Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L vs Canon EF 85mm f 1,8

<p>Hello i already have the first lens 24-105 and i want to buy the 85 for some portraits. All we know that the prime lens are sharper , but i saw a test review between those two lens and i saw that in some cases the 24- 105 is sharper. You believe that this is a non reliable test ?<br /><br />http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1</p>

<p>You're comparing the zoom at 24 mm f/4 to the 85 mm prime at f/2</p>

<p>Try this:<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3</p>

<p>yeah you are right i forgot to make the changes for focal length and the aperture values. I was expecting a lot of differences between these lens </p>

<p>The difference is that the prime lets in 2.3 more stops of light.</p>

<p>but the sharpness ?</p>

<p>Jo, here's a review by Bob Atkins (I presume the same Bob Atkins who moderates this group?) that includes comparison shots of the 85mm f/1.8 and the 24-105mm f/4, both shot at 85mm and f/4. In the comparison images the 85mm lens blows the 24-105 out of the water in the center and even more so in the corners; of course the zoom is shooting wide open and the prime is stopped down, but I wouldn't have thought the difference would be that pronounced given that the 24-105 is an L lens. I own neither (don't shoot many portraits and already own the 70-200L f/4 IS and the 100mm f/2.8 macro which can also serve as a portrait lens) but see why people love the 85mm prime, particularly going for $369 after a $50 rebate through the end of March. For the money, I think you'd have a hard time beating it for portraits.<br>

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_85mm_f18_review.html</p>

<p>Yes, it's me!</p>

<p>I have both the 24-105/4L and the 85/1.8 and there's no doubt that at 85mm the prime is the better lens. You cannot beat it for portrait work. The 24-105 is of course usable but the background blur you can get at f1.8 can't be matched by the 24-105 at 85mm and f4, not to mention the 85 prime is sharper.</p>

<p>For low light work with static subjects they're kind of equal because although the 85 prime is 2.3 stops faster, the 24-105/4 has IS so it can be hand held at 85mm at shutter speeds 2-3 stops slower than the prime. For moving subjects in low light the 85 prime wins due to the faster shutter speeds it allows.</p>

<p>I agree fully with Bob. I have owned both lenses. The 85 is a stunning lens for portraiture.</p>

<p>I want a good prime lens for portaiture , fashion and weddings. I think that the 85 is the best choice with the 135mm. But most of the photographers prefer the 70-200 </p>

<p>Ok, I'll be the one to say it yet again.<br>

The EF 85mm f/1.8 doesn't hold a candle to the EF 24-105mm from 24mm to 84mm and from 86 to 105mm. On the other hand, the 24-105mm is simply no comparison, literally, at f/1.8.</p>

<p>It's like comparing an adjustable spanner (monkey wrench) to a standard one-width wrench. Which is best?</p>

<p>I have the 24-105 and one of these days I'll buy the 85mm -- it's another of Canon's gifts to the faithful like the 35mm f/2, etc.</p>

<p>the think that i dodnt understand is that some people shoot some portraits with 35mm </p>

You can shoot portraits with lenses from 35mm to 300mm (or even with longer or wider lenses) - it really depends what

you are looking for. For classic head and shoulders portraits the 85 f 1.8 is a great lens. It is a bit soft at f1.8 but great by

f2. The 24-105 is a good lens but rather soft wide open at the edges. I assume you are shooting full frame.

<p>I'm surprised they haven't put IS in the 85/1.8 yet and doubled the price. They did it with the 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2. That seems to Canon's strategy these days. Mk II versions just get a 50% price increase.</p>

<p>The 85mm f/1.8 prime is a fine lens and is "better" if you need only 85mm and a larger aperture, the latter potentially being useful for narrower DOF and for active subjects in low light. It can be a bit sharper at other apertures, but this will rarely be a factor in even rather large prints.</p>

<p>The 24-105mm f/4 L IS is "better" if you need more than a single focal length, image stabilization to deal with camera stability in low light. It produces very fine image quality, quite sufficient even for very large prints.</p>

<p>I have no idea why this posted twice, so I've deleted text from this second copy...</p>

<p>Don't buy lenses based on sharpness tests you see on the internet. Buy them based on your focal length and aperture requirements. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I want a <strong><em>good prime lens for portaiture , fashion and weddings.</em></strong>"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Apart from the EF 24 to 105/4L:</p>

<ul>

<li>what other lenses do you have?</li>

<li>What cameras do you have?</li>

</ul>

<p>WW</p>

<p>On the subject of 85mm primes, some recommend the Sigma f1.4, which is obviously a bit faster as well as sharper, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">apparently</a>, than the EF 1.8 (though it may lag in terms of AF performance). I have both the latter and the 24-105mm and on the whole get better results with the prime - but only on a like-for-like comparison which is, as the man said, like comparing apples with fruit salad. There is some more info on this topic in <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bMjH">this thread</a>.</p>

<p>As James, I found the Sigma 85/1.4 to be a better performer than the EF 85/1.8 (and, at similar apertures as good as the 85/1.2). I found AF performance to be very similar between the 85/1.4 HSM and the EF 85/1.8.<br>

However, at 2.5x the cost, unless you need f1.4, the 85/1.8 is likely to meet your 85mm needs, and if you are broadly satisfied w/ the 24-105/4 then even the 85/1.8 is <em>still</em> going to blow your socks off.</p>

<p>As JDM pointed out, comparing the 85/1.8 to the 24-105/4 is like comparing an adjustable wrench to a specific one. When you need that size it's a far better choice, but nearly useless at all other sizes - of course when you have a tough nut, the adjustable wrench is as likely to strip the nut as it is to loosen it (and that analogy certainly holds true for photography ;-) ).</p>

<p> I used to own a 24-105/4, and still own an 85/1.8, but there is a reason many shooters choose a 70-200/2.8 (or 24-70/2.8) for portraiture (I have both and use them for portraiture). ie. f2.8 is <em>usually</em> fast enough (whereas f4 is marginal at best), the bokeh is still very very good (much better than the 24-105/4), and the flexibility in framing and composition more than makes up for the advantage in the prime's IQ in shooting situations where you don't control every aspect. </p>

 

<p>What kind of portraits? I don't think sharpness will be your issue with either lens. </p>

<p>If your shooting studio portraits the 24-105 will be great, if you want those blow out the background shots you will want a prime or longer lens.</p>

<p>I have the 5mkII and this is my first prime lens. My only doubt is if i cant shoot with the 85 indoors compared to the 50mm</p>

<p><em>My only doubt is if i cant shoot with the 85 indoors compared to the 50mm</em></p>

<p>Give it a try. Just set your 24-105 to 85 mm (you can tape it in place with a piece of tape if you wish) and try shooting a bunch of stuff. That way you will know whether 85 mm is the right focal length for you.</p>

<p>I have the 85/1.8, but not the 24-105. I can tell you that the 85/1.8 is reasonably sharp wide open, and it is tack-sharp and super contrasty when stopped down to f/2.8. Bokeh is quite good. There is some haloing along high-contrast edges when shooting wide open - this is the weak point of the lens IMO. Focus is blazing fast. This lens delivers and it's very good value.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 5mkII and this is my first prime lens. My only doubt is if i cant shoot with the 85 indoors compared to the 50mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for answering.<br>

So considering you have one 5dMkII camera and only the 24 to 105 lens and you want to use the Prime Lens <strong><em>indoors</em></strong>, for Portraits, Fashion and Weddings – then I suggest you consider a PAIR of Prime lenses (I note you were thinking of 85 and 135).<br>

I’d suggest you think of the pair: 35mm and 85mm.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, you can test the suitability of the Focal Lengths of the Primes, by using your 24 to 105.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>If you want to see what your"natural" focal length is there are free programs out there that will look at the EXIF data in your images and give you statistics on how many were shot at what focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc.</p>

<p>EXIF STATS is one, ExposurePlot is another. </p>

<p>If you already have a 24-105 then picking up an 85 1.8 makes perfect sense. There will be times when you are shooting with flash at a wedding and need a zoom. But there will be other times when you are shooting at night with no flash and the 85 1.8 will be the better choice.<br>

However, for studio work I definetely prefer my 24-70 over my 85 1.2L. for two reasons; 1. the zoom gives me much more room to work I can fram shot exactly how I want it without having to move back so far. 2. I can't shoot at F1.2 in studio anyways, studion strobes can only sync at 1/250 max and I generally shoot at around F8. At F8, 1/250 I can't tell the difference between the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Canon 85 1.2L. Yes, if I really look at the colors or the flare around lights in photo I can tell but that is if you know what to look for.<br>

Even outdoors depending on the situation I have to determine will shooting wide open say 1.2 or 1.8 give me better results or shooting at F4 with Image stablization. No one answer fits all situations. <br>

And of course the 85 1.2L when shot at F1.2 has a look no other lens has, but extremely hard to focus at F1.2 \1.8 must use manual focus and object has to be stationary if focal plane moves forwards or backwards an inch your focus point will either change or become out of focus.<br>

Long story short get both.</p>