qwerty_qwerty1

<p>I'm looking for a sharp lens that will provide shallow dof on full frame Canon. It will be used for creative purposes with shallow dof, as well as for babies. I'm thinking of:</p>

<p><strong>50mm 1.4</strong><br /> I've heard this lens is substandard wide open. How far do you need to stop down?</p>

<p><strong>85mm 1.8</strong><br /> Same price but seemingly sharp at f/2 already. Much longer focus distance though.</p>

<p><strong>100mm 2.8 macro</strong><br /> Again similar price, slower but tack sharp throughout the full aperture. Focuses from macro to infinity.</p>

<p>I also consider other macro lenses, like the image stabilized and the shorter 50mm 2.5. Which is best and why? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Great portraiture has a ton to do with good subject engagement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. Still, I don't feel like approaching every unfamiliar subject. Formal shoots yes, strangers no.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry I missed that you use FF. I read the OP two different times and it didn't register.<br /> DS Meador</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's OK ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about 35/85/135? I personally would miss the 100mm between 35 and 135, especially indoors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, what would you miss it for?</p>

<p>Please note that 85mm and 135mm have the same focus distance. You can get more close-up with 135 than with 85.</p>

<p>When people pose, you can take two steps back with the longer lens, but when people do not pose, it's very annoying to get in their face with a shorter lens. So 135 seems to work for poses and candids; 85 is great for posed shots but less for candids. That's my reasoning. Feel free to correct or to agree.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>we still don't know "what" it is that you shoot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything really. Mostly people, weddings, travel and landscape. Sometimes products.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We also don't know whether you're using APS-C or FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first post says full frame.</p>

<p>I find 24/50/100 a bit stringent and prefer an asymmetric line-up. I wouldn't know what to use 50 for in that set-up (nothing wrong with 50mm). Either go wide or go tele. That's why 35/135 caught my eye. Any feedback on that? I've seen this set-up here and there and wonder what people use it for. <br /><br /> <br /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How often do you shoot at 24? Do you prefer slightly less reach on the long end to limit it to 50, or do you often wish you had a little more reach?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Often. Both, wider and longer. I dont' want to duplicate the zoom, I am open to a different way of working. I want to simplify, hence a two prime set-up which will force me to think differently. I will keep the zoom home.</p>

<p>I'm not in the market for 85L. That lens is slow and, imo, overpriced. That leaves 85mm 1.8. What can this lens do that 135mm 2.0 cannot? They have similar aperture and close focus. I guess if you have access to 135mm 2.0, you won't grab 85mm 1.8. Am I correct?</p>

<p>That's for tele. As for the wide angle, I've heard 35L and 135L is a popular combo. Anyone want to explain why? The gap between the two is huge. That said, no one needs to cover every mm.</p>

<p>I'm looking to replace 24-70mm 2.8 by two primes on full frame. What is the better combination? Who has gone this route?</p>

<p>24 / 50mm</p>

<p>24 / 85mm</p>

<p>35 / 85mm</p>

<p>35 / 135mm</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What 's a good lighting kit for travel? What do you carry?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a budget option, if you can live without autofocus...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot live without AF. I need fast and precise AF.</p>

<p>I can spend 1K (or a bit more) on a lens <em>if</em> it performs well wide open.</p>

<p>The question is if D300s will limit or harm the lens' IQ, taking into account that I'll be shooting 85mm 1.4 at one stop lower ISO than 135mm 2.0 on D700. In addition to noise (at ISO 800 and lower), I'm worrying about <strong>loss of detail, contrast and color?</strong></p>

<p>Let me stress that the pictures taken are <strong>for print</strong> and that noise, sharpness and overall IQ should be excellent for print standards.</p>

<p>Can you <strong>adjust front/back focus </strong>on D300s? That should solve AF errors, shouldn't it.</p>

<p>My main camera is 24-70mm 2.8 on D700. I'm looking into a second set with more reach, either <strong>85mm 1.4 on D300s or 135mm 2.0 on D700</strong>. I'm pretty sure I don't want a tele zoom. This is the field of view I need.<br /> The great thing about an 85mm lens is that it can work on both formats, although most of the time it will be nailed to a DX body.</p>

<p>I'm concerned about the overall IQ of D300s at ISOs up to 800 (<strong>sharpness, detail, color, contrast</strong>...). Will the images from D300s and 85mm 1.4 be inferior to D700 with 135mm 2.0? Where's the difference in IQ?</p>

<p>Do note that 85mm has one stop more light, so in practice I'll be shooting at a lower ISO on DX.<br /> Please <strong>compare ISO 800 on D300s to ISO 1600 on D700</strong>, ISO 400 on D300s to ISO 800 on D700 and ISO 200 on D300s to ISO 400 on D700. I have no intention to shoot at higher ISOs than this (I use fill flash when needed).</p>

<p>These are both af-d lenses and I trust AF, in particular on D300s. <strong>How do af-d lenses perform on digitial?</strong></p>

<p>I'm also looking into <strong>Sigma 85mm 1.4</strong>. How does it perform wide open? How's the overall IQ between Sigma 85mm 1.4, Nikkor af-d 85mm 1.4 and Nikkor af-s 85mm 1.4?</p>

<p> </p>