WTB

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

o hey tyler said:
It's amazing on a full frame body. Tough to work with on a crop body. I would suggest an 85mm for your purposes.

How about 35 mm 1.4?

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

Those are the 2 lenses I'm interested in..

o hey tyler · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
Those are the 2 lenses I'm interested in..

The 35/1.4 is also very nice. Much more workable on a crop frame and its a very sharp lens. Sigma also offers a good 35/1.4

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

o hey tyler said:
The 35/1.4 is also very nice. Much more workable on a crop frame and its a very sharp lens. Sigma also offers a good 35/1.4

I'm just trying to find something reasonably priced, that's good with portraits and background blur - bokeh.
is there anything around 500-600?

07Vios · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
o hey tyler said:

The 35/1.4 is also very nice. Much more workable on a crop frame and its a very sharp lens. Sigma also offers a good 35/1.4

Click to expand...

I'm just trying to find something reasonably priced, that's good with portraits and background blur - bokeh.
is there anything around 500-600?

I've said it before, I really like my Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. Great walk around lens on a cropped body. Not going to get as much bokeh as you want at that focal length unless your subject happens to be close to you. Also, considering you already have a 50mm f1.4 lens, I'd skip the 30-35 primes. An 85mm 1.8 would be better, or one of the 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. With the latter, it'll open up the macro world for you.

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

07Vios said:
I've said it before, I really like my Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. Great walk around lens on a cropped body. Not going to get as much bokeh as you want at that focal length unless your subject happens to be close to you. Also, considering you already have a 50mm f1.4 lens, I'd skip the 30-35 primes. An 85mm 1.8 would be better, or one of the 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. With the latter, it'll open up the macro world for you.

I already did lots of research on the 851.8 cause i was torn between that and my 50 1.4. Ended up getting the 50.
100 mm 2.8? I'll have to check it pit

o hey tyler · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
I already did lots of research on the 851.8 cause i was torn between that and my 50 1.4. Ended up getting the 50.
100 mm 2.8? I'll have to check it pit

I would not suggest a macro lens for portraits unless you plan on manually focusing them.

Check out the 100mm f/2, it's a good compromise and great portrait lens.

07Vios · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
07Vios said:

I've said it before, I really like my Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. Great walk around lens on a cropped body. Not going to get as much bokeh as you want at that focal length unless your subject happens to be close to you. Also, considering you already have a 50mm f1.4 lens, I'd skip the 30-35 primes. An 85mm 1.8 would be better, or one of the 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. With the latter, it'll open up the macro world for you.

Click to expand...

I already did lots of research on the 851.8 cause i was torn between that and my 50 1.4. Ended up getting the 50.
100 mm 2.8? I'll have to check it pit

Yup, I think you'll like the 100mm 2.8 since you can take pics of the inside of flowers, bugs, or use it as a portrait lens and get nice bokeh. The L version has IS and has 9 aperture blades vs 8, so when stopped down, the bokeh balls will be rounder. But the L version is considerably more in price.

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

I'm still leaning... I have yet to figure out out to get "bokeh balls" :lol:

does 50 mm 1.4 not do that?

07Vios · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
I'm still leaning... I have yet to figure out out to get "bokeh balls" does 50 mm 1.4 not do that?

It can, just gotta have some distance between your subject and some individual light sources, like candles, street lamps, etc.

If you don't think you will ever do macro, go with the100mm f2. As mentioned above, it does take some time to AF for farther distances, but if your person isn't moving, I don't see why that would be a problem. If I have time, I'll take some comparison shots of a subject using my 30 f1.4, 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.8

o hey tyler · Dec 30, 2012

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
I'm still leaning... I have yet to figure out out to get "bokeh balls" does 50 mm 1.4 not do that?

The term "bokeh balls" is a pretty 'scratch the surface' understanding of how light interacts with a lens.

Bokeh is a term used when describing the aesthetic quality of circles of confusion, or how out of focus light sources are rendered by a lens. The canon 50mm f/1.8 produces astoundingly bad bokeh when stopped down to f/2.2 because it has 5 aperture blades. Very pentagonal and geometric.

Your 50mm 1.4 does produce a shallow depth of field, and renders very nice bokeh. The 85/1.8 is better at producing a shallow depth of field due to the longer focal length.

The reason the 100mm f/2.8 is not a lens I would recommend is because it is not great at focusing at portrait distances. It's main purpose is to focus up close... Not 10-20 feet away where your subject would be in a portrait.

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

07Vios said:
It can, just gotta have some distance between your subject and some individual light sources, like candles, street lamps, etc.

If you don't think you will ever do macro, go with the100mm f2. As mentioned above, it does take some time to AF for farther distances, but if your person isn't moving, I don't see why that would be a problem. If I have time, I'll take some comparison shots of a subject using my 30 f1.4, 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.8

That would be awesome! Thanks

SamiJoSchwirtz · Dec 30, 2012

o hey tyler said:
The term "bokeh balls" is a pretty 'scratch the surface' understanding of how light interacts with a lens.

Bokeh is a term used when describing the aesthetic quality of circles of confusion, or how out of focus light sources are rendered by a lens. The canon 50mm f/1.8 produces astoundingly bad bokeh when stopped down to f/2.2 because it has 5 aperture blades. Very pentagonal and geometric.

Your 50mm 1.4 does produce a shallow depth of field, and renders very nice bokeh. The 85/1.8 is better at producing a shallow depth of field due to the longer focal length.

The reason the 100mm f/2.8 is not a lens I would recommend is because it is not great at focusing at portrait distances. It's main purpose is to focus up close... Not 10-20 feet away where your subject would be in a portrait.

what's the price different from the 100mm 2.8 and f/2