85 1.4

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

50mm f/1.4

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

Have it.. And I love it.
I just want like a big picture quality difference but a lens that isn't too much on a crop sensor,
But I am saving for the lens (whatever one i decide)

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

Oh and about 135L. Obviously it won't be an inside lens. I'd have to be too far away from the subject on a crop.. But most shoots are outside anyways, giving me plenty of room.
It's calling my name, guys.
i don't know what to save for, LOL

 

[MK3Brent]

Another +1 for an 85mm 1.8

Very good value.

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

Another +1 for an 85mm 1.8

Very good value.

Hmm..

 

[o hey tyler]

I have the sigma 85/1.4 and it is one of the sharpest lenses I own, even at f/2.

http://min.us/iPoZXmjKSGzt1

I believe this photo was at f/2, but I can't verify that on my phone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the canon 85/1.8 is a great lens, and I am sure it performs well. I just really enjoy the sigma and felt it was worth the cash.

 

[JTPhotography]

I have the Sigma 85 1.4. It is a really good lens, almost as good as the canon 1.2, enough so that I couldn't justify that extra cost. In fact, the review at photozone.de rated the sigma sharper. It would be good for portraits on a crop body, but for family shots I would think your 50 is better. The problem with the sigma is the autofocus, it is slow, and at 1.4 you are better off manual focusing because you have to be dead on accurate to get the shot. I own this lens for the specific purpose of shooting it wide open because I like the effect I get. If not for that, I would have the 1.8. I definitely wouldn't use this as my main portrait lens (if I were a portrait photographer), a 24-70 2.8 would be much more versatile.

 

[o hey tyler]

I have the Sigma 85 1.4. It is a really good lens, almost as good as the canon 1.2, enough so that I couldn't justify that extra cost. In fact, the review at photozone.de rated the sigma sharper. It would be good for portraits on a crop body, but for family shots I would think your 50 is better. The problem with the sigma is the autofocus, it is slow, and at 1.4 you are better off manual focusing because you have to be dead on accurate to get the shot. I own this lens for the specific purpose of shooting it wide open because I like the effect I get. If not for that, I would have the 1.8. I definitely wouldn't use this as my main portrait lens (if I were a portrait photographer), a 24-70 2.8 would be much more versatile.

You realize that the sigma is Sharper, faster to focus, and had a lot less CA than the 85/1.2, right? The Sigma is not slow to focus at all.

 

[JTPhotography]

I have the Sigma 85 1.4. It is a really good lens, almost as good as the canon 1.2, enough so that I couldn't justify that extra cost. In fact, the review at photozone.de rated the sigma sharper. It would be good for portraits on a crop body, but for family shots I would think your 50 is better. The problem with the sigma is the autofocus, it is slow, and at 1.4 you are better off manual focusing because you have to be dead on accurate to get the shot. I own this lens for the specific purpose of shooting it wide open because I like the effect I get. If not for that, I would have the 1.8. I definitely wouldn't use this as my main portrait lens (if I were a portrait photographer), a 24-70 2.8 would be much more versatile.

You realize that the sigma is Sharper, faster to focus, and had a lot less CA than the 85/1.2, right? The Sigma is not slow to focus at all.

Not as good in that it isn't built as well (not an "L" lens), not as wide on the aperture (that .2 makes a difference), but better in all the ways that you mention. As with everything, there are trade-offs. But the trade offs were minimal enough that, like you, I decided it was worth buying, and I don't regret it at all. I love the lens.

I find the focus very slow. But I am comparing it to my other lenses, specifically the 100-400L. I have never used the 1.2, but if it the focus is slower, then I am REALLY happy that I didn't buy it.

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

What's good for far away shots? Nature.. Trees, Buildings etc

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

I need a walk around lens..

 

[Derrel]

You realize that the sigma is Sharper, faster to focus, and had a lot less CA than the 85/1.2, right? The Sigma is not slow to focus at all.

Yeah, that might be--but the Canon 85mm f/1.2-L has that cool red ring around the barrel!!!! I mean...dude--it has a red ring!!!!! And a red L in the name!!!!

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

135 f2L > 300 f4L

Which?

 

[Derrel]

135 f/2 L is probably more-versatile than the 300/4...you "could" use a converter or crop on the 135...a 300mm is pretty narrow-angle...

Of course, at let's say, the seashore, a 300mm is VERY handy...has a lot of reach compared to a 135mm...

 

[thetrue]

Sami, you need to figure out what you want to use it for.

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

Sami, you need to figure out what you want to use it for.

EVERYTHING.