Curse you Canon!

Khaos · April 9, 2005

After spending some time with the 35 1.4 L I bought off Andy, I now have Prime Lust disease. Fast? Oh yeah. Tack sharp? Oh yeah? Great in low light? Low light? This lens doesn't know what low light is.

Now I need the 24 1.4 L, the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.2 L. I'll look at my Tamron 28-75 2.8, and laugh, telling it that it's not worthy.

Andy · April 9, 2005

you forgot one....

Khaos wrote:

After spending some time with the 35 1.4 L I bought off Andy, I now have Prime Lust disease. Fast? Oh yeah. Tack sharp? Oh yeah? Great in low light? Low light? This lens doesn't know what low light is.

Now I need the 24 1.4 L, the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.2 L. I'll look at my Tamron 28-75 2.8, and laugh, telling it that it's not worthy.

canon 200 f/1.8L

cmr164 · April 9, 2005

Khaos wrote:

After spending some time with the 35 1.4 L I bought off Andy, I now have Prime Lust disease. Fast? Oh yeah. Tack sharp? Oh yeah? Great in low light? Low light? This lens doesn't know what low light is.

Now I need the 24 1.4 L, the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.2 L. I'll look at my Tamron 28-75 2.8, and laugh, telling it that it's not worthy.

A few words on the 85mm f/1.2L which I used and was ambivalent about and then sold. I loved the low light performance and the optical quality but there is a sacrifice to get it in the speed of the focusing. This is a big heavy lens and the focusing is not the voice coil USM but is a rotating USM that is noisy and much much slower. It is a full stop difference from the 1.2L to the 85 f/1.8 but it is also a huge $$$ difference and the f/1.8 will have the lightening fast voice coil USM.

While I only owned the f/1.2L, I suspect Andy has owned both so if he wants to chime in ....

wxwax · April 9, 2005

I reckon the 1.8 is fine. Esp. given the insane price of the 1.2.

Andy · April 9, 2005

cmr164 wrote:

While I only owned the f/1.2L, I suspect Andy has owned both so if he wants to chime in ....

:nah i haven't owned the 85 f/1.2 but i've shot with it a few times. yer right, it's heavy and slow... like me night-shooting after rib dinner

the bokeh is really superb, though, and for certain applications (like portraits) it's a fine fine lens. you wouldn't use it for sports though. well, maybe for a chess championship, in a church basement

imo, unless one is doing portraits, in a large studio or doing outdoor portraits, the 85 f/1.2 is really not worth it over the stunning performance of the 85 f/1.8. i've shot with this lens plenty. the 1.8 is lighter, cheaper by 75% or thereabouts, and faster on the focus. build quality is excellent.

khaos, i suggest the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 as stunning canon primes, you won't be disappointed with either (or both!).

next stop? in order of affordability: the 100mm macro f/2.8, the 135L, the 400 f/5.6L, the 200 f/2.8L.

ginger_55 · April 9, 2005

When you get the long ones, make sure you get the widest opening you can, the aperture thingy. That just means, spend as much as you can for a lens.

I have the 300 f4, and Rutt sent me his 2 X 11 extender to use with it for birds.
I didn't know what was wrong when it wouldn't focus. Good thing I was home, I went to FM to see what they were saying. Sure enough, it will only focus with lenses that are faster than mine.

I wonder if that is where I am supposed to tape something. But I am not going to ruin Rutt's extender. I still took it out today, missed the osprey shot where he was flying right down the road with a whole fish in his claws. Then I missed the shot, by then I was out of the car, too, but I forgot to focus and I missed the shot where he came back by with his ratty looking fish.

I did have the monopod on the whole time. It is doable, but I would rather have the faster lens.

Just spend as much as possible, you will be fine!:D

ginger

Khaos · April 9, 2005

andy wrote:

canon 200 f/1.8L

Oh sure, taunt me with the big juicy, not made anymore, have to import and pay mucho dinero for lens.

Khaos · April 9, 2005

andy wrote:

khaos, i suggest the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 as stunning canon primes, you won't be disappointed with either (or both!).

next stop? in order of affordability: the 100mm macro f/2.8, the 135L, the 400 f/5.6L, the 200 f/2.8L.

I was planning on the 50 f/1.4, thanks to all for the info on the not worth the money info on the 85, I'll get the step slower one. I already own and love the 100 macro. It's taken over as my flower lens. I'm ordering the 400 5.6 L this week from KEH.

I'll see over time whether I will get the 135 or 200 primes. Right now I'm extremely happy with my 70-200 2.8 IS L. I need to find another Canon person in my area that has these lenses so I can try them. Youngstown doesn't have anything in the way of lens rentals.

I wonder why the 85 is so slow? The thing that amazed me about the 35 L and the 70 200 L was how lightening fast they focused.

cmr164 · April 9, 2005

Khaos wrote:

... thanks to all for the info on the not worth the money info on the 85, I'll get the step slower one. ...
...
I wonder why the 85 is so slow? The thing that amazed me about the 35 L and the 70 200 L was how lightening fast they focused.

Lets not go overboard here. I got some fabulous night shots with the f/1.2L including in dark performance halls with fast moving subjects. The only time it is really an issue is when focus changes over a large range or if it is so dark that the lens is hunting.

Not the best example but the quickest found...
Done with the 2MP DCS520 (older gen dSLR)
f/1.2 , 1/125 , 85mm

ShebaJo · April 10, 2005

andy wrote:

:nah i haven't owned the 85 f/1.2 but i've shot with it a few times. yer right, it's heavy and slow... like me night-shooting after rib dinner the bokeh is really superb, though, and for certain applications (like portraits) it's a fine fine lens. you wouldn't use it for sports though. well, maybe for a chess championship, in a church basement

imo, unless one is doing portraits, in a large studio or doing outdoor portraits, the 85 f/1.2 is really not worth it over the stunning performance of the 85 f/1.8. i've shot with this lens plenty. the 1.8 is lighter, cheaper by 75% or thereabouts, and faster on the focus. build quality is excellent.

khaos, i suggest the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 as stunning canon primes, you won't be disappointed with either (or both!).

next stop? in order of affordability: the 100mm macro f/2.8, the 135L, the 400 f/5.6L, the 200 f/2.8L.

What would you suggest as best lens for flower shots? Using the 20D. I have seen quite a few people saying the 100 f2.8... Lens for flowers is next on my list.

Thanks!

Andy · April 10, 2005

lens for flower shots

ShebaJo wrote:

What would you suggest as best lens for flower shots? Using the 20D. I have seen quite a few people saying the 100 f2.8... Lens for flowers is next on my list.

Thanks!

well now, that sure depends

what's your pleasure?

wide angle?

telephoto

macro

really there's no one lens for the job.

Matthew Saville · April 10, 2005

andy wrote:

well now, that sure depends what's your pleasure?

wide angle?

telephoto

macro

really there's no one lens for the job.

Sure thing Andy. You can shoot flowers with a 20D and a fisheye lens if you want. In fact I've seen some great, "lying on your belly in the dirt with the sun in your eyes" fisheye / flower shots!

If you're referring to the 85mm lineup for flowers, then well, why? The 100mm, 1x, razor sharp L lens is just 15mm (well okay 24mm on the 20D) away from the 85mm... Since we're on the topic of the 85mm focal length currently I'd reccomend the 100mm.

But yeah, anything from super-wide to super-tele can get you great flower shots. I've shot at 17mm , 600mm, and everywhere in between. In fact this shot here was taken with my 24-85mm at 85mm, coincidentally!

Primes are nice, and pretty much the only way to go for 1x macro work, but I must voice a tad of opinion when I say that as far as the 85mm and longer primes go, well, the 70-200mm lenses (nikon and canon) are pieces of art, and while I'm pretty sure I might be able to put an 85mm f/1.8 to use every now and then, I don't think I could justify such a big cost (when taking into consideration that you'd also need 135mm and/or 200mm primes to equal the 70-200) ...as compared to the relatively cheap 70-200mm zoom. And I have no idea why these ENORMOUS 200mm lenses are made, considering the 70-200's very respectable f/2.8 apeture along with IS / VR, not to mention the relatively TINY size...

-matt-

Michiel de Brieder · April 10, 2005

I highly recommend the 50 F/1.4 I'm very sad that it is currently being repaired because it took a nasty fall :cry

ShebaJo · April 14, 2005

NICE... I have the 24-85, will try it on some flowers. I still want to get a macro, but this may due until I can afford what I really want. THANKS

Matthew Saville wrote:

Sure thing Andy. You can shoot flowers with a 20D and a fisheye lens if you want. In fact I've seen some great, "lying on your belly in the dirt with the sun in your eyes" fisheye / flower shots!

If you're referring to the 85mm lineup for flowers, then well, why? The 100mm, 1x, razor sharp L lens is just 15mm (well okay 24mm on the 20D) away from the 85mm... Since we're on the topic of the 85mm focal length currently I'd reccomend the 100mm.

But yeah, anything from super-wide to super-tele can get you great flower shots. I've shot at 17mm , 600mm, and everywhere in between. In fact this shot here was taken with my 24-85mm at 85mm, coincidentally!

Primes are nice, and pretty much the only way to go for 1x macro work, but I must voice a tad of opinion when I say that as far as the 85mm and longer primes go, well, the 70-200mm lenses (nikon and canon) are pieces of art, and while I'm pretty sure I might be able to put an 85mm f/1.8 to use every now and then, I don't think I could justify such a big cost (when taking into consideration that you'd also need 135mm and/or 200mm primes to equal the 70-200) ...as compared to the relatively cheap 70-200mm zoom. And I have no idea why these ENORMOUS 200mm lenses are made, considering the 70-200's very respectable f/2.8 apeture along with IS / VR, not to mention the relatively TINY size...

-matt-

Unicorn · April 18, 2005

ShebaJo wrote:

What would you suggest as best lens for flower shots? Using the 20D. I have seen quite a few people saying the 100 f2.8... Lens for flowers is next on my list.

Thanks!

The 100 2.8 is very well respected and also makes a great portrait lens. If you are going to shoot a lot of macro..... good investment.

If you [already]have one of the 70-200 L's, you might try the 500D close up lens, for $179, you can get very nice results.

I just picked one up and will post pics this weekend.

Curse you Canon!

Comments