rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Richard Nye wrote:
If you shoot weddings, I wouldn't get rid of the 24-70. I agree with previous posts that all L primes are good, and you need to pick the one that best meets your needs. The 85L is a specialty lens because the focus is slow, and a little difficult to get the DOF right with such wide aperture choices. I don't own the 50L, but I'm assuming it's similar to the 85L. The 85L would be a good portrait lens though, particularly on a 1D4.
The 50L is a different lens from the 85L. Just browse the numerous 50L posts here over the past years or read my blog post about it. Many knock the 50L as inferior. IMO, it's a different lens, intentionally so. It has more uncorrected spherical aberration than the 85L, which means it is not as critically sharp at or near wide open, especially at nearer working distances. The benefit is a gentler, lush rendering. The tradeoff is somewhat lower critical sharpness wide open and at nearer distance, and also focus shift as it's stopped down through the wider apertures until depth of field can mask the shift. It's this focus shift that can make it a frustrating lens to use. When I first got it, I was disappointed because I expected a 50mm version of the 85L... but over time it grew on me to the point that I used it a lot more than the 85L. Oh, and my Canon cameras are all APS-H (IIN, III, IV), so I also like the effective crop. But I'm not sure it would be an ideal first lens for you.
I would suggest looking at some non-Canon options too. Zeiss make some nice lenses, such as the ZE21, the new 25 f/2, though it costs more than the 24L, or 35 f/1.4. Or, if you're not sure what you want, but want to experiment a little, try one of the Rokinon/Samyang lenses, such as their 35 f/1.4, which has been well regarded considering how inexpensive it is.
The manual focus lenses at the ultra wide end are very nice to use. You just zone focus them based on the accurate distance scale on the barrel, unless you're at or near wide open, then it's best to use live view for precision.
I do think the 85L is worth the significant difference in price over the 85 f/1.8. I have both and by f/1.8 the 85L is razor sharp and the 85 1.8 doesn't really catch up until a couple stops down. While I can see this, I'm not so sure any client would notice the difference. Also, an f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens will give you just that much more flexibility in low light, whereas an f/2 is only one stop faster than the 2.8 zooms, which in most cases can be compensated for by bumping the ISO. It's this aspect that I really value in the 50L and 85L... such as shooting available light in a church as the bride walked down the aisle, still managing a reasonable shutter speed even though the ISO was already up to 3200 and the lens was at f/1.2.
M Vers wrote:
I respectfully disagree about the need for a med range zoom for wedding and event work. For me I prefer having a set of fast primes in that range in combination with a 70-200/2.8 and a UWA zoom. I do, however, shoot two bodies in tandem which provides me with plenty of versatility.
I agree. I haven't owned a 24/28-70 style lens in over 20 years of various types of photography. My preferences has always been 16-35 and 70-200 on two bodies paired with a couple fast primes. In my case the 50L and 85L. If I was to buy another fast Canon L prime for use on the 1DIV, I would probably go for the 24L, though the TS-E is also tempting...
Ron
|
