# 85 1.4



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

ok so I have a 50 mm 1.4.. I was wondering if getting the 85 1.4 would be needed? It's either that or save up (will take months) for 135f/2L. 
& is the 851.8 and 851.4 a big differences? Or just as much of a difference then the 501.8 to 501.4? Thanks!


----------



## thetrue (Jan 9, 2013)

I bet this would get a better response in the Canon forum. I say go 135.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

And would a 135 f/2L be ok on a crop sensor, I have the 60D.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> I bet this would get a better response in the Canon forum. I say go 135.



Can you move it for me? I'm on my phone :-(


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't think I can on iPhone.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2013)

Canon's 85mm f/1.8 EF lens is quite an excellent value. Canon's 85mm f/1.2-L is big, and heavy, and expensive....not worth it if you need to ask. Or "if you ask me"!!! lol. I say just buy the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens and use it and enjoy a lovely lens that is priced fairly, shoots great, and is *small and light* and does not scare the bejeebers outta' people!!! I own one...it's a great lens!


----------



## irfan.in.tx (Jan 9, 2013)

Which 85mm f1.4 are you looking at? Rokinon? 
AFAIK, there's EF 85mm f1.8 and EF 85mm f1.2L. 
The 1.8 is excellent for portraits, and will be good on a crop sensor camera, even indoors (though not in small spaces).

The 135 f2L is of course a superb lens, but not very workable indoors. Its great for outdoor portraits, concerts and street.


----------



## gw2424 (Jan 9, 2013)

85mm f/1.8 all the way. The 135 would be WAY too much (216mm) on a crop sensor.

By the way, I haven't seen your most recent work. Can I have a link?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

irfan.in.tx said:
			
		

> Which 85mm f1.4 are you looking at? Rokinon?
> AFAIK, there's EF 85mm f1.8 and EF 85mm f1.2L.
> The 1.8 is excellent for portraits, and will be good on a crop sensor camera, even indoors (though not in small spaces).
> 
> The 135 f2L is of course a superb lens, but not very workable indoors. Its great for outdoor portraits, concerts and street.



Looking at the sigma.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 9, 2013)

I think the Canon 85 1.8 is really an excellent lens. You would not be disappointed with this lens. Plus, it is a great price.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

Lets say that I have a 600-700 budget to save up on a lens.
I mainly would want the lens to take pictures of families, portraits, newborns, flowers, etc.
 Main thing I like in a lens: Fast, SHARP,Good background blur. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

Also: would a 70-200 be too much on a crop sensor?


----------



## kathyt (Jan 9, 2013)

SamiJoSchwirtz said:


> Lets say that I have a 600-700 budget to save up on a lens.
> I mainly would want the lens to take pictures of families, portraits, newborns, flowers, etc.
> Main thing I like in a lens: Fast, SHARP,Good background blur.
> 
> Any suggestions?



Well, if you get the Canon 85 1.8 you would have money left over to put toward something else. The 85 is all 3 of those things.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

kathythorson said:
			
		

> Well, if you get the Canon 85 1.8 you would have money left over to put toward something else. The 85 is all 3 of those things.



Would It work with family pictures and all that fun stuff?


----------



## jbkm1994 (Jan 9, 2013)

50mm f/1.4

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

jbkm1994 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 9, 2013)

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 (Jan 9, 2013)

Another +1 for an 85mm 1.8

Very good value.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 9, 2013)

MK3Brent said:
			
		

> Another +1 for an 85mm 1.8
> 
> Very good value.



Hmm..


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

JTPhotography said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 10, 2013)

I need a walk around lens..


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

135 f2L > 300 f4L

Which?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

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



EVERYTHING.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 10, 2013)

Is the 135 heavy?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 10, 2013)

70-200 too much?

NON IS though. Big difference?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 10, 2013)

I can't decide out of 3 lenses.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 10, 2013)

Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras:Amazon:Camera & Photo

Problem solved


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras:Amazon:Camera & Photo
> 
> Problem solved



No problem solved. Now another to add to the bunch. Thanks,:-( 
But in all seriousness. I want one mainly for portraits & nature.
Too much noise trying to go from far back with my 1.4. I'm lacking on lenses


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

Oh oh and background blur is a big one for me


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

With focal length comes shallow DOF as well. Where's KmH when you need him?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

Forgot to mention, a lens that can take good pictures of my man when he races four wheelers.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

*fast*


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

Does he race at night?


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Does he race at night?



eh it goes on until about 5. Gets dark at 430 here in the winter.
but wouldn't I need a fast lens for action anyway?.. Maybe I'm just stupid.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

You're not stupid, you're just not focusing on the entire exposure triangle. I'm sure you could get away with 1/500 shutter, so you might have to bump the ISO up a stop or three, but honestly it won't hurt too badly. So say you had a 300 f/4, wide open and ISO400, if your meter says that 1/500 is too fast, bump the ISO to 1600, you'll get two more stops for the faster shutter. PLUS if you shoot in raw, you could underexposed by I believe up to 2-3 stops and save the image.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> You're not stupid, you're just not focusing on the entire exposure triangle. I'm sure you could get away with 1/500 shutter, so you might have to bump the ISO up a stop or three, but honestly it won't hurt too badly. So say you had a 300 f/4, wide open and ISO400, if your meter says that 1/500 is too fast, bump the ISO to 1600, you'll get two more stops for the faster shutter. PLUS if you shoot in raw, you could underexposed by I believe up to 2-3 stops and save the image.



Thanks. I guess I just don't know what to buy. But I need something before he totally finishes his quad by February.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> You're not stupid, you're just not focusing on the entire exposure triangle. I'm sure you could get away with 1/500 shutter, so you might have to bump the ISO up a stop or three, but honestly it won't hurt too badly. So say you had a 300 f/4, wide open and ISO400, if your meter says that 1/500 is too fast, bump the ISO to 1600, you'll get two more stops for the faster shutter. PLUS if you shoot in raw, you could underexposed by I believe up to 2-3 stops and save the image.



You know what f*ck it. I have the 501.4 lens. I can use that for my portraits and people shoots.its a great lens! 
I don't need an all around lens. I just need a fast, good quality zoom that's not terribly priced. For nature pictures& his racing.
I don't know what I was thinking,  maybe I just thought there could be everything in one lens... Haha


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

And not a huge zoom neither. Need to be able to handhold it.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

Sami, welcome to reality! We've been expecting you!!!


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Sami, welcome to reality! We've been expecting you!!!


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 11, 2013)

Ok...

Fast zoom lens.. Doesn't need autofocus or anything. 
budget for a zoom.. 500.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras:Amazon:Camera & Photo
> 
> Problem solved



Are you joking?


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

AF might benefit you, MUCH MUCH more than IS.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 11, 2013)

SamiJoSchwirtz said:
			
		

> Too much noise trying to go from far back with my 1.4. I'm lacking on lenses



Sami, can you clarify this please?


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, sir. Yes I VERY MUCH am.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Yes, sir. Yes I VERY MUCH am.



Phew!


----------



## thetrue (Jan 11, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lmao: she asked for an "EVERYTHING" lens, so I figure since it says macro and goes to 270mm on crop sensor ~ 432mm, it'd be perfect!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> :lmao: she asked for an "EVERYTHING" lens, so I figure since it says macro and goes to 270mm on crop sensor ~ 432mm, it'd be perfect!



Yeah, with a blazing fast f/6.3 at the long end!!! Yippee!


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 11, 2013)

Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



L lenses are awesome!


----------

