Prime lens for Canon 70D

I think your nit picking now haha. I never notice it and it can be removed with editing anyway if it is a problem? Could you hire some lenses for couple days to try them if your really unsure?
 
Well, it's not really me. I am looking through the pictures people give as examples of their shots with 85 1.8 and purple fringing is quite strong....especially on trees in portrait shots. They say, even when edited it doesnt look right. And to be honest, I prefer to spend minimum time in post-production after investing heavily into the equipment. hence my hesitation and frustration.
 
Isokl said:
Well, it's not really me. I am looking through the pictures people give as examples of their shots with 85 1.8 and purple fringing is quite strong....especially on trees in portrait shots. They say, even when edited it doesnt look right. And to be honest, I prefer to spend minimum time in post-production after investing heavily into the equipment. hence my hesitation and frustration.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all fast primes suffer from CA. The Canon 85mm isn't any worse than the others, and it can be dialled out in Lightroom at the press of a button anyway!
 
You say your be going FF in the near future, and your after a prime lens for portraits.

I would recommend you take a closer look at the Lord of the red rings...... Canon 135mm f2 you won't be disappointed.
 
Isokl said:
Thanks Adam, I plan to do so as soon as it stops raining :)

The more I read about these lenses, the more frustrated I get. I sort of made up my mind on 85 1.8 as the second option (on top of 24 or 35) but now I read a lot of users complaint about very strong cromatic abberation with this lens, up to 2.8.... can anyone comment about their personal experience with this lens? As I planned t shoot x-mas markets and lights at night, I dont want every light I shoot have a purple fringing. Or is it just nitpicking?
Click to expand...

I think you'll get at least some CA with many if not all lenses at wide apertures like f1.4 and f1.8 and often things don't clean up until you're past f2, maybe at f2.8.

If you have the funds the Sigma ART primes seem to be getting very good reviews. I found their pre ART range 85mm f1.4 to be outstanding also their 50mm f1.4.
 
Last edited:
Isokl said:
I must have not expressed myself correctly, I will definitely go for a full frame camera..
Click to expand...

If it's sharper images you're wanting, full-frame is the way to go. It will give an immediate sharpness boost across the board. Also, whatever lenses you buy now will behave very differently on a FF camera, so you'd have to start again.

If you are sure about going FF, then get the camera first and build around that. Don't wait for a 5D4, get a used 5D2 now. Better and cheaper in the long run.
 
Are things that cut and dried?

A FF image will be magnified less and should therefore have an advantage but balanced against that not all FF lenses are top of the line, some are older designs and perhaps less good whilst some lenses specifically designed for smaller systems are newer designs and perform very well.

There's also the question of final image size and viewing, will the expected FF sharpness advantage translate into a real world noticable difference at the print/image size?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Are things that cut and dried?

A FF image will be magnified less and should therefore have an advantage but balanced against that not all FF lenses are top of the line, some are older designs and perhaps less good whilst some lenses specifically designed for smaller systems are newer designs and perform very well.

There's also the question of final image size and viewing, will the expected FF sharpness advantage translate into a real world noticable difference at the print/image size?
Click to expand...

Yes. Of all the various pros and cons of FF vs APS-C, the question of better image quality (sharpness, dynamic range, noise) is not in doubt. Even an average lens on FF will beat the best on smaller formats.

The OP seems to have already decided to go FF. I'm just saying to do that first, because it'll make the most difference and save a lot of chopping and changing later on.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes. Of all the various pros and cons of FF vs APS-C, the question of better image quality (sharpness, dynamic range, noise) is not in doubt. Even an average lens on FF will beat the best on smaller formats.

The OP seems to have already decided to go FF. I'm just saying to do that first, because it'll make the most difference and save a lot of chopping and changing later on.
Click to expand...

I've no doubt that the best FF camera with the best lens will be capable of better image quality than the best APS-C with the best APS-C lens.

In the spirit of helping the OP to make an informed choice I just thought it was worth raising the issue of lens quality, you obviously have to choose carefully as there are some relative dogs you can mount on your 5D and some relative stars that you can mount on a 70D. Choosing rightly or wrongly could tip the balance.

I personally think it's also a good idea to be realistic about what size images you are going to produce and in what medium. For example many people display and share their images in electronic form, maybe 2000 pixels wide. Do that and the differences between systems may be a lot harder to detect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top