[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301861839' post='7357']
Then I guess I should have bought your 28/1.8. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[/quote]
And only Wim has those odd complaints about the 85mm f1.8 ("vignetting" and stronger PF than 100mm f2)... it is a well liked lens normally.
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301861839' post='7357']
Then I guess I should have bought your 28/1.8. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
It got a good home quite a while ago, and occasionally I still speak with the person who bought it from me - and who still owns and loves it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1301866128' post='7358']
And only Wim has those odd complaints about the 85mm f1.8 ("vignetting" and stronger PF than 100mm f2)... it is a well liked lens normally.
[/quote]
They weren't very odd to me, but very real, actually. Furthermore, you don't have to believe me, obviously, but I have handled enough lenses in my life to know what I see, apart from the fact that I have been testing lenses for about 35 years or so.
The 100 F/2 is known to have less PF than the 85 F/1.8, BTW.
Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301866412' post='7359']
It got a good home quite a while ago, and occasionally I still speak with the person who bought it from me - and who still owns and loves it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
Oh well. (sigh) I guess I'll have to keep relying on my trusty 17-55/2.8 IS. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
04-04-2011, 02:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 02:31 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301866653' post='7360']
They weren't very odd to me, but very real, actually. Furthermore, you don't have to believe me, obviously, but I have handled enough lenses in my life to know what I see, apart from the fact that I have been testing lenses for about 35 years or so.
The 100 F/2 is known to have less PF than the 85 F/1.8, BTW.
Regards, Wim
[/quote]
I never said I don't believe you, I just question your way of ignoring many other user accounts (and indeed all the actual photos made with the 85mm f1.8 and to be found all over internet) , which make your samples "very odd" indeed.
And direct comparisons show the same amount...
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/80881668
So much for being a known? I know what I see in that side by side comparison at f2 too.
I know for instance that my particular Tokina 12-24mm f4 DX has turned out to be a rubbish lens, but I do not lose sight of that many actually do not get the problems I got with that lens. It is evident that the Canon EF 85mm f1.8, even though you have had very little luck with them, is not a bad lens at all.
Well, I am not very charmed by it. And to be very honest, I also tried a few other ones, from other people I know, just to see how it behaved, and I certainly still didn't feel comfortable with it for its performance, compared to other lenses. I want a lens like that for using it wide open or close to wide open, and from my experience, it isn't all that great a lens for this. Maybe at web sized pictures, but not at 40 cm X 60 cm or 60 cm X 90 cm sized prints. Not in my experience anyway. For me, it is overrated.
I don't actually ignore the comments from others how good this lens is, I just want to make sure that people realize that there also are other experiences with this lens, and not just with a single one, but several. There is more than one side to the medal in this case.
Similarly, with the 28 - I had a much, much better experience with it than other people seem to have.
BTW, the same is true with the 50 F/1.8 Mk II - for me it worked well, all 7 I tested and/or owned, or the 50 F/1.8 Mk I I owned for that matter. No focusing issues whatsoever - and I do a lot of low light stuff. I also had rather bad experiences with different 50 F/1.4s, unlike many others apparently.
Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301959905' post='7377']
BTW, the same is true with the 50 F/1.8 Mk II - for me it worked well, all 7 I tested and/or owned, or the 50 F/1.8 Mk I I owned for that matter. No focusing issues whatsoever - and I do a lot of low light stuff. I also had rather bad experiences with different 50 F/1.4s, unlike many others apparently.[/quote]
I had only 2 copies of the 50/1.8 II and one 50/1.4 but I feel exactly the same.
|
