[wim]

[quote name='Rainer' date='14 June 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1276549478' post='517']

I couldn't convince myself to invest in the 85L ... I rather use the 85/1.8 + the 135L (but that is on fullframe).

But it is really tempting...I rented a 85L twice and always found it hard to return it to the shop.



But you ask for better bokeh ...[color="#0000ff"] the 85L is not likely to outperform a 100macro (regardles which) in

terms of image sharpness over the frame[/color], but it will produce a nicer bokeh and blur in the conditions

you asked for (distances over 2 meters)

[/quote]

Not even at the same apertures? I don't agree with you here. I wasn''t convinced with the 100 macro, not when having 50L and 135L next to it and 85L. Granted, an 85L is not great for macro, moslty because it is so ciumbersome, but I do think it is sharper than the macro at the same apertures, certainly for non-macro type of shooting.



Kind regards, Wim

[Rainer]

[quote name='wim' date='14 June 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1276551071' post='519']

Not even at the same apertures? I don't agree with you here.

[/quote]



You're right, I should have emphasised that "over the frame" more.

In the center and at the same apertures the 85L has an edge over the

macros, but not so in the corners and at the borders.

This is shown in Klaus's testreports as well ... albeit it has more

impact on a fullframe camera.



But I think maximum sharpness isn't toni-a's point ... and both

(the 85L and the 100macros) are "sufficient" in this point (even the 85/1.8 is)

... but the bokeh of shots with distances of 2 - 8meters ... it is hard to

derive from that what focal length he needs, but from the list of possible

lenses he provided, 85 seems to match. And if it does, the 85L is a good, but

costly choice.

[toni-a]

Thanks guys for your input.

I think the only way I know what fits me best is to try those lenses.

I will start with the 85f1.8 and 70-200f2.8.

Maybe I am one of the rare portraits oriented photographer that incists to use crop cameras and this is giving me limitations lens wise.

If canon makes a decent 24-70f2.8 L IS or better a 28-90 f2.8 L IS then my problem is resolved....

[joachim]

[quote name='toni-a' date='14 June 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1276542447' post='512']

@ Joachin: Manual focus lenses are out of questions, even non USM lenses are already ruled out.

[/quote]



Why? In my experience AF is next to useless in a portrait situation (typically getting the tip of the nose and not the leading eye in focus). MF lenses are miles ahead when it comes to damping and steepness of the focus ring.



I wish someone came up with a good MF lens (integrated into the camera's electronic to e.g. show enlarged centre section when focusing) for µFT.

[Guest]

Portraits on a crop camera?



If you don't like the idea of the 85 1.8 and the 1.2 is too expensive I'd consider the Sigma 50 1.4; quite sharp centrally, good overall performance on crop, equiv to about 80mm focal length, and has autofocus.



If you can live without autofocus, I'd consider the Voigtlaender 58 mm .14; lovley lens, beautiful bokeh, a bit longer than the Sigma too so a better bet for portraits.





Even 100mm is too long for general purpose portaits, at least the way I do them (can't think when I last used 160mm on full frame)



Even 85mm (135 equiv) is something I use for almost special purposes; "fashioney" full body pictures with intentional feeling of distance, or head only shots.



So think seriously about 50s and 60s...

[Guest]

[quote name='joachim' date='15 June 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1276586391' post='530']

Why? In my experience AF is next to useless in a portrait situation (typically getting the tip of the nose and not the leading eye in focus). MF lenses are miles ahead when it comes to damping and steepness of the focus ring.



I wish someone came up with a good MF lens (integrated into the camera's electronic to e.g. show enlarged centre section when focusing) for µFT.

[/quote]



Toni, since you said your main uses are macro and portrait, you don't absolutely need AF. It depends on if you like to manual focus on your camera (or does it have a poor viewfinder?).



The Zeiss 85/1.4 and Voigtländer 58/1.4 produce fantastic portraits (the latter is perfect for crop cameras). Other than that I'd say the Canon 135L is the obvious next step up ... but it's very long on a crop camera. I use this lens a lot for portraits and it is really special - though it is also quite merciless because its so sharp across the frame. It's good to carry a panty-hose or soft filter around.



Personally, I would not orient myself around the 1.6 crop format, because it makes no sense for the future. When I have clients that want 35mm film, I just migrate all my lenses to my EOS 5, and there's nothing more to carry except an extra body. It's worth bearing in mind, because more demanding clients sometimes want you to shoot film for portraits.

[toni-a]

For portaits on the 50mm end I always have the 50f1.4 that is giving me total satisfaction, I know its limitations, I almost always use it at f2.8 absolutely no compplaints, also when backround is not very busy (blue sky for example) 17-55 is a wonderful performer, had it a good bokeh, this lens would be an absolute killer.

I need a replacement for the 100mm macro, if there's no better then I have no choice but to stay with it

f2.8 is just enough, that's why I find no reason to get the 85mm f1.2

[Guest]

[quote name='joachim' date='15 June 2010 - 09:19 AM' timestamp='1276586391' post='530']

Why? In my experience AF is next to useless in a portrait situation (typically getting the tip of the nose and not the leading eye in focus). MF lenses are miles ahead when it comes to damping and steepness of the focus ring.



I wish someone came up with a good MF lens (integrated into the camera's electronic to e.g. show enlarged centre section when focusing) for µFT.

[/quote]



Depends on how mobile your subject is and how skilled you are with MF. I had a child portrait session recently that there was no way I could have done with MF. Granted, I use f/2.8, so I have somewhat more leeway. AF accuracy is one thing that makes me drool at the 7D, though.



-Lars

[Guest]

[quote name='toni-a' date='15 June 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1276616622' post='540']

For portaits on the 50mm end I always have the 50f1.4 that is giving me total satisfaction, I know its limitations, I almost always use it at f2.8 absolutely no compplaints, also when backround is not very busy (blue sky for example) 17-55 is a wonderful performer, had it a good bokeh, this lens would be an absolute killer.

I need a replacement for the 100mm macro, if there's no better then I have no choice but to stay with it

f2.8 is just enough, that's why I find no reason to get the 85mm f1.2

[/quote]



So if it's 100 mm that you want, but want more bokeh, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the EF 100mm f2. It's a very sharp lens, has excellent bokeh, and of course being f2 will give a bit "more" boken (ie thinner DOF and therefore more subject isolation