35 f/1.4 L vs. 50 f/1.2 L vs. 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD Tamron

I use a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD in my portrait studio. I can easily use

either the 35 or 50 fixed focal length. I use a 20D and I'll upgrade to the

new 5D when/if canon comes out with a replacement for the 5D. So my next lens

is ultimately with a full frame DSLR in mind.

<p>1) number one is the most important question to me and that is have you

ever upgraded from that specific Tamron lens to a Canon L lens?

<p>2) IF so, what diferences did you notice in the image quality?

<p>3) which of the two canon L lenses have you gotten the highest image

quality from (35L or 50L)?

<p>4) which image attributes are better on these two L's than on the Tamron

(ie. sharpness, bokeh, color, resolution, contrast, etc)?

<p>I can't help with your questions, but I do have a question for you: why are you considering the L primes but not the non-L primes of the same focal length? I'm not saying that you're wrong to do so, as there are some valid reasons why you might choose one over the other, but the 35/2 and 50/1.4 are both fine lenses and a heck of a lot cheaper, so I'm wondering why you have determined that they are not suitable for your uses.</p>

Eddy, I would agree with Steve. The Canon non L primes are awsome and for the price of the 50L, you could buy a Canon 24-70L, 50/1.4, and 35/2.0.

 

I have upgraded from the Tamron 25-75/2.8 to a Canon 24-70L and it is a world of difference. Build, AF speed and accuracy, color, sharpness, and contrast. But even better, my 50/1.4 beats my 24-70L away (picture quality, NOT build).

 

As for your #4, take a look at this test I did. I bought 4 Tamron 28-75's trying to find an acceptable copy (yes I'm overly picky) and all the test shots are the same settings. I also compare my 24-70L and 50/1.4 in there.

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/Test%20Final.jpg

 

Mark

Hi Eddie,

 

Since you are using a 28-75 now on 20D, have you factored in that once you change to a full frame camera that to achieve the equivalent field of view will need a 56-120mm lens? In other words, when you begin using full frame, both the 50 and 35mm lenses will effectively be wider than what you are currently using.

 

For portraiture with a full frame camera, I would think 70mm to 135mm focal lengths generally will be most useful and flattering to the subjects. An exception might be a small studio where you don't have enough room to move back from the subject, or if most of your work is full length portraits, either of which that might call for a 50mm, or perhaps even a 35mm lens.

If you're going FF, then a portrait lens approaching legendary status you may also want to

consider is the 85 f1.2L. The 50 f1.2 L has been shown to be very soft. The 35 f1.4 and 85

f1.2 will more than likely give you the phenominal 3D punchiness, that the 50 will not give.

First, I am assuming that Studio means studio lighting. If this is the case, why are you looking at these lenses. At best, it is a waste. At worst, you are losing sharpness.

 

In recent tests, the 50 f/1.2L has shown that it isn't as sharp as the 50 f/1.4 stopped down to f/8 (typical shooting with studio strobes). So why would you pay over $1,000 extra for this? These lenses are about speed. The studio (typically) is about controlled lighting (and lots of it). I own quite a few very fast primes including the 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, 200 f/1.8L, and a number of others. I love natural light photography. With this said, I would never buy these if it was strictly for studio type photography. They are absolutely wonderful natural light lenses.

 

In the studio, I actually prefer a zoom lens. I am typically stopped down to f/8 - f/11 (typically). When you are stopped down, an inferior zoom lens becomes almost indistinguishable from a high end prime. You do gain the advantage of flexibility with the zoom though.

 

If I am incorrect, and you frequently use natural light, I would go for lenses that excel at this. I really would look at your style of shooting before making any decision.

true that in my studio I usually shoot at f/8. But I definately use my camera a lot outside the studio. I need the speed outside the studio. I can consider the 85 focal length also. But even with the full frame, I'd be fine with any of those 3 focal lengths (35, 50, or 85).

<p>y'all bring up good points and I do appreciate y'alls thoughts.

lets igonore build for a moment...are you saying that the 50 f/1.4 USM at $290.00 has the exact image quality as the 50 f/1.2L when both are stopped down to f/1.4?...that is equal in sharpness, bokeh, contrast, color, resolution, etc?

Wait, two high prices L primes, state of the art fast lenses that retail over $1000 apiece

versus a Tamron zoom?

 

Are you a masochist or what? Do you even need to ask the question?

 

If you need f/1.2 / f/1.4 you know what you need to buy. If not, you are just buying

lenses to compensate for your masculinity.

 

Why not the 35 f/2 or the 50 f/1.4 or 1.8 instead?

Slightly off teh core of the matter b ut I had the 85/1.2 MkI and it was great for portraits. For anything moving, sports it was totally useless due to the world record slow focus. With open aperture you need to hit a millimeter accurate focus. You can have a cup of coffee while it finds the target. Now I employ the EF100/2 (I would have taken the 85/1.8 too - practically the same lense). It's much faster and it's still one helluva sharp lense. For fast prime use (both light- and focus speed-wise) I'd gor for:<br>

- EF 50/any of them<br>

- EF 85/1.8<br>

- EF 100/2<br>

- EF 135/2

How about my combo: 24-70mm L + 135mm L + 1.4X Ext. And never buy another lenses! (Unless Canon come out something real fantastic than these 2) This cover most of usage. I hv yet buy a lens for 3 yrs. I sold 70-200 2.8L IS simply because of its weight. Yet 135mm is the most sharp & cheapest prime you can find.

 

I am saving for a 400mmL 2.8 IS. I just simply wanna see what is most expansive Canon is all about :P

William Wu , jan 06, 2007; 09:20 a.m.

How about my combo: 24-70mm L + 135mm L + 1.4X Ext. And never buy another lenses! (Unless Canon come out something real fantastic than these 2) This cover most of usage. I hv yet buy a lens for 3 yrs. I sold 70-200 2.8L IS simply because of its weight. Yet 135mm is the most sharp & cheapest prime you can find.

 

I am saving for a 400mmL 2.8 IS. I just simply wanna see what is most expansive Canon is all about :P

 

 

>>I sold 70-200 2.8L IS simply because of its weight<<

>>I am saving for a 400mmL 2.8 IS<<

 

I hope you know 70-200IS is 3.5lbs, 400 2.8IS is 11.7lbs. Are you contradicting yourself? No offense but what you said made no sense to me.

I know how heavy the 400 2.8L IS is. Do you ever see anyone hand held a 400 2.8L? Even you have seen ppl hand held it, but sure not many.

 

As for 70-200mm 2.8 IS L, I intend to hand held. The end it still needs tripod or monopod and too heavy to move freely. So I sold it change for a 135mmL. Less weight! Real prime sharp! Much less for the money!....for me, list goes on for the advantage to go for a 135mmL over 70-200mmL.

 

What i missed from 70-200mmL is 85mm & 200mm ends, not that of a big deal. (compare with 70-200mm IS, my image still shaky with IS on.) Extender makes 135L around 189 or 270. aperture still fast, still lighter weight. Then you still need farther reach? Isn't 400L is best choice? use same set of extenders 400L goes 560 or 800, what more can one ask for?

 

To me, it is making a lot of sense!

 

What doesn't make sense is one want to hand held a 400mmL IS and thought IS will work miraculously to solve all the problem.

Anson, what makes you think when I say I want to buy a 400mmL eventually means/equal to I will want to hand held it?

 

You do know that 400mm 2.8L IS is The heaviest Canon lens on the market! (Except EF 1200mm, which I am pretty sure it is no longer made.)

 

Awww...you silly :)

David:

 

you never mention "hand held" in your original message. That is the confusion. I have the 300 2.8IS, I "hand held" it :-) and I go work out too for the weight of the camera gears.

Also, according to most of the reviews I saw, they said 200 1.8 is the sharpest canon EF lens. Well, it's no longer in production. I bought an used one from ebay at $4xxx. The 300 2.8IS is the sharpest canon EF lens available. Not the 400 2.8IS. I don't know what you mean by the most expensive canon lens is about? Are you talking about sharpness or background blur?

 

searh on google canon sharpest EF lens

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/200mm/index.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml

I mean william, not david.

Hi William:

 

>>You do know that 400mm 2.8L IS is The heaviest Canon lens on the market!<<

 

I just checked BH, canon 600 f4 is 11.8lbs, it's heaviest available EF lens (400 2.8 is 11.7lbs). You statement is not correct. Do more research first before making a statment :-)

 

Accuracy is important.

arguing on the internet over minutia is important

This is a EOS forum. We talk about EOS...