than 40 mm for certain landscapes, and something much faster for indoor shooting. I want to know which of the two Canon primes are a better choice. I know 85 would give me the extra reach I want, but I feel the 50 is a more usable lens. Or would it be better to save up for the 85 1.2L?
Which wrench is "better", a 9mm or a 10mm? Which screwdriver is "better", a #1 Phillips or a #2 Phillips? The correct answer is "whichever one fits the bolt/screw you're trying to turn." The same is true of lenses; you use the one that best fits the FOV you need for the shot you're trying to capture. You need to sit down and figure out what best FOV fits what you shoot the most often and purchase accordingly; there's no way a total stranger can answer this question for you intelligently on an internet forum. Figure out what bolt you're trying to turn, and the question of what tool to use will answer itself.
-
I hope the OP has gained from this thread. I know I have.
I too have a 5D, and count the 17-40, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 among my lenses.
For my purposes the 50 is my most used walk-around lens. I like the composition I get with it, and enjoy the way it makes me think about the image I want. It also works very quickly with autofocus, which is often important with candids. I sometimes use it for portrait work.
The 85 is mostly used for portrait work. It suits my style and ability very well. With or without grip it is comfortable hand held.
If I had just the 17-40 and used it mainly for landscapes, I feel I would grab the 85 first. The 17-40 can be a great general purpose lens. The 85 would give reach and thus flexibility and is small enough to carry easily with the 5D and 17-40.
-
I think that's exactly right. Most of us have a very particular way of 'seeing', which leads us to specific focal lengths. I have access to lots of lenses from 16mm to 500mm, but I find that I end up taking 90% of my photos with 2 lenses and about 97% with just 3 lenses. When it comes to indoor and people pictures, I have a goodly selection of fast lenses to choose from, but I almost always end up defaulting to the 85 f:1.8 or occasionally the 135 f:2 L lens. Seems like every time I use something wider, I can't get a composition I like. I love the look of images taken wide open with the Sigma 50 f:1.4, yet I just can't seem to use it effectively. With the 85 mm lens I get a very high proportion of keepers, and lots more really good shots. Other people get beautiful images from their wider fast lenses, God bless 'em. But a 35 mm f:1.4 would be totally wasted on me.
That is a good summation - I like working with a 50 or 35 on full frame, particularly indoors, as it gives me a bigger field of view and so more gets included in the composition. I probably get more failures or 'near misses', but I like the ones that work out. The 85 feels long indoors, but I do get very consistent results with it - probably helped because I used my FD85 a lot in past years on my AE-1.
Mike