Quick Question, Huge Headache. 85mm or?

Hello there!

I'm a newbie to photography and well, new to this forum as well. I've been lurking though, and I must say, there is some unbelievably crazy talent hidden in some of the posts on here. Glad I finally signed up!

Anyways, to the actual question. I just recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D, it came with the stock 18-200mm lens, and I had the Canon 50 1.8 from my T2I. I'm mostly interested in portrait photography, and recently the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 caught my eye. I know on a crop sensor camera, its around 136mm. Theres no autofocus. I'm scared to jump the gun after reading about needing an "EF-S focusing screen", "auto confirmation chips", etc etc.

So, in your opinion and in my situation, is this lens worth purchasing? I was also looking at the 35mm f/2 which does have autofocus. I'm kind of torn, because for only $300, it seems like it'd be a great portrait lens. Thank you for your input!

Go with the Canon 85mm 1.8 instead, it's supposedly almost as good as the 1.2, brilliant bokeh and very fast autofocus.

I guess I should save up for it, eh. Thank you!

Sigma 85mm 1.4 is another good lens to consider, midway between the Canon 1.8 and 1.2

So the Rokinon lens is a no no?

omeqa wrote in post #14397389
So the Rokinon lens is a no no?

You will miss having AF I'd believe..

For the money of the lens, I was thinking of buying a cheap continuous lighting kit or a flash + umbrella kit to kind of start and get the feel for studio lighting in shots. So should I buy new glass, or will I benefit from the lighting setup with just my 50 1.8 and the 18-200?

For the money, canon 85 1.8 would be your best bet. I know this because when I started photography, my first portrait lens was the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D (on a Nikon body) and it served me well for a long long time.
I've had the Canon ones too (1.8 and 1.2) and they're fantastic. Unfortunately my workhorse for portraits is the 70-200 IS II so I sold my 85mm.

Light will matter more than new lenses.
Far more.

Gear is too overhyped on these forums, light is underhyped.

Modern crops aren't as optimized for manual focus like they were way back when.. [LIke the old manual focus film cameras].. It seems to me, that Canon's answer is Live Mode, zoomed to 10x - or getting specialty focusing screens like the Katz-eye.

I'd guess that you lack experience with proper lighting; I have to agree with Sirrith- light will matter more- a better investment for you at this point in time. Save up and get a good set of lenses later to replace those which you feel are inferior.

ditto wayne.robbins' comments on using MF glass on a digital body. I have LOTS of MF glass. After some initial playing around, the only MF lens I'll shoot digital is a 28 2.8. An that is usually around f/16. You may be able to accurately focus a 50, I struggle with it. My 135 2.8 is FILM body only. If you are doing portraits, you need to nail the focus. That is very difficult with old MF lenses, on a digital camera. I keep them where they belong. On my film cameras.

Nailing focus with MF lenses is an entirely personal thing. I've found that with practice, I'm able to do it with a high enough success rate that I don't think twice about using MF lenses on my DSLR.

So..should I buy the Rokinon lens?

omeqa wrote in post #14400547
So..should I buy the Rokinon lens?

If you are fine with MF, yes. If not, no. Try your current lenses using MF only for a while, if you're happy doing that, then go ahead.

omeqa wrote in post #14397389
So the Rokinon lens is a no no?

Manual focus lenses would be fine, if the modern DSLR was meant for that purpose, but they arent. The viewfinders are smaller and darker than old manual focus film cameras and they dont come equipped with manual focusing aids. To get the most out of it you would need to upgrade your focusing screen so part of your savings are lost. I'd recommend passing.