I bought the 50mm 1.4 and was really disappointed with the speed in focusing. Is this lens faster?
838885
The primary purpose for me buying this lens is to take portraits. I'm using the lens with a D200 and haven't noticed any problems with focusing. However, because there is no vibration reduction like the zoom lenses, I have to hold my camera extremely steady to get a clear portrait with bokeh.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
838887
In my experience with the 85Mm f1.8 is that these lenses are not fast compared to others. This is a portrait lens, not a sports lens...
838888
I have not owned that lens so I can not tell you. I would say that the 85 can be occasionally slow to focus in comparison to my 50 1.8d.
2193894
I have no idea if it is as fast as the 35mm lenses, but the performance has been excellent. My husband and I got into bird feeding in the last couple of years, and with this lens I've been able to capture some amazing shots.
1078335
The 50mm 1.4 is great for indoor low-light portraiture, unless you are shooting groups of people -- you may not have enough space to step back. Lately I've been using the 85mm 1.8 more. The extra length does a better job of blurring the background at shorter distances, which helps isolate the subject further. Indoors it's great for tight crops of faces and outdoors I mostly use it for candid shots while street walking. One thing to keep in mind though, the longer focal range requires you to shoot at a relatively faster shutter speed, which makes it tougher to hand hold in dim light. I've considered upgrading to the 85mm 1.4, although that opens up a whole new can of worms... long story short, most feel the 1.8 is better bang for the buck, while the rest are convinced that the 1.4 is legendary. (For what it's worth, I'm using these lenses on a D90, APS-C)
2109067
I have the X-T1, so not exactly what you're looking for, but at these speeds, it's probably comparable. I had the 70-200 f4L with a 40D, but that was over 4 or 5 years ago so my recollection could be off. I'm going to say the Fuji 55-200mm is for sure slower than my 70-200 40D combo and the Fuji will hunt for focus under certain conditions. However, for practical purposes, during vacation, portraits etc... it's a comparable combo in my opinion.
1330640
The big difference is image size on your cameras sensor. With this lens you can get a one to one size reproduction. With your 50mm that image size is going to be much smaller and with less detail.
1801935
By slow I am sure they meant the aperture and not the speed of focusing. My lens focuses fast but in low light situations it can hunt a lot. There are few lenses except for the exotic lenses that are faster than F4.5 but at the long end (500mm) at F6.3 it may be problematic in evening or early morning shooting while trying to focus (depending on the camera and it's focusing limitations).
2248401
Not much point in waiting. The 42.5/1.7 is a smaller lens that is lighter and slower(smaller max aperture). The image quality is also higher on this 42.5/1.2. The premium for fast glass that is higher quality is quite large so if you're looking for the best quality, this lens is currently the top performer for M43. If you're asking about if it's worth the price to you, that's a personal decision you will have to make yourself.
189737
Lighter weight. Better image. Works in a lot less light. The 50 is very inexpensive. I use the 85mm 1.8 quite a bit. Great lens, older metal version or newer plastic one.
1580106
This lens is useful in many low light situations. it is like the 50mm 1.4G (only bigger, longer, heavier, sharper and a lot more expensive). Compared to the 50mm 1.4G, it also and requires more light due to the longer focal length. Is it suitable for museum or church or any indoor shoot? Yes. Is it worth the price? That depends. IMHO, 50mm can perform that just as well, except it does not that reach.
1796672
Hi Jorge, it's beautiful. I normally use the 50mm 1:1.2. I'm spoiled and prefer this over any zoom.
1028370
The focus speed will greatly depend on your camera body. I have a K20D and it's a bit on the slow side as focus speed goes. On a newer camera body it could be better but I don't know. Perhaps someone with this lens and a newer camera body will respond to your question.
735074
For starters, the 50mm 1.8 is all plastic. It just doesn't have the same quality feel.Secondly the size is very different. It feels like there isn't even a lens with the 40mm on.Most important is the speed and accuracy of auto focus. The 40 is L quality. It is silent and fast whereas the 50 is slow and loud. Image quality is near the same. Wide open the 40 is clearer, but the 50 is 1.8, so that makes a diffence. Hope this helps.
101689
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit? This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail
1346886
I don't know anything about the 85mm lens, but I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM. That lens was great for about the first 4 months. It took very crisp shots, performed well in low light, and gave beautiful bokeh. However, after 4 months, the USM motor started to not function properly, and my lens would no longer autofocus correctly. I just sent it back for repair under warranty. Hopefully they will be able to fix it permanently, but I have recently read many reviews that have noticed the same problem. Therefore, I would not recommend the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I wish I had bought the 50mm f/1.8 instead. I don't know anything about the 85mm lens, but I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM. That lens was great for about the first 4 months. It took very crisp shots, performed well in low light, and gave beautiful bokeh. However, after 4 months, the USM motor started to not function properly, and my lens would no longer autofocus correctly. I just sent it back for repair under warranty. Hopefully they will be able to fix it permanently, but I have recently read many reviews that have noticed the same problem. Therefore, I would not recommend the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I wish I had bought the 50mm f/1.8 instead.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
503709
I have only shot it with the 14-35 f/2 and it was VERTY fast to AF even in indoor conditions. It is much much faster than the E-M5 from what I hear. Maybe not as fast as the E-5 but the 14-35 was plenty fast for me. I can not comment on other lenses as I have not tried them, and probably will not be as A: I am not a fan of large lenses and B: I can not afford to buy them all to test them :)
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though