06-14-2010, 09:27 PM
[quote name='toni-a' date='14 June 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1276548786' post='516']
this lens is surely tempting, but for my needs its f1.8 sister is enough, did you own this lens ? does it outperform the 100 macro ??
[/quote]
No, the 85 F/1.8 doesn't. This, having owned three 85 F/1.8s, and the non-L 100 Macro (and tested the 100L Macro).
The bokeh of the L Macro is supposed to be quite a bit better, but to me it is too long for portraiture on APS-C unless there is plenty of space, and the testing that I did, didn't convince me either of its increase in IQ over the non-L macro, or supposedly clearly better bokeh either. Did you consider the 50L BTW? That would be a short tele on crop à la 85L on FF.
As I mentioned, I owned the 85 F/1.8, which I sold several months after acquiring an 85L II. It didn't get ant=y camera tiem anymore. I think the 85L II is great on APS-C, BTW, but a little long for standard portraits. Great for candid ones however.
Considering macro: after acquiring the 135L, already having the 50L, and a bunch of extension tubes, I actually sold both the 100 Macro and the 70-200 F/4L IS, basically because I found that for my purposes even for macro use the rendering of 50L and 135L with extension tubes easily beat the 100 macro, and the 100L Macro when I tested it, and the 70-200 just was not ll that good close to MFD (it is (too) soft close to MFD). The 135L with extender beats it easily.
The 50L and 135L both have something in common that not every lens has, that actually few lenses have, namely excellent fore- and background bokeh. F.e., the 85L mostly has excellent background bokeh, but certainly is less good with regard to the foreground in this respect. IMO, this is the main reason why 50L and 135L have more "pop" than most lenses.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
this lens is surely tempting, but for my needs its f1.8 sister is enough, did you own this lens ? does it outperform the 100 macro ??
[/quote]
No, the 85 F/1.8 doesn't. This, having owned three 85 F/1.8s, and the non-L 100 Macro (and tested the 100L Macro).
The bokeh of the L Macro is supposed to be quite a bit better, but to me it is too long for portraiture on APS-C unless there is plenty of space, and the testing that I did, didn't convince me either of its increase in IQ over the non-L macro, or supposedly clearly better bokeh either. Did you consider the 50L BTW? That would be a short tele on crop à la 85L on FF.
As I mentioned, I owned the 85 F/1.8, which I sold several months after acquiring an 85L II. It didn't get ant=y camera tiem anymore. I think the 85L II is great on APS-C, BTW, but a little long for standard portraits. Great for candid ones however.
Considering macro: after acquiring the 135L, already having the 50L, and a bunch of extension tubes, I actually sold both the 100 Macro and the 70-200 F/4L IS, basically because I found that for my purposes even for macro use the rendering of 50L and 135L with extension tubes easily beat the 100 macro, and the 100L Macro when I tested it, and the 70-200 just was not ll that good close to MFD (it is (too) soft close to MFD). The 135L with extender beats it easily.
The 50L and 135L both have something in common that not every lens has, that actually few lenses have, namely excellent fore- and background bokeh. F.e., the 85L mostly has excellent background bokeh, but certainly is less good with regard to the foreground in this respect. IMO, this is the main reason why 50L and 135L have more "pop" than most lenses.
HTH, 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 ....
