Who's gonna be first?
To pony up the cash for the 50mm f1.2L??? Am I the only person who thinks this lens is reasonably priced and very useful?? I've seen plenty of people po-poo'ing this lens before it's release on price alone. I was one of the first to pony up for the 17-55 f2.8 IS, and after that purchase this new 50 seems perfectly reasonable...but I may be crazy. Ofcourse I will be selling my 85 f1.8 to offset the cost somewhat mostly because I find I do not have the time to USE this lens much on weddings, and when I do I double shoot everything to make sure I get something sharp and free of CA. I think the slightly shorter focal length, better CA control, and faster AF will really make this the usable pseudo-short tele prime I've coveted for my crop body camera. Don't get me wrong I LIKE the 85 f1.8 and the effect I can create with it, but at f1.8 it really isn't sharp enough for +11x14 enlargements, and the CA is evident up untill f3.5, whereas my 17-55 shows less CA at f2.8 and almost none at f3.5. I find that the working distance while nice for 3/4 length or head and shoulders is OK...it is really too long for full body. I love how the 85 renders people very slim, and compresses nicely but I think I'd rather use less foot zoom and almost as good compression. The other way I look at it is this...the 85 f1.8 is REALLY going to show its flaws if I step up to a FF camera, but the 50 f1.2 will still be a great standard prime. Ofcourse if I had a FF I'd want an 85 f1.2, but I had that kind of money the extra 2k+ probably wouldn't be that big of a deal. So whos with me?? I have a job at the beginning of December that could more than pay for this hot hunk of glass, screw Christmas presents!!
0
Comments
Did you see all the new lenses Andy just bought????
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=44106
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't really think in these terms...I'm more about satisfying my lust and obsession with having the MOST flexibility in my portraits and the confidence in my equipment to take chances and still produce excellent results. This was my reasoning behind purchasing the 17-55, the 17-85 was a good lens, but I had grown out of it and wanted to move beyond what I could do with it. I don't buy equipment just to have the newest most expensive toys. I really have to be at the point that I can utilize all of the benefits of the new equipment and be at a point where the OLD stuff is actually holding me back before I move up. I'm feeling that way now about the 85 f1.8...I will illustrate.
I shot this at one of my last weddings...85 f1.8 @ f1.8 sharpness is OK, love they way it is killin the background, but if I had ANY kind of direct sunlight I would have bad CA. Having a higher quality lens in this situation would yield a better result. This chancey kind of wide open shot is where I want my style to go, I think it is what will set me apart. So will it pay for itself? If it helps me to hone my technique and produce the kind of dynamic wow shots that get me booked..then yeah it will pay for itself.
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and look at the 100% crop - mind you, this was with the 1Ds Mark II.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
OK so I'm late to this one...I think it's more like wanting company when making the leap.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I do too (stopped down)...but what aperture was this at? No exif.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter