Canon D10 w/85mm 1.8 - good/bad?

A co-worker of mine that has a little money to spend (seems I'm

always in this role) and a D10, is looking for a good, likely fixed

tele with exellent available light capabilities.

 

Not being that familiar with cannon lenses, I'm wondering if anybody

has tried the D10 in conjunction with the 85mm 1.8 and could offer

comment. This was an awesome lens in Nikon's line-up by my

experience, but how about Canon?

Very good. As long as he knows it will give the same field of view as a 136mm on a full frame SLR, he'll be happy with it.

Superlative. Extremely sharp, even wide open.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/lensback2.htm

 

This is perhaps Canon's best non-L lens. Your friend may find 135mm a little hefty for indoor portraiture. Ask him to first try a 50mm, either 1.4 or 1.8. The latter goes for the price of expensive dirt.

 

DI

I forgot about the magnification factor....duh.....thanks for the warning Bob.

 

He likes to shoot in the 50-85mm range with his older Canon gear, which is why we get along so well because I liked the same in my Nikon days. If that's the case, would the 50mm be a better suite with the D10 sensor if you're trying to get the approximate look of an 85mm on a 35mm?

 

Hey, his wife got him the D10 for Xmas with a flaky zoom he can't stand, so we can can both claim innocent here. He loves the camera, but wants to have more viewfinder 'feel' like his old F-1 with primes in the 50-105mm range. He'll buy what I recommend, so I want to get it right.

Well, then it seems he should be happy with the standard 50mm 1.4 -- excellent lens, cheap (relatively, that is :-) ), gets to be around 80mm effective on a D10 -- what else could he want?

Off the main question but .....

<p>Scott, it surprises me that someone as knowledgeable and hyper-critical as yourself would call the 10D as D10..

10D & EF 50mm f/1.4 is a sweet combo; My standard setup for

portraits, both available light and flash.

 

Attached is a portrait with 10D & 50 of my daughter.<div></div>

Either the 50/1.4 or the 50/1.8 would be fine. I have the 50/1.8 (mark I). The new one (mark II) is a bit "plastic" but it's dirt cheap ($70). For portrait work on a 10D it's just fine. The smaller sensor crops off the corners of the 35mm image circle, so edge sharpness isn't an issue and the slight softness wide open isn't a problem for most portrait work. The 50/1.4 is good if you want the USM and something that feels a bit more solid.

Is it just me, or do the higher end Canon and Nikon digital SLRs show more weaknesses in classic primes like the 50mm, especially wide open?

 

With no way for higher contrast film to augment soft performance wide open (Velvia, etc.).

 

The rec for the 50mm though sounds like the ticket.

Did you cjeckout this : http://www.photo.net/canon/ef50/

Very pretty David!

 

DI

Now my friend is asking about the 50mm 2.5 macro......{sigh}

Scott: It's hard being the answer-guy sometimes, isn't it?

 

When I was shopping for a 50mm lens for my 10D last summer, I chose the f/2.5 macro, because I occasionally like to make big pictures of little things.

 

I'm VERY happy with it. Of course it isn't as fast as the f/1.4 or f/1.8 models (but it's the fastest lens I have, since my others are all zooms). It doesn't have USM, either. Since my other lenses are all USM/FTM, I worried that this would bug me, but it hasn't fazed me a bit. (Thanks to Puppy Face for his pre-purchase reassurance!)

 

I use this lens about 50/50 (no pun intended) for macro and portrait-type applications. Everyone's needs/wants are different, of course, but I've never thought twice about replacing or augmenting this lens with one of the faster 50mm's.

 

I'd suggest a trip to the local Canon dealer for your friend (and you), 10D in hand, to try them out side by side. Hope this helps.

It's really difficult to judge lens performance at the camera counter in my experience, but experiences posted here are far more valuable.

 

How's the 50mm 2.5 wide open? PhotoDo has some pretty good marks for the macro, maybe just a tad less than the 50mm 1.4, but still pretty good. I think he'd like the macro capability since we both shoot some field work during the summer. If there's no significant quality hit with the 2.5 vs the 1.4 50mm, then I have my winnner.

I think you can get a good appreciation for the comparative aspects of lenses at the sales counter, provided you have your 10D in hand. Just handling, mounting, focusing, dismouting, etc., can provide tangible feedback that can never be conveyed by words alone. And it's easy to aim at dark subjects and compare the resulting exposures.

 

I think the 50mm f/2.5 macro is extremely sharp wide open, recognizing that its "wide open" setting is 1-1/2 stops slower than the f/1.4's. I've read that the f/1.4 can be a bit soft wide open, but then, it'll get the shot with less available light. Setting both lenses at f/2.5 may produce nearly identical results; I'll defer to someone who actually owns both. (You might want to post a new question.)

 

If you do indeed want to do some macro work, I think the f/2.5's a no-brainer. If you start to feel limited in low light situations, you can always add the 1.4 to your kit, too.

 

Good luck.

Bjørn Rørslett thought that the Nikkor 50/1.4 AF-D was excellent on a D1X at the Canon 50/1.4 is usually considered to be on par, if not better, than the Nikkor equivalent. Frankly, I don't think image quality will be a problem at all, but handling is another matter; the 50/1.8 is not known for its great ergonomics. Keeping that in mind, a 50 macro might have better build quality, but buying a macro is a good move only if he plans to shoot significant amounts of macro.