85mm 1.8

Love mine. But remember, if you are using it on that 30D, it's really like using a 135mm.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2110965
You probably have a good chance of getting a good copy of the 28-75. If the chances of you getting a good copy was bad, that would mean the majority of the 28-75's that Tamron produces are junk and then they'd go out of business due to the cost of labor for repairing the lenses and then the cost of shipping them. The 28-75 thread has a lot of great pictures in it. Besides, 28-75 is considerably more flexible than 85mm.

I've heard about numerous people getting bad copies, more then any other lens I've looked at actually. I've been warned by more then a few people about this lens.

CatchingUp wrote in post #2111003
Love mine. But remember, if you are using it on that 30D, it's really like using a 135mm.

Should be perfect for indoor sports then in a high school gym, right? . Also should be good for taking quick photos of people in the school or in the playground without having to get too close to them.

I LOVE mine wide open or not...wonderful lens IMHO...

Well - I give up trying to talk logic and all that then.

135mm has always been one of my favorite focal lenths for portaits so the 85 1.8 does just what I want it do in a cropped DSLR.

Mike

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2109231
I had a quick question though. My 50mm 1.8 was pretty bad wide open. What's the 85 1.8 like wide open? What about at like f2.8?

Can the 85mm 1.8 be used for everything the 50mm primes can be? I.E. full portraits (not just faces), a little bit of macro (maybe get some tubes), etc?

I bought my 85 f/1.8 for shooting volleyball in our church gym using a 10D or 20D but found that it is a great lens for many purposes. It is crisp at f/1.8 but if conditions allow I prefer to stop it down for more DOF. Mine is sharp wide open.

On my crop body, I prefer this lens for head and shoulder portraits and use my 35 or 50mm for full body shots.

For macro work its close focus distance of 0.85M (~33 inches) is a bit long but using a 25mm extension tube will give a magnification of 0.44 at 386mm (1.3 feet).

I have no hesitation selecting this lens when I want fast accurate focus and crisp images in compromised light conditions.

pturton wrote in post #2111827
I bought my 85 f/1.8 for shooting volleyball in our church gym using a 10D or 20D but found that it is a great lens for many purposes. It is crisp at f/1.8 but if conditions allow I prefer to stop it down for more DOF. Mine is sharp wide open.

On my crop body, I prefer this lens for head and shoulder portraits and use my 35 or 50mm for full body shots.

For macro work its close focus distance of 0.85M (~33 inches) is a bit long but using a 25mm extension tube will give a magnification of 0.44 at 386mm (1.3 feet).

I have no hesitation selecting this lens when I want fast accurate focus and crisp images in compromised light conditions.

Is that a good magnification? I don't know all that much about macro.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2109231
....
Can the 85mm 1.8 be used for everything the 50mm primes can be? I.E. full portraits (not just faces), ...?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2110953
Hehe, that's good to hear. I am thinking I should pick this lens up before the Tamron 28-75 anyway becasue I think finding a good copy of the 28-75 might be hard.

...?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2111005
I've heard about numerous people getting bad copies, more then any other lens I've looked at actually. I've been warned by more then a few people about this lens.

To get a feel for the space/perspective of a full-length portrait with the 85, try it with your 70-200 at that FL. I'm surprised to hear that you've been warned about the Tammy. I own this lens and I read every thread/post I can find about it, here. I can remember only a few negative opinions about it and a large percentage of those turned out to be attributed to user error. Again trying to use a little statistical logic , if the ratio of "bad" lenses is excessive, I suspect the reviews here on POTN would be more reflective of that.

runninmann wrote in post #2112461
To get a feel for the space/perspective of a full-length portrait with the 85, try it with your 70-200 at that FL. I'm surprised to hear that you've been warned about the Tammy. I own this lens and I read every thread/post I can find about it, here. I can remember only a few negative opinions about it and a large percentage of those turned out to be attributed to user error. Again trying to use a little statistical logic , if the ratio of "bad" lenses is excessive, I suspect the reviews here on POTN would be more reflective of that.

Hehe. I don't know who to believe these days .

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2112492
Hehe. I don't know who to believe these days .

This thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=145586has been active since March. Perhaps you've already seen it. If not, take a gander.

runninmann wrote in post #2112596
This thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=145586has been active since March. Perhaps you've already seen it. If not, take a gander.

I have seen it. I don't know, just a friend warned me about bad copies and another couple guys told me about that too. Who knows, perhaps the few people I spoke to all were a very low %.

I don't shoot the 85mm lens wide open, as I feel the depth of field is too narrow for the fast action of a basketball or volleyball game. Instead I shoot it at 2.0 to 2.2 and have achieved much better results at those aperture settings.

As for the Tamron, I think the "bad copy" issues are more user error than anything. I have one and haven't had any issues with mine at all, nor have most of the people I know who own it. You tend to hear more negative comments about a lens than positive on these forums, so take it with a grain of salt. In terms of using the Tamron to shoot indoor sports, forget it. It's too slow in terms of maximum aperture and autofocus for fast paced gym sports in crappy light common to most high schools.

liza wrote in post #2112635
I don't shoot the 85mm lens wide open, as I feel the depth of field is too narrow for the fast action of a basketball or volleyball game. Instead I shoot it at 2.0 to 2.2 and have achieved much better results at those aperture settings.

As for the Tamron, I think the "bad copy" issues are more user error than anything. I have one and haven't had any issues with mine at all, nor have most of the people I know who own it. You tend to hear more negative comments about a lens than positive on these forums, so take it with a grain of salt. In terms of using the Tamron to shoot indoor sports, forget it. It's too slow in terms of maximum aperture and autofocus for fast paced gym sports in crappy light common to most high schools.

Ah, to be fair, I have seen some people say they had a copy sharper then thier 24-70L and that the lens is L quality. I am definitley picking one up and later an ultra wide to compensate for it's lack in the wide angle area, but I sort of want the 85 1.8 more now. Plus, this guy is offering me a pretty good deal on the 70-200 F4L and 85 1.8. He has some special rubber hood for the 85 1.8 that folds too or something.

My Tammy must fall into the "near L quality" category. I sometimes have difficulty telling the difference between it and my 70-200L.