03-31-2011, 08:30 AM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301528165' post='7241']
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
[/quote]
I would really like to get the L equivalents but for my use I cant justify the cost because I don't use them that often; I am primarily a bird photographer.
Anyway, I haven't had the lens for long so don't really have any fantastic shots to show but below is my eldest son taken wide open with the 85/1.8. Looking closely at the few pics I do have so far has made me realise that the lens has some mild front focussing issues. Perhaps yours did too? Not an issue nowadays as most bodies have MA.
![[Image: 5538233100_b194c03ea6_b.jpg]](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5538233100_b194c03ea6_b.jpg)
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
[/quote]
I would really like to get the L equivalents but for my use I cant justify the cost because I don't use them that often; I am primarily a bird photographer.
Anyway, I haven't had the lens for long so don't really have any fantastic shots to show but below is my eldest son taken wide open with the 85/1.8. Looking closely at the few pics I do have so far has made me realise that the lens has some mild front focussing issues. Perhaps yours did too? Not an issue nowadays as most bodies have MA.