Love the 85mm f1.8 looking for shorter lens

[hal_a]

An extra half stop isn't very attractive, because on digital bodies you can just up the iso, right?

 

So the real question is, do you want the slimmer depth of field that an extra half stop gives you. It depends on your style of photography. I would suggest that you go to the store, play with 1.4's depth of field and think if it is worth the extra $$$

 

Neither of 50mm lenses you mentioned will give you as slim a depth of field as the 85mm at f1.8

 

The much cheaper option is to buy a used film body and use it only when you want the really slim dof.

[yakim_peled1]

>> 50/1.8 and 50/2.5cm have terrible bokeh.

 

I agree that the 50/1.4 has better bokeh than the 50/1.8 but I would not rate the 50/1.8 bokeh as terrible.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.<div></div>

[apetty]

I saw a couple of people mention the 35mm f2 as another good lens, and I agree. I own that one too. I am a scatter brain at times when I see the possibility of buying a new lens. I did not even think of putting this lens through the ropes and see how it compares.

 

With that said, while I was putting that away the other day and it dropped to the floor, now it will not focus manual or auto. :(

 

This will be my first test with my insurance company and see what they pay for. Does canon charge just to look at the lens?

[William Michael]

Yakim, I am sure you just do that so I will comment again . . . gee I (still) love that shot!

 

WW

[yakim_peled1]

Hi William,

 

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad that you like it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[igord]

>> would not rate the 50/1.8 bokeh as terrible

 

It is really distracting in my opinion, it can be advantage of course in some cases.<div></div>

[vbsmiles]

Uh oh, it's turning into a bokeh whoring thread.... ( have yet to attempt the dumb hearts myself )

[rob 101]

Check out the 35 1.4. It's a little hard to get but on the 40D its a 56mm and it's tack sharp.

[yakim_peled1]

The 35/1.4 is a great lens (I have an orphaned one.....) but it is not in the same price category. If anything, the new Sigma 50/1.4 is looking very promising according to the first reviews. Great wide open sharpness and excellent bokeh.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[derek_stanton2]

"Uh oh, it's turning into a bokeh whoring thread.... ( have yet to attempt the dumb hearts myself )"

 

Yeah, we should never discuss any area of the image that doesn't fall directly beneath the AF sensor. Even if, perhaps, it

constitutes 90% of the image. Lens manufacturers should probably just do away with the larger apertures anyway. We should

have preset lenses, with fixed f16 apertures. Auto ISO for exposure control only....

[scott_mills]

I like the bokeh and the optics of the 1.8, here's an example.

That being said, I can NOT get the darn thing to focus in low light.<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

>> That being said, I can NOT get the darn thing to focus in low light.

 

If we exclude lenses with ring USM and IF design, the 50/1.8 is the quickest lens I had in low light AF. For reference, the 50/1.4 was about equal and the 100/2.8 USM is even worse.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[scott_mills]

-->"If we exclude lenses with ring USM and IF design, the 50/1.8 is the quickest lens I had in low light AF. For reference, the 50/1.4 was about equal and the 100/2.8 USM is even worse."

 

Maybe it's just my copy of the lens, but it hunts the *entire focus range near to far in dim light back and forth several times, especially if the focus distance is under 5 feet or so, but in bright light it locks quickly? Who knows, but it did this on my Elan 7 body also.

This is what scares me from getting the 35 f/2 which I really want, but not if it doesn't focus faster than the 50.

[derek_stanton2]

I've seen very nice bokeh from the 50/1.8. And, also, some that's not so good. Perhaps it's fairer to say that the 50/1.8 is just

more inconsistent in that regard. But, that's true of a lot of lenses, including Leica Summicrons, which are almost almost praised

for that characteristic.

 

I'd advise you to get the 50/1.4. But, test it. Swap it if you're not happy with the sharpness at f2 and smaller. Mine is very good

after you get out of 1.4, and fantastic by f2. As for focus speed, since it's my main lens, it's the standard. Anything faster than it,

i can consider fast. Anything slower, i consider slow. I don't think there's anything wrong with the speed once it acquires

something to latch onto. But, it's not the best lens in terms of being able to latch onto something.

[yakim_peled1]

Hi Scott,

 

The only reason I sold the 35/2 is its slow AF but the 50/1.8 was much quicker. I had the chance to test the equivalent Nikon lenses on D200 and funnily enough, the results were similar. It may be a copy thing but I had two copies of the 50/1.8 II and both were the same.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[williampower]

The economy-quality solution? Get the nifty 50 for a $100 and then check out the 28mm f/2.8 (also a good deal).

Cheers...Bill