Canon vs. Canon

[david_christoffersson]

<p>Whats your opinion on the following lenses on a Canon 5D MkII?<br /> <br /> 24/1.4 vs. 24/2.8<br /> <br /> 35/1.4 vs. 35/2.0<br /> <br /> 50/1.2 vs. 50/1.4<br /> <br /> 85/1.2 vs. 85/1.8<br /> <br /> The main reason is to have some nice primes for both movie and still. But is the pricedifferense worth it? Also concider that I already have the 24/3.5 ts-e, 50/1.4 and the 135/2.0. In what order would you purchase the lenses? The goal is to have the ultimate all-around equipment.<br /> <br /> What say you!?<br /> <br /> Thanks!</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>24/1.4 vs. 24/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original 24L (Mk.1) is pretty soft wide open and has quite a few optical aberration. I find it overpriced for its performance. Due to the "glow" wide open autofocus accuracy is often an issue. Now I shoot the f/2.8 which is quite a bargain. I may or may not be as sharp at smaller apertures, but I find the lens pretty good. The lack of USM and FTM is annoying, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>85/1.2 vs. 85/1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was underwhelmed by the f/1.2L -- heavy, slow AF and again, some focus accuracy issues. The normal f/1.8 is much more my style, although the faster version can be very desirable in certain low light applications. However, I prefer the longer EF 100mm f/2 which is supposed to be a tad sharper.<br>

I looking forward to checking out the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 which seems to be very nice.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I use three of the non-L primes on your list and I'm very happy with them. My philosophy is to use excellent non-L primes when they are available, but to use an L prime when it is (in my view and for my photography) a better choice. YMMV.</p>

<p><strong>24/1.4 vs. 24/2.8 </strong>- I have neither of these lenses. I have looked into the 24mm f/2.8 and am not that impressed by what I hear. For my purposes (reminder: YMMV) I would get the 24mm L in this case. I wonder why you would need either if you have a 24mm TS lens already...</p>

<p><strong>35/1.4 vs. 35/2.0 </strong>- I have the EF 35mm f/2 lens and it is a fine performer for my purposes. It is not a very impressive looking lens, being an older and smaller design. It has an older AF motor system that makes a different sound than newer lenses, and you must manually switch between AF and MF, for whatever that is worth. But the lens is a fine optical performer. If it has a very minor weakness - and I regard it as inconsequential - it can show the tiniest bit of far corner softness in some cases on full frame. </p>

<p><strong>50/1.2 vs. 50/1.4</strong> - Unless you really need to shoot at f/1.2 (or, arguably have certain critical concerns <em>at</em> f/1.4), I think it is hard to justify the cost of the 50mm f/1.2 in most cases. As I'm sure someone will point out, the 50mm f/1.4 - like the other non-L alternatives - is not built the same way as the L lenses, but this is not to say that the quality of the build isn't fine. At all but the largest aperture this lens is competitive with just about any similar prime, and it is a great performer stopped down to f/1.8 or f/2 and smaller. At f/1.4 it seems soft and has low contrast, largely due to halation. It is still usable at f/1.4, though not outstanding at that aperture. For m part, I have not been tempted to consider the f/1.2 lens.</p>

<p><strong>85/1.2 vs. 85/1.8</strong> - The 85mm f/1.8 is one of Canon's very best lens values. This is really a very fine lens in virtually all ways. Some will tell you that it has a CA problem, but I shoot with a range of lenses and I don't regard this as a credible issue with this lens. With this lens available, for my photography I cannot imagine why I would want the f/1.2 lens, as fine as it is.</p>

<p>By the way, I also have the 135mm f/2 - one of the L primes that I really think is exceptional if your photography can make use of what it offers.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am a big L series user and have been since the days of the FD lenses. That said I looked at two pairs of the lenses on your list and chose the non-L series version. First the 85 f1.2 vs 85 F1.8. I should say that the old FD series 85 F1.2 is probably one of my all time favourite lenses. I tested the 85 F1.8 against the 85 F1.2 MkI and found the f1.8 lens to be very similar in IQ and Bokeh and have much better AF. Somehow the MkI 85 F1.2 lacked the magic of the earlier FD lens. I have not tested the 85 F1.8 against the MkII F1.2 but the images I have seen from the newer lens still do not inspire me to buy it. For reference I also looked at the Zeiss 85 F1.4 (which is manual focus) but again was not inspired to buy it. My advice is to test them both but when you add a lens hood and case the F1.8 lens is still 1/4 of the price of the F1.2 lens and the results of the F1.2 lens are niot yet at the point where I am persuaded to buy it - perhaps the MkIII will bring back the magic of the old FD lens.<br>

On the 50mm lenses I tested both the F1.2L and F1.4 and bought the F1.4. In this case the F1.2L is clearly the better lens but the F1.4 is quite acceptable although it is soft until F2. If I shot with 50mm lenses a lot I would not hesitate to buy the F1.2L - my reason for going with the F1.4 is that I rarely use 50mm lenses.<br>

In terms of the other pairs of lenses on your list I bought the 35 F2 but I am very disappointed with it so I rarely use it. At this focal length I tend to just use my 24-70 F2.8 zoom (My 16-35 F2.8 II is fairly soft at 35mm - I beleive it is optimized for the wider end).<br>

Finally on the 24 F1.4 I have tested it and it is a cracking lens (it is a pity Canon dropped the 24 F2 that they used to make in FD as this was also a stellar performer) and is undoubtedly the prime to buy in this FL. That said I would not buy it as with modern DSLRs the F1.4 speed is less important and the shallow DOF of a fast lens is not generally what i am looking for in a wide angle. If I was to buy a 24mm lens I would get the new 24 F3.5 Tilt shift which is a staggeringly sharp lens and offers the advantages of perspective control. Indeed I agonized for quite a long time between the 24mm TS and the 17mm TS before buying the 17mm lens (with the 1.4x TC you get a pretty fair 24mm TS capability). If you need a 24mm lens with AF then the F1.4 is the way to go - otherwise test the 24 F3.5 TS MkII and you will be amazed.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>David:</p>

<p>I would pick the 24/1.4 II and 35/1.4 over their slower counterparts. I have both and have been happy with both. That said, if you have the 24 ts-e, the only reason to get the 1.4 version is if you find yourself wanting that focal length and shooting in dim light. I do.</p>

<p>I have the 50/1.4, and I'm not that impressed with it. I've never felt a strong urge to lay down the cash for the 50/1.2. </p>

<p>I went with the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.2 because I wanted faster autofocus. If you want a dreamy portrait lens with razor thin DOF, the 85/1.2 is stellar. I don't need that, though.</p>

<p>If cash is an issue, you can get the 85/1.8 first. It's a bargain. Next, I'd go for the 35/1.4. That's my most used lens on a full frame. In fact, that's why I bought the 24/1.4. I wanted something comparable when I moved to 1.3x crop. You already have the 50/1.4, so you might be set unless you need a faster 24mm.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>the L's really shine with the zooms. The non-L primes are generally great. Unless you absolutely need an f/1.2 (or other faster aperture offered by L primes) then the non L's are more than sufficient. I would say a very small percentage of people need or have the funds to have a full set of L primes.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I'd go for the slower lenses in all cases except perhaps for the 35mm. I have the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 and they are all good, the 85mm is superb and the 50 is great at f2 and higher. The 24mm/2.8 is also a good performer and has excellent resolution at f2.8 - not such an easy task for a 24mm. At the price it is it is a bargain. The 24 L is a large bulky lens and not so great at f1.4 either, I have yet to see that the 24L is significantly better than the slower lens at equivalent apertures. There is some CA with the 24 in the corners and it does show some distortion, but I find it a pretty impressive for the price. The 35L is a real beauty and if you want a fast wide I would go with this one. You could go for the 24L and the 35/2 instead if you really need the speed and prefer the wider view, but the 24L bokeh is not as nice as the 35Ls and of course there is more useful blur to obtained from a 35 than a 24.</p>

[david_christoffersson]

<p>Thank you for all your feedback! I'm pretty sure what I want, I'll go with the 24/3.5 ts-e, the 35/1.4, the 50/1.4 and the 135/2.0.<br>

But I'm still not sure about the 85. Does anyone know if Ikelite have lensports that fit all these lenses? The 85/1.2 is quite big.</p>

[david_christoffersson]

<p>Thank you for all your feedback! I'm pretty sure what I want, I'll go with the 24/3.5 ts-e, the 35/1.4, the 50/1.4 and the 135/2.0.<br>

But I'm still not sure about the 85. Does anyone know if Ikelite have lensports that fit all these lenses? The 85/1.2 is quite big.</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>I have both the 85mm f/1.2 and the f/1.8 lenses - both are excellent, but for different purposes.<br>

Most of the time I use the 1.8 lens - it is lighter and focuses much faster...and the picture quality is excellent - ideal for shooting some indoor sports, for example. However, for portrait work, I prefer the f/1.2 - but only when I am using it wide open.<br>

(The same actually applies to my 50mm lenses - I use the f/1.4 almost all the time, but there are occasions when I switch to my f/1.0 lens - but again, only when I need to use it wide open.)<br>

So, if you expect to need f/1.2 or f/1.4, get the 85mm 1.2 lens - otherwise save some money and get the faster focusing and lighter f/1.8 lens.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You are not considering a superior option.</p>

<p>Canon's 100mm f2 is a better portrait lens than the 85mm 1.8. Part of the reason comes down to plain physics and part to the specific lenses.</p>

<p>Physics:<br /> - DOF: The 100mm at f2 provides you with a slightly deeper DOF than the 85mm at f1.8. This is framing the subject identically.<br /> - Background: At the same time you you gain a bit in DOF useful to try to get the out-of-focus eye a bit less blurred, the 100mm f2 allows to blur the background more and eliminate distractions (50mm physical aperture on the 100mm f2 vs 47mm physical aperture on the 85mm f1.8).<br /> - Proportions: At 3-4 feet distance to compose a head shot, the 85mm lens has a bit too much proportion as you would have to be closer to the subject.</p>

<p>The lenses themselves:<br /> - The 100mm f2 is sharper. Even with the 85mm close down to f2 and the 100mm wide open.<br /> - The 100mm f2 is superior on the corners especially wide open.<br /> - The 100mm f2 is slightly better built.</p>

<p>The 100mm f2 is roughly 20% more expensive than the cheaper 85mm 1.8. This has made the 85mm more popular at the beginning (which is silly since in absolute terms the difference in cost is not material) and this popularity increased when crop sensors appeared as both lenses were becoming a tad too long.</p>

<p>As long as you can spare $80 (save a dinner out) and shoot full frame (as you do), the 100mm f2 is a superior lens.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The 85mm f1.2 is darn sexy btw. But the cost, focusing speed and weight make it also a less attractive proposition than the 100mm f2.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>50/1.2 vs. 50/1.4 is a no brainer.</p>

<p>50mm f1.4 is better built, has better bokeh, focuses better (auto and manual), it does not extend while focusing, etc...</p>

<p>You cannot possibly discuss the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.2 in the same thread.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is a quick site that allow you to see one test of the 85mm vs the 100mm (you should always consider all test as informational only unless you perform them yourself to your own standard).</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=118&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>50/1.2 vs. 50/1.4 is a no brainer.<br /> 50mm f1.4 is better built, has better bokeh, focuses better (auto and manual), it does not extend while focusing, etc...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it hard to believe that the 50mm f/1.4 is better built than the 50mm f/1.2 lens. It certainly hasn't been my experience.</p>

<blockquote>You cannot possibly discuss the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.2 in the same thread.</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone is attempting to. The question was about the 85mm f/1.8 vs. the 85mm f/1.2. Each has different strengths and weaknesses. It all depends on the application one is using.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Marc, I apologize - I made a typo. I meant 50mm 1.8 vs 50mm 1.4 is a no brainer.<br>

The 50mm 1.2 is a great lens especially wide open.</p>