because i hate him for owning such a fine piece of glass and neglecting it … ill answer for him … he says “it has too many Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)”
but … graphs show almost invisible
plus he doesnt like how narrow the plane of focus is at F1.2
in other words … he is a picky bastard 
but much love for JIM
My 50 1.4 is awesome. I wish it was AF.
Why didn’t you just buy the 18-200 IS lens? Cause it’s not USM?
Nope, because the 28-135mm was only $220 and I don’t want ef-s lenses cuz I’ll just have to sell them when I go FF
The 85 1.2 is also VERY slow to autofocus.
yep, I still want one
That’s only relevant to quick action shots anyways. Tripod still car pictures would come out just the same as they would if it was focusing in half of the time… the car isn’t going anywhere haha.
Gotcha.
Good point.
Just trying to think ahead, I like to do that sometimes :number1
:lol
Depends on what you’re shooting then. If it’s a moving car, forget about it and use an 85 f/1.8.
True, but the only moving shots I think I’ve seen him do are the rig shots
Charts are fine but my real world experience show that at f/2 to f/1.2 CA is an issue. Nick is right, it is very slow to AF too. Its a great lens but its kind of the bastard child of focal lengths for me. I’d rather use my 135 f/2L which can focus closer and faster and is much lighter to carry around. Maybe one of these days Ill give the 85 another shot. I mostly shoot with primes now anyway, very seldom do I use my 24-70 and rig shots are done with the 17-40.
I have been doing a lot of reading on this and looking for the same thing. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 , Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 are nice as well for a lens at a decent price. If you look on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php they have a lot of nice samples with a ton of lenses. I was amazed at the quality of shots taken with the Tamron 17-50 as well as the others. Some people like the 28-135 but the newer 18-135 is actually better image quality wise.
While I am not an expert, and I’m really only just now starting to read about all the differences in lenses etc to better understand whats a good lens, whats not… Up until this point, 5-6 years ago I was using an 35MM SLR with glass my dad gave me from when he did photography, never really tried or cared to understand everything on a technical level.
Stick with the body you have now, invest in glass, it won’t lose its value like a body does and will be there for your next body. Getting a good lens on the body you have now is going to be better then giving it all up for a really bad ass camera body.
It’s going to be sometime before you outgrow what that body has to offer. I know I sound like a jackass as I am now only getting into all this again, but just repeating some advice some others gave me that makes perfect sense, good equipment doesnt neceisarilly mean good photographs, i have heard some say they learned this the hard way :lol. Only reason I picked up a D90 is because the wife bitched about me using her D5100 and I got the D90 for the price I paid for her 5100. Plus, I like that all the knobbies are right there and i don’t have to drill down through menus to change shit and the fact that it can use older AF lenses that the D5100 can’t use.
Get a prime lens or two, they tend to be sharper and offer faster speeds as others have said. Plus you don’t have some issues like barell distortions etc at some focal length which zooms tend to have an issue with.
Really wanted all these bad ass zoom lenses when i first started looking at finally buying a DSLR a year or two ago and realized that regardless of what your doing it can mostly all be done with only a couple good lenses, unless you do some specialty stuff. I’d get a couple good quality primes and a do it all zoom lens for everything in between for now. I know both cannon and Nikon and others like sigma tamron etc make this type of lens for both makers but an 18-200MM zoom lens. I know on the nikon side from what ive read its an extremely sharp lens and offers a ton of flexability, its just expsensive at around $1000
I’d honestly get a 35 or 50MM 1.4 or get the 1.8 to save some money. Would be a nice fast and sharp lens that can pretty much serve all your purposes providing you dont have a need to be 50 feet away from the subject your shooting, or unless you do a lot of distance close up photography of shit like birds and whanot as an example. Then use the rest and get the 85 like Nick mentioned, and save up and get the 200 F/2 which is a fucking awesome lens, just really really expsnesive :rofl Me and dan were just pming about stuff like this. I just wasnt sure what to get next, luckily he confirmed what i was looking at.
Anyways, I know i typed a lot, and I know im hardly credible compared to jim/dan and a few others, but its what I’ve already learned, some of what i actually do know and some advice i’ve gotten from people whom i trust and have been doing this for awhile like my uncle.
^^ Really wasnt trying to sound like I think I know it all either, i know it might have come across like that. Though I do think most would agree to invest in glass for now and upgrade your body after.