todd_west Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I've been using an 85 f/1.8 for available darkness candid people photography (handheld, ambient light, no flash) on a 10D and am quite happy with it. However, I'd like another fast prime for a closer minimum focusing distance and some different composition options than the tightly cropped portraits the 85 lends itself to on a 1.6x DSLR. I was thinking of the 50 f/1.4, but some research here suggests the 50 f/1.4's funky AF isn't exactly the greatest. The one mention I've found of the 35 f/2 suggests its low light performance isn't great either. So I'm wondering how these lenses' AF performance compares with the 85 f/1.8 for exposures in the range of 1/100s at ISO 1600 and f/1.8. Does anyone have experience with one or both of these lenses as well as the 85? If money where no object I could get the 35 1.4L, but I need to pick up a 400 f/5.6 as well. ;~) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_lau3 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I have all three lenses on 20D and EOS 3. The AF performance is in the order of: 85/f1.8 - super fast and never hunt 50/f1.4 - OK and never hunt. This lens is not using a ring type USM so the focusing speed is slower 35/f2 - OK in daylight but noisy and hunt frequnetly under low light For my 20D 50/f1.4 is a very good portrait lens. Even though it is slower than 85/f1.8, it still focus perfectly in low light. For my EOS 3 85/f1.8 is a great portrait lens but it is too long on 20D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Todd, I've been using a 50mm f1.4 on a 10D and on a 1D for concert and theatrical shooting under low and mixed lighting, and focus is never an issue. Fast, quiet, and accurate, with no hunting on either camera. When I'm using the 50mm and my 85mm f1.8 on the two bodies, I don't notice a difference in focusing speed. There may be one, but it isn't significant enough to limit my opportunities to get the shots I want. The 50mm's one f-stop gain over the 35mm f2 is highly advantageous for low light shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 <P>I also own all three and use them on my EOS 3, Elan 7NE and 10D. </P> <P>In order of AF speed:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 85 1.8 USM</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 35 2.0</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 50 1.4 USM</BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In order of low light AF focusing ability (low contrast subjects):</P> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 35 2.0</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 85 1.8 USM</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>EF 50 1.4 USM</BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The EF 50 1.4 USM's AF is terrible in low light. It has difficulty locking and often racks back 'n forth. The EF 35 2.0 and EF 85 1.8 USM are both excellent in low light. Of course the 85 is fastest but in extreme low contrast situations the EF 35 2.0 is more likely to get a lock, probably because of the wider angle of view (more possible objects to lock on) and greater DOF. Although the EF 50 1.4 USM seems faster than the EF 35 2.0 at first because it is silent, the 35 is actually faster if you use a stopwatch to time them from nearest focus to infinity. The 35 just seems slower because you can hear it.</P> Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_west Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Interesting set of answers. Puppy Face, could you make a distiction between your experiences with low light and reasonable contrast versus low contrast? The picture below is one of the lower contrast photos I've taken, but I wouldn't really call it low contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_west Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Low contrast would be like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshchapman Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I use a kit of the 35mm and 85mm for available light shooting at concerts and have had no problem shooting at 1/30 to 1/60 wide open at 1600 with either. The 85 focuses faster as one would expect, but the 35 doesn't have any real problems: my strategy is to find high contrast areas, and I use the centre focus point frequently so that probably has an effect, but all the same I haven't found myself limited by the 35mm's focusing abilities. <p> Hope this helps,<br> Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Todd, the EF 35 2.0 wouldn't have any problem with Sandy in light that was barely hand holdable. On the other hand, the EF 50 1.4 USM would. It's helpful to focus on points of contrast but you can't always lock AF and recompose. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 >> The one mention I've found of the 35 f/2 suggests its low light performance isn't great either. Only one? I guess it was mine..... Oooops, Puppy Face just made it two :-) Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west_cork Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I don't have much problem focusing down to 1/30 f2.0 with the 35 at 3200 ASA on a 20D. I shoot it wide open a lot. The 50mm is nearly as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_west Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Thanks for all the info. Hmm... I find myself still very much undecided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now