I have the 35mm F2 and its a great lens very sharp but a bit too wide for my 5D. I just bought a 50mm 1.4 and waiting for it to come in. I'm going to give that a try and if I don't like it I'm going to give the 85mm 1.8 a try. I will be selling my 35mm F2 if anyone reading this post is intrested....
>>Which "cheap" prime makes for the best portrait lens on a crop body in your opinion?
"portrait length" is open to interpretation... but I would only really consider the 50's, 60 and 85's to fall within this classification. I like the 50/1.8 and 50/2.5 CM. For longer, the 135/2.8 SF is dirt cheap and quite good.
85 f/1.8 (great copy), 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8 mk I. I had three copies of 85 f/1.8. The one I have now is very good even at f/1.8. I have not yet found a zoom that can be compared with my 85 f/1.8 or even my 50 mm primes. I tried very hard - see my profile (web page)
I have the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8. I really hope Canon comes out with a 50 1.4 with ring USM, then I'll upgrade. Until then, I'm perfectly happy with these two.
The 50/1.8 noisy AF, average AF speed, a very cheap build, great optical quality at f/2.8, getting softer as you open it wider. Wide open sharpness isn't great, and it has a fair amount of light falloff on a FF camera wide open.
The 50/1.4 has quiet AF, average AF speed, decent build, great optical quality at f/2.8, getting softer as you open it wider. Wide open sharpness is poor anywhere but the center, and it has a TON of light falloff on a FF camera wide open.
The 85/1.8 has quiet AF, extremely fast AF speed, decent built, and great optical performance from f/2.0 on. The corners get a bit soft at f/1.8 and a little light falloff creeps in, but it's still extremely sharp. There's a good amount of CA, especially wide open.
For an APS-C camera, I'd buy a 50/1.4. For FF I'd buy a 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, unless money is no object. The added value of the 50/1.4 isn't worth the extra price unless you shoot at 50mm a LOT, especially since the lens is pretty ugly at f/1.4 on FF.
just a quick comment on wide open corner sharpness... which keeps being mentioned... for fast primes, wide open means narrow depth of field, so corner *focus* is rarely achieved, so corner sharpness is very rarely an issue. Other factors such as bokeh and contrast have more of an impact on the perception of image quality IMO... and bokeh is dependant on subject, background, distances etc. etc. so different lenses preform differently for different people... well... people end up with different oppinions based on their own usage of a lens. I hated the 85/1.8 for the bokeh in *my* shots with one, but see other people getting very good results because of different subjects and distances mainly... hated the 50/1.4 for the same reason... but the bottom line with respect to sharpness, for how *I* use a fast prime for available light shooting, all the cheap primes are "sharp enough" at all apertures (I've owned every non-L EF prime between 28-135mm except for the non-USM 100 macro)... so yes, maybe shoot a newpaper test with your lens wide open just to make sure it's ok, but think about how you are really going to shoot it wide open... now, for f4 zooms it is a different story...
SchnellerGT wrote:
If only Canon would make a EF 50 F1.4 MkII with ring USM and modern optics and sell it for $300-400. They wouldn't be able to make them fast enough!
mh2000 wrote:
ummm... with the 50/1.2L Canon shows that they *did* listen... just didn't get it quite right... (yet?)
I'll give you that Canon listened to the masses. But I think they listened and then said "how can we turn the desire for a refreshed 50/1.4 into TONS of cash?". Out popped the 50/1.2, with its big heavy body, circular aperture, and slow-ish 85/1.2-like ring USM.
I think there were two main camps in the forum world before the 50/1.2 was released: Those who wanted a refreshed 50/1.4 with ring USM and possibly better corner performance, and those who wanted the 50/1.0 back. Canon didn't really satisfy either camp with this lens. It's WAY too expensive for most to justify as the classic walkaround 50mm lens, and it's not as fast as the 50/1.0. Toss in the AF woes and you have quite a lemon! (I noticed the retail price at B&H is already down from its launch price of $1600 to $1400... youch!)
As for your assertion on corner performance, I agree... to a point. I think corner sharpness for fast lenses is generally much less important than people make it out to be. I also agree with your corollary that corner sharpness for slow zooms is a big deal. But I think light falloff and "smearing" (ie: 17-40 at f/4, 17mm) in the corners can be a big problem for any type of lens in certain pictures.
I do shoot my 50/1.4 wide open at times, despite its mediocre overall sharpness, and poor corner sharpness and light falloff, and it isn't always a problem. But shoot a picture with a uniform background (ie: the sky) and the light falloff can sufficient to be distracting. Worse still, smearing is noticeable even when objects in the corners (ie: tree branches) are somewhat OOF.
I definitely don't need flawless corners wide open like some lens connoisseurs pay through the nose for... I agree with you that flawless corners would rarely be noticeable wide open due to the extremely short DOF when shooting at f/1.4. Shooting test targets to check it out is more masturbation than anything. But the 50/1.4 is bad enough that it does cause real-world problems for me at times.
Interestingly enough, my little $30 Zuiko 50/1.8 performs as well wide open as my Canon 50/1.4 at f/2.8. Anyone know how to make a Zuiko OM lens autofocus on a Canon body?
>>Interestingly enough, my little $30 Zuiko 50/1.8 performs as well wide open as my Canon 50/1.4 at f/2.8.
Yes, I've been shooting a Zuiko 50/1.8 on an OM-1 a little lately and agree it is quite a nice little lens... but honestly, I have a wall of fresh prints from my new EF 50/1.8II shot between f1.8 and f2.8 and am very much happier with them than I was with those coming from my EF 50/1.4. An M42 adaptor and Super-Tak 50 is my prefered "special 50" at the moment.
Yeah, the 50L wasn't what I was looking for... I'd like more a Summicron or Summilux... for Canon moderate L cost... but just like the 85L, Canon likes to push boundaries more... and there are plenty of buyers that want the fastest etc. that they can get.
Guys nobody mentioned the tiny goldy 28mm f2.8, diry cheap, very small and lightweight, excelent build quality unlke the 50 f1.8, very dood focus unlike the 50mm f1.8, very durable focus mechanism life unlike the 50mm f1.4 whose micro USM fails after some time.
I have had two 50f1.8 I sold the same week after purchase, the 50 f1.4 is doing wonders, on my wishlist either the 85f1.8 or 100mm macro
I had the 28/2.8... yes, very nice... liked it better than my current 28/1.8. The MKI 50/1.8 is the same as the 28/2.8, 35/2 and 135/2.8 for build quality... same vintage and design. I've not had problems with either my old MKI 50/1.8 or new MKII 50/1.8 focusing...
I would look into the Tamron 90 and Tokina 100 macros.
I think the 50/1.8 MKI has a "crisper" focusing motor, albeit noisier but with less wiggle/play than the MKII. It's focal length is perfect for portraits where you wouldn't/shouldn't use an aperture wider than F:4 so it is perfect in that context.
The 85/1.8 is perfect for concert type shooting where you need tele and shoot wide open. Most concerts are lit well enuf to be able to stop down a bit, but most people would need the faster shutter speed to stop action and shaky hands...that gives the 85 the advantage over the 50...
The 28/1.8 and 35/2 are perfectly suited for general purpose available light shooting.
The only variable in getting quality shots how well they're used.
I don't consider the 85 a cheapy...at least by my pocket's standards (none of my 4 lenses cost more than $175 and they perform well in my hands).
