Which would you choose? 50L or 85L?

I'm a die-hard 50mm f/1.4 guy. I will admit, it's a bit soft wide-open. I wish consumers could adjust the focus so that front focusing (or rear) problems could be remedied.

Petkal, if that is the case, most respectfully, please explain to me the 200 f1.8's disappearance from Canon's lineup. One of the most sought after pieces of glass around, but apparently it didn't sell well or they wouldn't have stopped making it.

I'm waiting for its replacement. Shot a H.S. football game tonight. Wish I had one. Or even better, a Canon equivalent to Nikon's fantastic 200-400 f4 zoom.

mark

MDJAK wrote in post #2090728
Petkal, if that is the case, most respectfully, please explain to me the 200 f1.8's disappearance from Canon's lineup. One of the most sought after pieces of glass around, but apparently it didn't sell well or they wouldn't have stopped making it.

I'm waiting for its replacement. Shot a H.S. football game tonight. Wish I had one. Or even better, a Canon equivalent to Nikon's fantastic 200-400 f4 zoom.

mark

Mark, that's perhaps a sort of exception that validates the "rule" ?
I wish I knew the reason. I suspect that there was more to it than just limited volume sales ?
Again, I can guess profusely, but no knowledge.

Petkal wrote in post #2090841
Mark, that's perhaps a sort of exception that validates the "rule" ?
I wish I knew the reason. I suspect that there was more to it than just limited volume sales ?
Again, I can guess profusely, but no knowledge.

I've read that it used lead somewhere in its construction and to re-design a new non-lead lens to comply with environmental standards wasn't profit-friendly.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2090889
I've read that it used lead somewhere in its construction and to re-design a new non-lead lens to comply with environmental standards wasn't profit-friendly.

I have also heard that lead in glass was a factor in the overal "equation".
And that "lead" shows, trust me. The lens is almost shockingly heavy for it's relatively compact size (without the potty-hood on), when you take it first into your hands.

Though I have never used leaded glass, one can probably assume that leaded lenses lead to better image quality because, well, at 24% lead content, you'd get something called "crystal". Crystal is MUCH clearer and transmits light far better than regular glass (which might explain the 200 1.8). Not saying it's always surperior to the new glasses now, but I certainly wouldn't mind the extra resolution boost even at the cost of some additional weight. I'm always a proponent of environmentally friendly methods, but in this particular aspect, I kind of wished they allowed lead in glass for lenses.

Oh, and which would give better bokeh? the 50 or the 85? Thanks!

mxwphoto wrote in post #2089607
I'm planning on getting a 17-40 and either 70-200 or 100-400 when the rebates come into effect. So that leaves me with a 30-60mm gap in the middle. I want to fill that gap somewhat with something fast (and preferably L) eventually. I was just wondering if either of these would be worth saving up for to fill that gap IF they had the same IQ.

Edit: 50 1.4 is too darn soft wide open and I wanted something more substantial than a 1.8. Though I agree, 1.8's an excellent value.

if you are going to spend the big bucks you'd be better off with the 24-70L than buying a prime, imo. on paper the 17-40, 50, 70-200 troika looks good but switiching to a prime for a few shots can be a real pain.

i have my range covered with 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200 and have primes that sorta fit bewteen the zooms. my middle zoom, the 24-70L, is the workhorse of my kit.

ed rader

Yes, the 24-70 or 24-105 were also considered. But I figured, I don't have a fast apeture lens that way. So a prime would cover that spot.

I have no problem with switching the primes and find it is well worth the time. Since you have a 20d I would go with the 50mm simple because it is basically an 85. My favorite portrait lens is the 135, so the 85 wouldn't be a bad length on the 20d either, but for indoor situations it get a little tight at times.

It would depend on what I wanted to shoot. I hear the 85L is magical.
But it would be easier to just crop the photo as needed with the 50L as a general lens.

This thread is more than 7 years old...

WhyFi wrote in post #16720552
This thread is more than 7 years old...

Not any more lol

I have both, like the pictures form the 85mm better but use the 50mm note often because of shorter focal length (indoors) and faster focus.

K Soze wrote in post #16722125
I have both, like the pictures form the 85mm better but use the 50mm note often because of shorter focal length (indoors) and faster focus.

Ditto ... both superb

Forgot to say both are stunningly sharp !