Zane Yau wrote:
I played with someone's 85 1.8 and I was impressed. Just wondering how much is the 50 1.4 better than the 50 1.8
I guess that depends on what you want to use the lens for. On your 20D it'll be an equivalent 136mm f/1.8. Not too bad for sneaky candids, but too long for normal portraits.
To be honest I don't really like 50mm on a 1.6x body as a general walk-around lens. I hardly ever used my 50 f/1.8 on my 10D. I might play around with it again now that I have a 1D.
20mm becomes 32mm which is good for landscape I suppose
24mm = 38mm which is like my favorite 35mm on film
28mm = 45mm which is like a standard lens - the wider version
35mm = 56mm which is the narrower versio of a standard lens - it will be still fine for portrait as I used to use a 50mm on film to shoot portrait - kind of close to the subject as well.
50 = 80 which is quite good for portrait...
85 = 135 1.8 which becomes a good lowlight candid lens I agree, still be suitable for outdoor portrait I would say (I wonder what 85 1.8 plus extension tube would do!!)
135 2 becomes 210 2 or with 1.4x becomes 300 2.8 (what a good alternative to the real 300 2.8)
200 2.8 = 320 2.8 (another 300 2.8 )
Ed, after this, would you still want to sell your 10D?! Just have it callibrated!!
Edited by Zane Yau on Feb 25, 2005 at 04:53 PM GMT
I probably won't make it for MG on the 5th, but hopefully there will be another FM meeting in april. (i'll have some more gear by then!)
While on the topic of lens, I think i'll still keep my 17-85 for now at least. I find most late afternoon/early evening shooting outdoor, the IS would allow me to keep my ISO at 100. Would the quality of an L lens eg 16-35 at iso200-400 be better than ths 17-85 at iso100? i would think the latter is better. Are they going to make any WA L lens with IS?
i think the 17-85 is a good lens so don't get me wrong. I could often get 1/4s to 1/8s sharp with that IS. The 16-35 will give you better contrast and bokeh when you need it.
I think what those L lenses incl 16-35, 70-200, 100-400 (possibly 24-70) would do is not just sharpness but contrast at low light. The diff between ISO 100 and 200 or even 400 aren't that much unless you going to do a 16x20 or 20x30 print. I think it also depends on how well you can handhold, I can get sharp pic from 16-35 at say 1/8 -1/15 most of the time and 1/4 to 1/8 with 17-85 with IS. IS has its limit when exposure exceeds 0.5 to 1s, so again I think the diff isnt much for WA.
Actually, there are no silk road tour at this time of the year (wrong season). So i'm going to Xian and nearby region instead, mainly a historical tour, maybe some landscape. I'll be there in hk over easter and the 2 weeks after that. Will get my 16-35 before i leave for my china trip, i think i'll have it on my camera most of the time. Won't bother bringing a tripod, so i'll take the 17-85 as well. Beside i don't have anything in that range otherwise.
I love that lens.