Need help choosing a lens

[EquineArt]

From your test results, I'd say it looks like the 50 and 85 will be a good combo.

Sweet!
Now I need to find out if my 50 1.8 is up for the job, or if I should rent the 1.4
I've only heard that the 1.8 is a cheap lens not only price-wise...
Any opinion on this?

 

[subscuck]

If you have the money to rent both the 50 and 85, I'd rent the 50 1.4. The 50 1.8 has very jagged, unpleasant bokeh, and can be very hit or miss AFing in low light. The 1.4 will also be better optically, and AF is faster and much quieter than the 1.8.

 

[EquineArt]

If you have the money to rent both the 50 and 85, I'd rent the 50 1.4. The 50 1.8 has very jagged, unpleasant bokeh, and can be very hit or miss AFing in low light. The 1.4 will also be better optically, and AF is faster and much quieter than the 1.8.

ya... did a photoshoot with the 50 1.8 and it does the job, but doesn't have the little you know what that makes jaw dropping clear pictures
Will definitely have to rent the 50 1.4 AND the 85 1.8
Thanks!

Just out of curiosity... anyone has tired the 100 f:2?
How does it compare to the 135 f:2 as far as image quality and AF?

 

[niftydriftyprod]

Do you think it will be too dark inside for the 70-200 f/4? It's much cheaper than the 2.8.

(sorry for all the consecutive posts... keep having afterthoughts)

it depends on the lighting conditions. if you have really bright lights inside then it would be good. but if your lighting is low then i suggest a lens that has a larger aperture.


to the op
this site may help you learn more about lenses. it might help you decide what kind of lens you may want.
Understanding Camera Lenses

 

[subscuck]

If it's available for rental, you might want to try the Sigma 50 1.4. It really is much better than the Canon 50 1.4. For that matter, you might want to rent the Sigma 85 1.4 as well. I haven't used the Sigma 85, but I've yet to read anything bad about it. I own the Sigma 50 1.4. It's friggin' brilliant.

 

[EquineArt]

Do you think it will be too dark inside for the 70-200 f/4? It's much cheaper than the 2.8.

(sorry for all the consecutive posts... keep having afterthoughts)

it depends on the lighting conditions. if you have really bright lights inside then it would be good. but if your lighting is low then i suggest a lens that has a larger aperture.


to the op
this site may help you learn more about lenses. it might help you decide what kind of lens you may want.
Understanding Camera Lenses

Thanks for the link!
Now all I don't want a zoom no more

If it's available for rental, you might want to try the Sigma 50 1.4. It really is much better than the Canon 50 1.4. For that matter, you might want to rent the Sigma 85 1.4 as well. I haven't used the Sigma 85, but I've yet to read anything bad about it. I own the Sigma 50 1.4. It's friggin' brilliant.

I just checked and at the store I go to they don't offer the sigma for rent... but they have it for sale and holy crap, it's almost 200$ more than the Canon!!
I thought that Sigma and Tokina were the lower end imitation of the Canon or Nikon....
Is it that much better to justify the price difference?
Thanks!

 

[cgipson1]

If it's available for rental, you might want to try the Sigma 50 1.4. It really is much better than the Canon 50 1.4. For that matter, you might want to rent the Sigma 85 1.4 as well. I haven't used the Sigma 85, but I've yet to read anything bad about it. I own the Sigma 50 1.4. It's friggin' brilliant.

I just checked and at the store I go to they don't offer the sigma for rent... but they have it for sale and holy crap, it's almost 200$ more than the Canon!!
I thought that Sigma and Tokina were the lower end imitation of the Canon or Nikon....
Is it that much better to justify the price difference?
Thanks!

The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is an awesome lens.. it puts the Nikon and Canons 1.4 and 1.8's to shame, when it comes to creamy bokeh, sharpness and clarity (if you get a good copy, but that is true of any lens!). Yes.. it is worth it! Check out some of the reviews on it.. google!

 

[Overread]

Sigma and Tokina (as well as other 3rd party companies) can certainly equal or even beat the optical quality that Canon can produce. However (esp sigma) they do have larger ranges of lenses that go from the very cheap through to the high quality and its often on the very cheap end that many encounter them and quickly dismiss them as a cheaper, lower quality option (even though their cheaper lines are still in line with Canon quality.
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is particular is a prime example of where a newer Sigma design is more than capable of beating the older design Canon 50mm f1.4 lens and its a well documented and reviewed point.

In the end its always best to take the 3rd parties on a lens by lens basis - some are just as good - some are not quite as good (often just on build quality being a little less) and some are unique options that the likes of Canon and Nikon don't offer (eg sigma's 8-16mm or the superzooms like the 150-500mm or 50-500mm of which Nikon don't make any - excluding the top range 200-400mm)