I own the 85/1.8 and 35/2, and recently purchased a 50/1.4 for use on a 1.6x DSLR. I like all three lenses, but I have found myself using the 50/1.4 the most. Nowadays, I use the 85/1.8 almost exclusively for indoor performances.
85/1.8 @ f/1.8 (Explosions in the Sky, Portland 2007)
i dont understand how people can praise the 35/f2 and talk negative about 28 1.8, and same with 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. if we are taking price into calculation then i would agree that the cheaper versions are a good deal since they are a great amout cheaper. but if within the price range of all of these lenses it doesnt matter much to you to spend 80 or 300+ then i think some people are just blind. the 35f2 doesnt have pleasing bookeh at all, the 50 1.8 is nothing special nor nice looking. the 28 1.8 bookeh is pretty nice, same with 50 1.4. if you want to spend $80 and be happy buy the 50 1.8, if you cant tell much diffrence with 50 1.4 vs 1.8 then spending extra 250+ is sure as hell not gonna make you happier. same with the 28 vs 35. i am not even talking about the focusing noises and the better quality of the lens and the faster aperture. i am not sure why the 28 1.8 gets such little attention and not so stellar reviews, its pretty good for what it does, you guys need to stop pixel peeping so much and just look at the images at the sizes you would actually view them. i doubt many people here print stuff at 60x30 and view it from 10 inches away and it seems that most people PP their photos here, so if 10 seconds in PP can fix a lens that doesnt have enouf contrast or saturation why not add some in, isnt that what PP is for anyway? if a 35L could work without having to do ANY PP maybe i would think about spending money on that and same goes for a 50 1.2
i just dont see how people can pay so much $$$ for those lenses and then still have so much to complain about. sad
I'm not sure whether you're on a mild rant or a rhetorical question or a serious question (or two). Anyhow, the reason posters praise/complain is because they can. They seem to hang out here when they aren't shooting, I guess.
Imho, it's maybe a bit more meaningful to ask whether the praise/complaints are worth your consideration. Sounds like you know what you like and don't like. Is your fav cheap prime the 50/1.4? the 28/1.8? Good going. Me, I like the 35/2 and am starting to like the 28/1.8 a good bit, too.
kahren wrote:
i dont understand how people can praise the 35/f2 and talk negative about 28 1.8, and same with 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. if we are taking price into calculation then i would agree that the cheaper versions are a good deal since they are a great amout cheaper. but if within the price range of all of these lenses it doesnt matter much to you to spend 80 or 300+ then i think some people are just blind. the 35f2 doesnt have pleasing bookeh at all, the 50 1.8 is nothing special nor nice looking. the 28 1.8 bookeh is pretty nice, same with 50 1.4. if you want to spend $80 and be happy buy the 50 1.8, if you cant tell much diffrence with 50 1.4 vs 1.8 then spending extra 250+ is sure as hell not gonna make you happier. same with the 28 vs 35. i am not even talking about the focusing noises and the better quality of the lens and the faster aperture. i am not sure why the 28 1.8 gets such little attention and not so stellar reviews, its pretty good for what it does, you guys need to stop pixel peeping so much and just look at the images at the sizes you would actually view them. i doubt many people here print stuff at 60x30 and view it from 10 inches away and it seems that most people PP their photos here, so if 10 seconds in PP can fix a lens that doesnt have enouf contrast or saturation why not add some in, isnt that what PP is for anyway? if a 35L could work without having to do ANY PP maybe i would think about spending money on that and same goes for a 50 1.2
i just dont see how people can pay so much $$$ for those lenses and then still have so much to complain about. sad...Show more →
Owned all three. 50/1.8 could not focus accurately for me. 50/1.4 is a gem, will never sell it. 85/1.8 is nice but watch out for purple fringing with any highlights. I now have 85L...but that is another story. Still have the 85/1.8 for fast AF work (sports). As another poster mentioned 35/2 is awesome.
Hmmm... from my point of view... if *you* aren't blind, then *you* are at least intolerant.
These lenses are all compromises in quality, focal length speed etc. etc... and after extensive use different people will find that different lenses balance the compromises better for different uses. No, there is absolutely nothing special about the 50/1.8, but for my shooting, it's defects add up to less of a negative impact on *my* photos than the 50/1.4's imaging defects did (I don't care about cost or build quality, just the usability and final IQ).
Regarding the 35/2 vs. the 28/1.8, in spite of price difference, check the numbers. the 35/2 is *better* in recordable qualities (MTF, contrast, lack of distortion...). Bokeh from both sucks IMO, so that drops out of the comparison. It's also closer focusing and has a more prefered (by me) FL for a cropped camera.
I've used all these lenses, so when I talk about them it is from my experience, so what isn't there to understand? You take issue because you came to different conclusions with your extensive use of these lenses? We are both entitled to different opinions, right?)
I'm not making these compromise choices based on cost, just on what is currently available from Canon.
>>i dont understand how people can praise the 35/f2 and talk negative about 28 1.8, and same with 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. if we are taking price into calculation then i would agree that the cheaper versions are a good deal since they are a great amout cheaper. but if within the price range of all of these lenses it doesnt matter much to you to spend 80 or 300+ then i think some people are just blind. the 35f2 doesnt have pleasing bookeh at all, the 50 1.8 is nothing special nor nice looking. the 28 1.8 bookeh is pretty nice, same with 50 1.4...
I'm not sure whether you're on a mild rant or a rhetorical question or a serious question (or two). Anyhow, the reason posters praise/complain is because they can. They seem to hang out here when they aren't shooting, I guess.
I love my 50 1.4, the 35 f2 took great pics too, but the noise from the AF was really annoying. I have no problem with micro usm. Was wondering if there was any truth to what I read in a thread here that said ring USM required a lot of room and that is why all of canon's ring usm lenses are big, relative to the non- usm lenses. Even if that is not the case, I would still prefer the old primes (24, 28, 35) to be redone in Micro usm to keep down the price.
I personally was was only ever impressed with the 50/1.8 when I had the kit lens - once I moved to constant f/2.8 zooms the 50 never got used. I guess its a case of perspective, but I trust and love the IQ of all my glass wide open. I now have the 85/1.8, and it is a HUGE improvement over the 50/1.8 - the AF is extremely fast and accurate and it is sharp wide open. It's fantastic for lowlight performances and indoor sports. I would like to get a reliable fast wide prime, but there are only a couple of affordable candidates I am interested in. The 35/2 only offers 1 more stop, and most suggest stopping down 1 for the IQ - which gets me to an aperture and FL I already have covered. The same is true for the 28/1.8 (at least from what I've read), so that really only leaves the sigma 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 which have a distinct advantage over what I own. Stopped down they are still a stop faster than my existing glass and in a pinch I still have a full 2 stops. Of course, that only really matters if they AF accurately!
I've been shopping for a cheap fast wide prime eg 28/1.8, 35/2, etc to stick on a crop body when travelling for low light. I am finding it hard to decide on something that gives me more than my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and hopefully more than my 24-70 f2.8 as well.
I must admit I am stumped.
The 28/1.8 doesn't seem to sharpen up appreciably until around f2.8 which is only giving me an extra stop for the money, and the front element is a bit exposed for travelling.
The 35 f2 is nice and compact, but again doesn't seem to get good until f2.8.
I am not complaining - this is the nature of cheap primes, and my 24-85 seems to give me unusually good perfromance wide open. I'm just stumped about which one to go for.
If only there was a 35 f2 say, with IS. That would make my decision much easier!
Yo Adrian...me too...
I have the 10D and 24-85 and the 50F1.8 which as you say doesn't get sharp 'til 2.8...but the benefit of the 28 is a brighter VF and easier to see thru in avail. light...you can still use it at 2.8 for better sharpness and can more steadily than the heavier 24-85.
I agree with most posters about the 85...but @ $400 or so I can't think of it as cheap...each of my lenses cost less than $150, and I can get pretty good shots from them...
!!!