Such great shots...I'm lusting after the 1.4 as my 1.8 doesn't get used much probably because I know what's lurking and available.
Just out of curiosity and hopefully this hasn't been asked a million times in the past week, but any idea how this compares to Canon's 85mm 1.2 counterpart (aside from the $1,600 or so price tag and I'm sure quicker AF being that it's a newly produced lens)?
Ah ah, be careful there. I assure you that the 85/1.4 focuses faster than the Canon 85/1.2 unless you use a consumer-body (not many DSLRs on that level that can focus it, since several of them lack an autofocus motor). The 85/1.2 Mark I in particular is notorious for being glacially slow. The Mark II is apparently better.
On my F5, the 85/1.4 has blazing-fast focus. On my N80, not so much. As a lens, it's terrific. Some claim that Canon's 85/1.2 is on still another level, but I don't buy that.
ExtendedPuppet wrote:
I would sell the 24mm F2.8, unless you do a lot of hiking or travel where you don't bring the 14-24mm, or you like the 24mm for filter use.
Can't sell the 50mm f1.4 IMO, it's your only 1.4
So, sell either the 24mm or the macro and get tubes for the 85 like was mentioned above. btw, I'm not familiar with that 100/2.8 is it a Sigma or something? or did you mean 105/2.8?
Sell the 50mm f1.4. If he sells the 50 1.4 for the 85mm f1.4 then he'd have a 1.4.
Personally i wouldn't think of selling the 300mm f4 and 14-24 EVER.
euua wrote:
I am with you on that one aFrIcanSH - those two will never get sold
I may end up selling 50/1.4 and getting 85/1.4 or maybe 85/1.8 ?? Hmm I will have to think about that as well.
I can just trade my 50/1.4 for 85/1.8 but then 85/1.4 is sooo much more tempting
Any one want to get my 50/1.4
I am sure all of us that have had both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions will tell you the same, they are not in the same league. They may seem to only be a half stop apart, but the f/1.4 just has something that the f/1.8 doesn't. The f/1.4 is magical, the f/1.8 is a great lens.
WOW! Really...this is one amazing lens. I finally got one and agree with everyone else ... its magical and creamy even with DX .... I'm a firm believer now.
Also agree with others that you don't really need AF-S, nano or VR .. just give me some ND filters to shoot 1.4 outdoors!!
Think Nikon made a marketing mistake for selling it so cheaply?
BenV wrote:
why? they have an f/1.2
Because Canon's 1.8 is a little bit under $400, while the 1.2 is a bit under $2K (a bit over $1800 with the rebates currently going on).. And obviously that's a pretty big price difference.
Hopefully Sigma's new 85 f/1.4 will deliver like their 50 f/1.4....