Switch to D700

[boyfalldown]

I agree and that's personally why I like them, but the difference between 2.8 and 1.4 is 1.5cm DOF on an 85mm lens at 4m from the subject.

its not, its 19cm which doesn't sounds a lot but its more than double at 2.8 as opposed to 1.4
on a FX sensor,

 

[treeman]

its not, its 19cm which doesn't sounds a lot but its more than double on a FX sensor,

OOps yes you're quite right, reading my scales wrong. I said I need more coffee :bonk:

 

[Radiohead]

rock concerts when wide open and high iso still make hand holding very difficult,besdides being pushed as well.

But what settings does that mean?

For instance, for a church ceremony in candlelight in winter I can need ISO10,000 & f1.6 to get 1/100s with a 50mm f1.4. So that's my definition of extreme.

Last Saturday I was at ISO6400 at f1.8 with the 85/1.4 for the speeches to get 1/100s. And it's considerably poorer in those lighting conditions than the 50mm f1.4 G (the 50mm f1.4 AF-D behaved the same as the 85/1.4 does now). Again, it's the focus accuracy under that sort of lighting that I need. And as fantastic as the 85/1.4 is, there are clearly areas where it's left wanting for the shooting I do.

 

[Radiohead]

So you're talking speed rather DOF, So wouldn't the better ISO performance allow that extra speed, that I believe Canon don't have?

No - see my post above. If I'm at 6400 with an f1.4 close to wipe open an f2.8 won't cut it regardless. I'll shoot the lowest ISO I can, always.

I'm an available light photographer.

 

[desantnik]

I've only seen the results of a 85mm f1.8 and from my colleagues comments of trying to shoot with it in a dynamic portraiture environment (ie not a posed subject) the DOF at f1.8 is so damned narrow nailing the focus is really, really hard. (and I have no doubt in his skill whatsoever)

Great when it works but...

So yes, I can see exactly what Radiohead means, you don't need random rubbishness creeping into something which is already tough enough.