patrickphoto wrote:
Personally: 35mm is great, but the focus is a **tch, and the lens is prone to damage to the focus drive. 28 is killer, just shot with it for two weddings, and now I ordered my own. I would never get the 100, it has nice bokeh, but it is not "better" than 85, just more compressed, and wide open, the CA is FAR worse when shot on 1.6. The 85 is outstanding. And yes, just look at the reviews and previous postings, I must have typed this dozens of times.
Thanks, I am leaning toward the 1.8 lineup, i.e. 28/50/85mm
The 28 1.8 is a wonderful and easy lens to use. Focus is very quick and accurate. Can be soft with CA on the edges, especially wide open, but this is usually not of great concern to me. Of more concern to me is the very fast 1.8. It makes for wonderful shots in the magic light of dusk. I've captured lots of great images with it. Should be even better on a crop.
The 100mm f2 has a more pleasing look to me than the 85 1.8, especially for portraits. Otherwise they are practiacally twins. The 100 f2 handles like a dream.
>>The 100mm f2 has a more pleasing look to me than the 85 1.8, especially for portraits. Otherwise they are practiacally twins. The 100 f2 handles like a dream.
Thats true, the 28 and 85 is what I am leaning toward, however it isnt worth selling the 50mm as it is just worth pennies...
I think of the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 as sister lenses, having owned both at the same time myself. They handle very similarly, forgetting for the moment the difference in FL. One thing I really liked about the 28/1.8 is that it takes B&W conversions very well.
Fwiw, if I had to choose but one Canon lens from the 85-135 FL grouping, and had an eye on the budget, I would take the 100/2. It's nearly the equal of the 135L in bokeh, is a better portrait lens and has better flat-field performance than the 85/1.8, and just does so many things very well. My 2 cents.
I'm in the Sigma 30mm camp on this one ........ best all-around if the AF is sound. I found 35 at f/2 to be a touch long and slow where both the Canon 28 and Sigma 30 shine. Between those two it's almost a draw, but the Sigma returned better contrast and a half stop faster shutter speed.
If the budget is really tight, buy the 35mm f/2 and enjoy. It'll produce great images with your input too!
yes, that's the look I got from my 28/1.8 and didn't like it... the 35/2 doesn't produce really nice bokeh either, but it is sharper, better color and contrast and closer focusing... between the two, I thought the 35 has more going for it... if you like the look in this example, then get the 28. I took nice photos with the 28 too though.
Also, 28-35 on a crop camera is your normal lens, not wide... on FF I too would prefer 24... but we're not talking FF...
RE: 85 vs. 100, yes, they are both close, but after using both found I prefer the "look" from the 100 more... it was somehow more soothing in the way it rendered slightly OOF areas and with a more pleasing transition. They are both sharp, fast and good. (Some people don't really react to the subtle rendering differences)
On FF, my natural pairing of primes is a 50 and 135... so 28 or 35 + 85 or 100 works great, but no reason not to have the 50/1.8 since it is so cheap and so excellent.
>>Heres a shot from screwing around with the 28. Sorry, its all I really have on my laptop right now. It's not a good photo.
why don't you show us this? you have both the 100 and 135L, how about a quick bokeh comparison, similar framing and adjusted aperture for comparable DOF on both lenses... I'd be interested to see it... and since you make the claim... backing it up would be only fair.
patrickphoto wrote:
How dare ANYONE compair the 135L to these lenses!!!
mh2000 wrote:
why don't you show us this? you have both the 100 and 135L, how about a quick bokeh comparison, similar framing and adjusted aperture for comparable DOF on both lenses... I'd be interested to see it... and since you make the claim... backing it up would be only fair.
I can show you pictures, and you can claim what you like, but lets listen to 340 people.
Go figure, the 135 has the highest rating I have ever found on FM, or go my MTF from canon, again this holds true, or just go by what "millions" would say, its L, no duh
I'm not claiming anything one way or the other (I wasn't the one who made any comparison at all... well except between the 28&35 and 85&100), but I would find the bokeh comparison between the 135L and the 100 very interesting if you are willing to do it.
those "reviews" are what they are... and I haven't always agreed with them after actually buying a lens myself.
>>I can show you pictures, and you can claim what you like, but lets listen to 340 people.
+ a million to the TS, it is a joy to use, and I haven't needed autofocus yet! When I do, I have a tammy 90 that works wonders, but its rare I need AF.
I had a 28/1.8 and I think it is a bit of a misunderstood lens. I used it for a couple of years on film and just a bit on a cropped digital body but here's what I found out: in general, the lens is best suited to shooting portraits at shorter distances, preferably in low light. If you are after a landscape lens to use stopped down get something else. The look of a wide lens at f/2 is fairly unique.
Comparing it to the 28/2.8 the f/2.8 is a bit sharper at f/2.8-4 but the colour rendition and bokeh is much better with the 28/1.8. And the handling with USM and finish is miles better than the dinky 28/2.8.
A 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 would do a great combo for light travel or street stuff on a full frame body.
deeprblue wrote:
The 28's bokeh seems to be a bit busy, creating donut-shaped OOF areas. The 35's bokeh is smoother, but not as clean with the 5-bladed aperture.
If your using the picture I posted as your basis of that, don't. That was shot wide open, at iso3200 on a 20D in a rather harsh and oddly lit room. The bokeh on the lens is actually very nice, especially one click down to f2.
