# Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.



## metacove (Apr 8, 2014)

I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my collection and I've narrowed it down to the upcoming Sigma 50mm Art or the Canon 135 f2L. I realize these are for very different purposes. 

I currently have a nice arsenal of lenses and mostly do portrait photography as a hobby (35 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4).

I really enjoy portrait photography. I'm torn between the versatility of an extremely sharp 50mm vs a magical 135mm f2L portrait lens.

Can anyone offer any advice to help me seal the deal ?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 8, 2014)

You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II


----------



## metacove (Apr 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II



I think my wallet forgot it ;-) I'm going to be in the $1100 range on this. 

I also forgot to mention I'm shooting on a 6d.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II



Last night I dreamt of discovering I owned an 85L. It was pretty sweet until I woke up :'(



metacove said:


> Can anyone offer any advice to help me seal the deal ?



Just got the 135L and love it already. If you have a crop sensor camera, you should probably avoid the 135mm.
In any case, shouldn't you wait until the lens is announced (along with the price)?

Envy you for the 35L by the way, it is a sweet focal length/aperture combination.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 8, 2014)

If money is no obstacle, buy 135mm L now, and at the end of the year to buy Sigma 50mm Art with discounted price.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 8, 2014)

If the Sigma lives up to the hype, I'd go with that after the prices settle a bit, but it comes down to which you would use more.

The question then becomes how much will you use the 24-70 if you have 35/50/85 primes. If you prefer using the primes over the zoom, then you might be able to sell the zoom and acquire the 135L.


----------



## drolo61 (Apr 8, 2014)

If you can rent the 135 prior to buying, do so - but make sure that you can deduct the retal cost if you decide to buy (within a reasonable period of time, I guess). I bet, if you rent it out on Friday for the weekend, you end up (at least wanting) to buy(ing) the next following work day. It is "just" soooo nice...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 8, 2014)

In my opinion, since you have a 35mm and an 85mm but no primes longer than that. I would wait on the 50mm. Realistically is there anything that you would like to shoot at 50mm that simply would not work on the 35/85?

Eventually, you might want to fill your prime kit with something between 35 and 85, but I would not put that high on the list.

A 35-85-135 is a pretty good spread of glass.


----------



## surapon (Apr 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II



yes, Plus 1 for me too, Dear friend Dylan777.
But, I do not have the " ART" of Sigma yet, Just old Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4
I Agree with you, I use my dear EF 85 MM F/ 1.2 L MK II for all Portraits and Wedding Photography---And 50 mm, Plus 135 mm are sit on the shelf most of the time , Yes, I use 24-70 F/ 2.8 L and 70-200 f/ 2.8 L IS. with me all the time too.
Have a great work week, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 8, 2014)

In my own personal experience, I skipped out on the 50mm lens as it just wasn't an interesting enough focal length, and even more so, I felt like I could use my 35mm or 85mm to get a similar (but obviously not completely the same) shot. I'd rather keep one lens mounted than keep switching back and forth between the 35/85 and a 50. My opinion is get the 135. It's almost like a slightly longer focal length version of the 85L, and that's a truly special lens. I know some people who actually prefer it to the 85L. 

Either way, I think you've got an outstanding lens you're adding to your lineup soon


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 8, 2014)

For my $, you already have the 50mm range covered with the 24-70 f/2.8 and even the 35 f/1.4. But the 70-200 f/4 leaves you with a slower medium telephoto. So I would go with the 135 f/2L. I have had mine for nearly as long as it has existed and would not give it up. 

As you can see in my signature, I have the Canon prime trinity of 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L II and 135 f/2L. I replaced my 85 f/1.8 with the L series only in the last couple of years, so can speak about having used that 1.8 lens with the 35 and 135 Ls for nearly a decade. I can almost always cover any shoot with those three lenses. 

I had the original 70-200 f/4 non-IS for a while when it first came out, but I found it was often too slow for the more active shooting I do. I always prefered the 135L when I could get away with that focal length. 

Even now that I also cover that range with the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 duo, I more often use the primes in most non-sports situations. 

That's a disjointed way of saying go for the 135L now. You won't regret it, even on APS-C. It makes a great ~189mm focal length equivalent and the f/2 keeps the shutter speeds up without jacking the ISO.


----------



## captainkanji (Apr 8, 2014)

I just got the 135 used, but haven't had a chance to get out much with it. The few photos I got are pretty nice, but I had to do a bit of focus adjustment in the menu. I love the 50mm focal length, but I have the 50 1.4. It's kinda meh wider than 2.8. I will probably get the Sigma if it lives up to the hype. I think you would probably get more use out of the 50. It's perfect on the 6D. From what I've seen so far, the 135 has a special quality that I love, I just won't get as much use out of that focal length.


----------



## helpful (Apr 8, 2014)

If I could only choose one lens to do photography with, it would most likely be a 50mm f/1.4, and ideally the upcoming 50mm f/1.4 ART.

However, the truth is I am blessed to be able to choose any lenses I want to. And the fact is that I have used the current Canon 50mm f/1.4 almost never in the past three years, despite shooting half a million photos each year of a wide range of subject matter. There is simply something more effective for almost every niche and specific photographic circumstance than the 50mm.

When I look at the lens lineup that you have right now, I believe that the 135mm f/2L will add much more photographic power to you than would the purchase of a 50mm f/1.4, even the ART. So the 135mm f/2L is my strong recommendation to you, especially given your penchant for portraits.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II
> ...



I had a dream like that once... it wasn't a 85L... but it was a 5D mkiii... I was soooo happy. It was such a great surprise... and then I realized it was a dream... and I didn't care... I was going to embrace the fantasy... then I woke up... kinda happy still and finally disappointed.

As for the 50 v. the 135L... I'd wait until you hear about the bokeh. From other 50's... I have come to the impression that @ that focal length, it is balance between bokeh and sharpness... and with the Sigma being so sharp... it might... might have a pleasing magic bokeh... But I know the 135L DOES have a magic bokeh... so if I were to suggest going with one over the other at this exact moment... I'd lean 135L... which I did own... but not for nearly that long.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

helpful said:


> If I could only choose one lens to do photography with, it would most likely be a 50mm f/1.4, and ideally the upcoming 50mm f/1.4 ART.
> 
> However, the truth is I am blessed to be able to choose any lenses I want to. And the fact is that I have used the current Canon 50mm f/1.4 almost never in the past three years, despite shooting half a million photos each year of a wide range of subject matter. There is simply something more effective for almost every niche and specific photographic circumstance than the 50mm.
> 
> When I look at the lens lineup that you have right now, I believe that the 135mm f/2L will add much more photographic power to you than would the purchase of a 50mm f/1.4, even the ART. So the 135mm f/2L is my strong recommendation to you, especially given your penchant for portraits.



In fairness to the 50mm focal length... the current canon 50mm f/1.4 isn't good wide open... and I used to shoot it only at f/2.8 and the like... so at that range and that aperture... it is boring. The bokeh is ok... but it isn't as good as the 50L (per Dylan). So we all know that canon 50 f/1.4 isn't SPECIAL (though it could be special to some), but that really shouldn't completely eliminate all 50's thereafter.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If money is no obstacle, buy 135mm L now, and at the end of the year to buy Sigma 50mm Art with discounted price.



Agreed... but if you buy it used, you might not lose any money. I bought it for $650ish... and sold it $840ish... That is obviously atypical... but if you buy it for $850... you can probably sell it for $850.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If money is no obstacle, buy 135mm L now, and at the end of the year to buy Sigma 50mm Art with discounted price.
> ...



JD, you live in some parallel universe (read: you are incredibly resourceful with second hand lens buying and selling).
Wish I had your skills in getting me a 35L...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I had a chance to buy a 35L for $900... but the new 35 art just came out and I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I regret that one... Then last December I had a chance at a 35 art for $700... and I didn't pull the trigger. There's something about the 35's that just cause me waffle.


----------



## metacove (Apr 9, 2014)

Thank you all so much for your input. What an incredibly helpful community.

I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.

Someone mentioned that I didn't really have a lens in the telephoto department and I feel like this will add to my capabilities. It was an agonizing decision as I feel both lenses are amazing.

I'm really looking forward to playing with the 135L this weekend in the spring weather.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 9, 2014)

metacove said:


> Thank you all so much for your input. What an incredibly helpful community.
> 
> I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.
> 
> ...



You'll love it. Cheers!


----------



## gshocked (Apr 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> metacove said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you all so much for your input. What an incredibly helpful community.
> ...



+1 it's a great lens!


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2014)

gshocked said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > metacove said:
> ...



yep it's fantastic and I love mine too


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

I've had my Canon 50mm f/1.4 for nearly as long as I've had EOS cameras...19 or 20 years. The only lens I've had longer is the original 50mm f/1.8 mk I with the metal mount. I loved it(the 1.4)...until I didn't. And that was starting about with the 40D. It was still good on the 5Dc, though mine probably suffered from the lack of AFMA on early digital bodies. Now I mainly use it for detail shots and street shooting from f/4-f/8. It still shines in that mode. But I love the focal length for composition and really want a great 50 1.4. I never liked the focus shift on Canon's 50 L, so that lens is not on my list. 

Hoping the 50 Art is as good as anticipated and as good as the 35 Art that I already have.


----------



## pwp (Apr 9, 2014)

Seeing as you're shooting FF, I'd recommend the 135mm over the 50mm. As other posters have said, you've got the short end really well covered. Maybe you don't need any new glass. Spend the money on a holiday.

FWIW, I had a nice sharp copy of the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 and also a very sharp 135 f/2. You know what? I sold them both because of lack of use. The stellar 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8isII are my go-to workhorses and boy do they deliver. These two lenses and their previous incarnations have been the foundations of my business since last century. They've fed us, schooled my kids, built our studio/residence, put the cars in the garage, delivered creative and personal wins and made lots of clients very happy. 

For the way I work, the sheer quality of today's zooms make primes below 300mm an inconvenient irrelevance.

-pw


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

50mm 1.4 < 135L 2.0 for most portraits.

50mm > 135L for everything else.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 50mm 1.4 < 135L 2.0 for most portraits.
> 
> 50mm > 135L for everything else.



I'd say the 135L is better for indoor sports photography... and you could definitely get some quality images outdoors as well... but I guess we can see how the AF system holds up. 

Actually for outdoor sports... I wouldn't want to get too close and the 50 would be too close for comfort... so... but that is a small segment of your argument... and I agree... mostly... except for the canon 50's which I don't care for wide open... well... not the L... but I haven't used that one.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 50mm 1.4 < 135L 2.0 for most portraits.
> ...



I was replying to the OP about portraiture.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...




http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20409.msg385645#msg385645
If you don't get it this time you will know you really didn't want it


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II
> ...



Start with a simple dream, work hard & save up and get to it 

Look at my signature, you can see I have tried this method many times. It works ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 9, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Good advice 
However this was literally a dream, and quite unexpected since the 85L is not really on my list of priorities.
The sweetness came purely from the feeling of acquiring new gear


----------



## chromophore (Apr 9, 2014)

There are so many different kinds of portraiture that it's hard to say which of the two lenses would serve you better. I know you've already ordered the 135/2L and I'm sure you'll be thrilled with it. And the Sigma 50/1.4 Art isn't for sale yet.

The 135/2L is a fantastic lens. It's got very even, smooth bokeh, with excellent sharpness and contrast throughout most of the frame. It's also fast to focus. I would say its only disadvantage is that it tends to be passed up because there are other, more popular and versatile lenses in that range (for example, the popular 70-200/2.8L IS II) which photographers tend to choose first, and then they find less value in the 135/2L.

I would disagree that there's less of a need for you to have a fast 50mm lens. Personally, I shoot with the 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II, and I frequently find myself wanting a focal length in between. The only reason why I don't actually have a fast 50mm is because, until now, no one has made one that satisfied my criteria for price, optical performance, autofocus, and durability. I'd like to go with Canon but their offerings are appalling in this area--the 50/1.2L is optically inferior for the asking price; the 50/1.4 and 1.8 have a reputation for being fragile/cheap. That's why the Sigma lens is making such headlines--it promises to do something that Canon and Nikon have completely neglected, at a fraction of the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4's astronomical price.

But back to your situation: I think you'll be very happy with the 135/2L, and between the two lenses, it's probably the more suitable choice for you. But like me, I think you'll also want to take the Sigma for a spin when it does come out. I am tired of Canon making overpriced, low-quality designs (or ridiculously expensive super-telephotos). Their current idea of updating a lens seems to be to slap IS on it and raise the price by 50%. They haven't released any new designs faster than f/2 in ages.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 9, 2014)

metacove said:


> I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my collection and I've narrowed it down to the upcoming Sigma 50mm Art or the Canon 135 f2L. I realize these are for very different purposes.
> 
> I currently have a nice arsenal of lenses and mostly do portrait photography as a hobby (35 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4).
> 
> ...



The two focal lengths are for different purposes. Where do you do most of your portrait photography? Is it mostly head and shoulders, or is it bust, or full body portraiture?


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I'd rather have it new for 700 than 679 as a refurb... so no.... again.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Lol, makes sense. And knowing you, you'll surely get it. Cheers!


----------



## candyman (Apr 9, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II
> ...



These are dangerous photos for those of us that suffer from G.A.S 

@OP I use the 135 for portrait and indoorsports


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 9, 2014)

candyman said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



+1.
I hardly use the 85mm FL and have no particular need for a designated portrait lens, but that front element looks sexy! (Although, reportedly it isn't very ergonomic)


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 9, 2014)

I am very bias here. I have a 135 and a canon 50 1.4. I love love love my 135. Special things happen with this lens. I am usually upset when the crop I am looking for doesn't fit with the 135 and I have to use a boring old 50 haha. Good choice.


----------



## deleteme (Apr 9, 2014)

metacove said:


> I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my collection and I've narrowed it down to the upcoming Sigma 50mm Art or the Canon 135 f2L. I realize these are for very different purposes.
> 
> I currently have a nice arsenal of lenses and mostly do portrait photography as a hobby (35 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4).
> 
> ...



The torrent of responses probably means you have some very good advice already.
My feeling is that 50 mm is covered very well by your 24-70 and the only advantage is the speed and additional increment of sharpness that would go unnoticed in most, if not all, applications.

If you like portraiture the 50 would not be my choice. To get good framing one has to be so close the facial features are distorted or one cannot get far enough back to make a satisfactory environmental portrait.
I think the real driver of interest in this lens is its other-worldly sharpness which is fine but IME not something that the viewer of a print will be aware of or appreciate.
I cannot comment on the value of pleasure at pixel peeping the files but I would be honest about it as it is a solitary pleasure.

The 135 would , IMO, be the answer but I would rent both to see what rings your bell.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 9, 2014)

metacove said:


> I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.


Congratulations ... may it serve you well.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> metacove said:
> 
> 
> > I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.
> ...



Agreed!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



First photo is 85L II @ f1.6, something that 135L can't match  135L would be my 2nd choice for portrait on Canon gear.

I recently shoot quite a bit with my A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm(second photo). This camera has "eye-detection" feature, therefore, composing the shot is very easy. I think we all know how fun it is to compose the shot with big aperture lenses ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> First photo is 85L II @ f1.6, something that 135L can't match  135L would be my 2nd choice for portrait on Canon gear.
> 
> I recently shoot quite a bit with my A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm(second photo). This camera has "eye-detection" feature, therefore, composing the shot is very easy. I think we all know how fun it is to compose the shot with big aperture lenses ;D



I need to find someone to sell me the 85L for $1500. I'm jealous.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> First photo is 85L II @ f1.6, something that 135L can't match  135L would be my 2nd choice for portrait on Canon gear.



Totally agree with the fact that 85L is THE portrait lens. It's just something I want, but don't particularly need (looking at my most-used FL histograms, at least). 
By the way, when you say 'eye detection' does it mean it detects the subject's eye, or is it eye-controlled focus like the Elan 7NE/EOS 3?


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Apr 10, 2014)

You could always sell the 85mm with its terrible CA and pick up a 100mm f/2. Then pick up the 50mm ART. You didn't mention which body you have, but the 100mm f/2 gets the same dxo overall score on a 6D and 5D MKIII as the 135mm albeit a shorter focal length.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 10, 2014)

Gooniesneversaydie11 said:


> You could always sell the 85mm with its terrible CA and pick up a 100mm f/2. Then pick up the 50mm ART. You didn't mention which body you have, but the 100mm f/2 gets the same dxo overall score on a 6D and 5D MKIII as the 135mm albeit a shorter focal length.



I must be blind to the purple and green fringing on the 85mm... I swear in the year and change that I owned it... I didn't see many... if any examples of CA. So weird. And I know when and where it shows up... and I used it in a ton of different settings...


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > First photo is 85L II @ f1.6, something that 135L can't match  135L would be my 2nd choice for portrait on Canon gear.
> ...



To be exact, this feature calls "Eye AF", in "Custom Key Setting". You need to assign this "Eye AF" to one of the button on your camera. In my case, I assigned to Center Button. 

Camera will focus on subject eye, by pressing down Center Button( in my case). By the way, the eye AF is VERY-VERY accurate. Even at wide open aperture.

Check this video @ :55 Sony A7, A7R Eye-AF Test


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I have no clue what I'm looking at. Was he focusing on his computer screen? Why not do something in 3 dimensions... heck a ruler... but ok. That is a cool feature... though I think the demonstration is lost on me.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 10, 2014)

metacove said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the portrait KING, Canon 85L II
> ...



Then forget about the true portrait king, the 200 f/2L.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> metacove said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I'm not that lucky yet :


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Camera will focus on subject eye, by pressing down Center Button( in my case). By the way, the eye AF is VERY-VERY accurate. Even at wide open aperture.



Got it, thanks!



jdramirez said:


> I have no clue what I'm looking at. Was he focusing on his computer screen? Why not do something in 3 dimensions... heck a ruler... but ok. That is a cool feature... though I think the demonstration is lost on me.



The only ruler with eyes I could find online. A bit creepy if you ask me...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 10, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Camera will focus on subject eye, by pressing down Center Button( in my case). By the way, the eye AF is VERY-VERY accurate. Even at wide open aperture.
> ...



And here I thought that the camera tracked where your eye was looking and then focused there. Silly me.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 10, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> And here I thought that the camera tracked where your eye was looking and then focused there. Silly me.



I thought that at first, too. I had the 7NE- a very cool feature. Dunno why Canon discontinued it.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm finding that the ""EOS iTR AF" face detect mode (which is through the viewfinder, not LiveView) in the 1D X works exceptionally well on people and wildlife alike. I haven't had the camera for very long, but people, deer, and owls are all giving it a thumbs up 

Back to the lens debate...the Sigma's looking better by the day (sharp [as in Otus sharp], no distortion, low CA, low LoCA, pretty good bokeh, color & contrast) and if it comes in around $1,000 it will be quite a lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm finding that the ""EOS iTR AF" face detect mode (which is through the viewfinder, not LiveView) in the 1D X works exceptionally well on people and wildlife alike. I haven't had the camera for very long, but people, deer, and owls are all giving it a thumbs up
> 
> Back to the lens debate...the Sigma's looking better by the day (sharp [as in Otus sharp], no distortion, low CA, low LoCA, pretty good bokeh, color & contrast) and if it comes in around $1,000 it will be quite a lens.



It will still be a Sigma...and thus will have a stigma...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 11, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm finding that the ""EOS iTR AF" face detect mode (which is through the viewfinder, not LiveView) in the 1D X works exceptionally well on people and wildlife alike. I haven't had the camera for very long, but people, deer, and owls are all giving it a thumbs up
> ...



Nice line... but @ 949 per the email I got this morning... it is a steal.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 12, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



But it won't have a red line on it...and thanks...occasionally I am clever.

Btw, if it's only $949, maybe the 35mm Art will come down to $600 or something. That would be nice.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > And here I thought that the camera tracked where your eye was looking and then focused there. Silly me.
> ...



The Canon A2E also had eye controlled focus but the camera only had 5 AF points. I don't think you could do eye controlled focus with todays cameras with 5 dozen AF points. ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 14, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Neither could you, with the restless eye of today's average smartphone user 
Anyway, Canon did not have this feature in their flagship models (e.g., EOS 1-v, although oddly v apparently stood for 'vision') with 45 AF points, so they could have given this feature to 6D or to the Rebels.


----------



## metacove (Apr 28, 2014)

So after reading your responses I ended up ordering the 135L. I thought you all might find it funny that I just pre-ordered the 50mm Art today. The 135 is an amazing lens. 

Looking forward to the new art. I hope I'm not too far down the pre-order list.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 28, 2014)

metacove said:


> So after reading your responses I ended up ordering the 135L. I thought you all might find it funny that I just pre-ordered the 50mm Art today. The 135 is an amazing lens.
> 
> Looking forward to the new art. I hope I'm not too far down the pre-order list.



Awesome. I hope you are blown away by it... I am in the 85L camp right now, but I'm always willing to consider something else... though I think my next lens is going to be the sigma 24-70 f2... if it ever exists.


----------

