^^^ Same thing. The Canon 85mm f1.8 has massive CA wide open, as does the f1.2.

What about the 50mm F1.4? I just figured that since I have the 50mm F1.8, it'd be fun to try a new lens for portraits... and I've heard so many good things about the 85mm F1.8. Worth it you think?

I've never really used the 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 so I don't have much of an opinion. The 85mm f1.8 is a sharp lens, just has lots of CA in very high contrast situations. Whether it's worth it to you is something only you can answer.

I've been thinking of buying one for a while just gotta find out if I wanna sell my car or not.

Thanks for the help and quick reply!

How are you going to transport yourself with such a big lens without a car?

i have both the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8
while the 1.8 is a good bang for the buck, the 1.4F was clearly sharper and had better colour rendition (used the same camera settings and tweaks).

what i like about the 1.4F is that i find it usable even in 1.4 or 1.6F, and sharpness from 2.0F is sweet

the 50mm 1.8F i find needs to be around f2.2 for it to have sharper images

iirc i shot this with the 50 1.4F, 1/80s f8
http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/a...ienceworld.jpg

for around 350, the 50mm 1.4F is a good deal. it's the mainstay on my dslr

I guess I could always walk. It's a long ways to Reifel but I'm young. I can do it! :p
I could also buy my fathers Suzuki Aerio which has been parked for years since he got his Explorer.
I'll just have to work harder on saving. Be more thrifty I guess haha. Or just get another job.

All this talk about Canon 50 f1.4 and f1.8, what about the 50mm f2.5 Macro?ß

Like Jason said i'd go for the 500mm F4 if your into it. Have you used one of these lenses because? Rent one for a day or weekend and see what you think of it. Also, some other things to think about when getting a longer lens is that accessories that your going to need when you have the lens. Like a very good tripod ($600-$1000) and a gimbal head ($600 or so). A replacement foot for the lens, and most likely a lens cover to keep it protected. Your looking at a good chunk of change to get into the game. If you can afford it that's great, and wish you good luck with saving your pennies. I got my 500mm, and am very happy with the results. Just wish i had the time to use it more often.

The price of Nikon super-tele's makes me cry. Good luck with your choice!

Canon's pricing for their new telephoto lenses will also make your eyes water. The 400mm f2.8 has gone from about $7000 to $11,000!

:inout:

The following are newly announced prices for the new Super Telephotos in Canada.....

300 f/2.8L IS II ......... $7,349.99

400 f/2.8L IS II ......... $11,549.99

500 f/4L IS II .......... $9,999.99

600 f/4L IS II .......... $12,599.99

Did you go ahead with this purchase? Which one did you decided on?

wow, i put a wanted ad on CL for an EF 100 macro and got 5 responses in 2 hours.

Everyone wants the 100 L macro
Posted via RS Mobile

actually, it's a wanted ad, if you'll re-read. tells me people don't want the macro anymore.

i think he meant that they want to get rid of their OLD 100mm Macro, and get the NEW 100mm L Macro.

unless of course - your wanted Ad was for the new one.

ah, gotcha, "L"...... and "IS" to boot! i think it's actually that newer "IS" too, "hybrid". surprised it's not called "HIS".

no, just looking for the older version.

I know some of you guys have a lot of experience with the tamron 17-50 2.8 VC
I'm wondering if I should sell off my sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 os macro for it, I'm regretting the smaller aperture a little but I got it for the equivalent of about $400 CAD in hong kong

Right now I'm just looking for a nice walk around lens and considering the tamron and the sigma 18-50

The tokina 16-50 seems hard to find used and is pretty expensive new too, doesn't seem all that popular :/

if you're looking at the VC one, the reviews I've read peg the new Sigma 17-50 OS HSM as a better choice, as it closes in on 17-55 territory. I've also read that the non-VC version of the Tamron is sharper than its VC cousin.

I personally have the Sigma 18-50 non-OS, and I sometimes find myself looking at the newer 17-50. But I'm so happy with the sharpness of my Sigma that I think it'd be too much of a hassle just to add OS :)

Although, HSM would be nice :whistle:

I am a little confused sigma discontinued their 18-50 and is only making the 17-50 now?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/standard-zoom-lenses

You can still find the 18-50 for around the $420 mark on ebay, which is only about 10% more than in hk. I have to go renew my id this year sometime anyways but I want the 50 1.4 :D which I need more than the 18-50 lol I epic failed last year and a lot of stores were sold out of the 50 1.4 :(

the 17-50 is at a whole different price point and quality, or so the reviews say. it also has OS.

the non VC tamron is sharper than the VC one. i find the corners to be not sharp. i think my canon 17-55 IS is sharp edge to edge (the sigma is said to be even better at certain apertures), but others on here have discredited the 17-55 IS.

i'd keep the 17-70 and get something like a 30mm 1.4 or that 50 1.4 u were talking about.

Any good suggetions for a good food photography lens?

Nikon 24mm PC-E, Canon 24mm TS-E or Canon 45mm TS-E.

Looking to get a new fixed lens. Thinking of getting th Nikon 35mm F/1.8.
But I hear that apparently the Tokina 35mm F/2.8 is sharper then the Nikon one.

Feedback and info please?