Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by quid, Apr 21, 2008.
thinking about getting one
I love mine, but hardly ever use it anymore. Makes a great portrait lens, but kinda long if you don't have the space to work with (i.e. outdoors)
I have it and love it. If you're a little girl, it might be heavy, but to normal guys, it isn't. It's sharp and focuses pretty fast. The bokeh is and I really like it.
best lens for the money in the canon lineup. goes head to head with its big brother in sharpness and color, and is faster in AF
do you usually shoot with pancake lenses or are you thinking of the wrong thing?
anything besides a xt and kit lens must be heavy...
50 1.4 is another good prime alternative if you don't need the longer focal length.
thats actually a good point. im looking more for awesome looking depth of field / bokah. i have a 50 1.8 but am not really fond of it. in my experience, it has a hard time autofocusing. i would like the longer 85, but is the 50 1.4 better for the aspects im looking for?
also right now the lenses i have are sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and canon 50 f/1.8 (ill probably be selling the 50 though )
DOF will be smaller on the 85, so your subject will pop more from the background. the quality of the bokeh of both is good
the 50 1.4 will AF and MF much faster than the 1.8 (as will the 85), as the 1.8 doesn't have USM
the 85 will be better for your bag
or a 70-200 f/4
i REALLY want the 70-200 but i just cant do it if theres no IS, and id much rather grab the 2.8
the 85 really caught my eye because of its price, and it seems capable of what i want, shallow DOF.
If you have the space, the 85 1.8 will create more separation between you, focal point, and background to give more blur. But, on the flipside, shooting wide open on a 50 1.4 can also create a decent amount of blur but you get a lens that is faster. You can't go wrong with either one for a $300 or less budget. It's just a matter of choosing what focal length works for you.
pancake lens http://s14.divshare.com/thumbs/2008/04/22/4321506/4321506-d48_display.jpg
shit even my 85mm 1.4 weighs 620 grams
it weighs 422 grams (14.9 ounces)
you're thinking of the wrong lens or are just on crack
Maybe hes talking about a Nikon?..
im thinking of renting the f/1.2 version
It focuses VERY slow. Its not ice-age slow or anything, but compared to how most other lenses focus, its very noticeable.
Loved it when I had it, except it was a bit long.
85 1.8, big bang for the buck. A fine portrait lens. A definite keeper to boot. I would hesitate replacing it with the big brother 85L, it has outstanding AF. FF or crop, you'll love it.
I was suprised when I rented the 135 2.0L at the speed (or lack of) of the AF mechanism under low light. I was expecting to be faster than my 70 200 2.8L IS but it wasn't.
probably because its a rental, mine is faster
I loved the 85 f/1.8 and plan on buying one later this summer (after a couple of jobs) I'm renting the 85L for a wedding in August...
Honestly, Id think your 70-200 is just slow. My 135 is slower than my 70-200 easily.
no complaints with either. only issue I have is with my tamron, well that and when i owned the 50 1.8