How does this stack up against the canon 85mm 1.8? Both are in the same price range curious about bokah and sharpness
579920
Image quality should not be a deciding factor between these two lenses. They are both pretty sharp wide open and very sharp beyond f/2.8. I think the Rokinon has more CA wide open (magenta or purple fringing), but still not bad. The bokeh is fantastic on both. You have to ask yourself whether you want this lens primarily for video or stills. For stills the Canon is a much better choice, it is lightweight with quiet, fast and accurate autofocus (it is about as good as it gets). The Rokinon is manual-focus only. For DSLR video you will need to focus manually and this is where the Rokinon is a better choice. Manual focusing is fairly difficult with the Canon, especially at wider apertures where even slightly touching the focus ring can throw the subject (such as eyes) completely out of focus.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
579922
I have found for video these rokinons cannot be topped! They have an amazing cinema look and even next to the Carl Zeiss cp2 lenses...they look very close in look. A little less range on ur focus but i actually think the rokinon had more depth. It is a long focal range so if ur shooting close, get the 35 or 24 mm cine lense. Be sure it has the declicked apeture!
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
433202
I got the 40mm Micro lens over the 35mm and I am really happy with the purchase. It cost about $80 more but it does more. That being said, I have the 35mm on the wish list even though it will be horribly redundant. The 40mm Micro has so drawbacks but it does get you in close. I don't know how the 35mm could be sharper but lots of reviews comparing the two indicate it can be depending on subject matter. This is probably a topic people make themselves crazy with so I will probably buy some peace for $200 by getting the 35mm lens sooner than later.
86637
Depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 85. The 85 1.4 has much more versatility for portraits and can create amazing blur beyond what the 1.8 can. It also allows for a faster shutter when shooting portraits of young kids(which helps with movement). Lastly, it is an amazing macro lens, but unless you are really into that, the 1.8 is sufficient in my humble opinion
1183535
I used the Canon 85L for many weddings as a rental and when I bought the Sigma I never missed the Canon. Not once. The Sigma makes the same "magical" looking photos for half the cost and it focuses twice as fast. I did not miss the 1/3 stop between 1.2 and 1.4.
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
2065294
Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
352996
85mm is amazing lens, crisp images. Great for portrait shoots. The problem is it is a manual focus lens. It takes time to get good using it but its worth the price.
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
155654
I'm 50/50 on it. There are a lot of plusses for the 35 (1.3 stops faster, shallower DOF, phase detect autofocus points on the entire frame, image stabilization), but one big negative (twice the price). It's also less sharp, but it's not soft by a long shot. If you shoot in very low light, fast subjects, or video, the 35 is the better choice. Otherwise, the 30 is an excellent deal.
597329
Sounds good! I'm buying my first digital camera for my daughter and her family. I've locked in on the t1i and 15-85. I really like my 24-105 lens and think that the 15-85 should be a great match for the camera.
1125760
No, its not "THE" best, but it is one of the best. It is a sharp, quick lens, quite good for low lighting or for a fabulous bokeh. It should be part of your arsenal for sure; I know its part of mine. Cheers
869669
This is a noisy lens and though you may think the focal length is good, the sharpness is not. If you want a good walk around lens, the Canon 15-85mm is just that, a great walk around lens and silent with IS & HSM.
1658027
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
735066
I have both lenses. Are different lenses for different uses. With the 50mm 1.8 you can get a great bokeh to 1.8. (In my opinion the great problem for this lens is the quality of imagen is not good in the edges at 1.8). The 50 mm 1.8 is perfect for begins in the bokeh. Personally, I bought the 40mm 2.8, because is the smallest lens in the market. I can carry my camera with this lens every where. This lens (40mm) has a great quality of imagen from 2.8 to 22. If you look for a lens for portrait, buy 50 mm. If you look for a compact lens with excelent quality, I recomend 40mm.