[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1301386343' post='7200']
I just got the 85/1.8 and am delighted with it apart from the amount of CA, which thankfully cleans up nicely in CS5 automatically. What did you find bad about it? My copy is very sharp wide open, AF is very quick.[/quote]
You must eb very lucky in that case.
My first one was decentered badly, the second had very bad vignetting, the third one was kinda ok, but PF was rather bad, and CA was there till F/2.8 - F/4 or worse, depending on the lighting conditions. And I really found it not very great wide open or close to wide open. Needed to stop down to F/2.2 to F/2.5 at least for acceptable results.
I had a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8 Mk I and 85 F/1.8 setup for low light photography, originally. The 85 was by far the worst of this little setup. The 50 Mk I was good, the 28 was very good.
Replaced them all with L-versions eventually (well, 28 with 24L), so no looking back anyway. In tests it is often said that the 85 F/1.8 is close to the 85L in performance, IQ-wise, but that certainly isn't my experience. Not even close.
28-50-85 in F/1.8 is a great combo for low light, for sure. I was fortunate enough I could replace them with Ls however, which are distinctly better, certainly for my shooting styles.
Kind regards, Wim
I just got the 85/1.8 and am delighted with it apart from the amount of CA, which thankfully cleans up nicely in CS5 automatically. What did you find bad about it? My copy is very sharp wide open, AF is very quick.[/quote]
You must eb very lucky in that case.
My first one was decentered badly, the second had very bad vignetting, the third one was kinda ok, but PF was rather bad, and CA was there till F/2.8 - F/4 or worse, depending on the lighting conditions. And I really found it not very great wide open or close to wide open. Needed to stop down to F/2.2 to F/2.5 at least for acceptable results.
I had a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8 Mk I and 85 F/1.8 setup for low light photography, originally. The 85 was by far the worst of this little setup. The 50 Mk I was good, the 28 was very good.
Replaced them all with L-versions eventually (well, 28 with 24L), so no looking back anyway. In tests it is often said that the 85 F/1.8 is close to the 85L in performance, IQ-wise, but that certainly isn't my experience. Not even close.
Quote:To the OP, I chose the 85 as wanted the extra speed over the extra reach (its not much either way I know). I also wanted to stay at 1.8 as I have a 28/1.8 and 50/1.8. Maybe some day I might come across the 200/1.8 :-D
Allan
28-50-85 in F/1.8 is a great combo for low light, for sure. I was fortunate enough I could replace them with Ls however, which are distinctly better, certainly for my shooting styles.
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 ....
