85 1.8 or 35 2.0 on 1.6 camera?

<p>How many folks are using the 85 1.8 or 35 f2 on a 1.6x camera? How does it work for portraits? I have the 50 1.8 and love the way it works for out of focus areas at large apertures and was looking to get another prime. Is the 35mm similar for bokeh or is the 85 1.8 the best bet for another prime? Thanks</p>

<p>The 85/1.8 has excellent bokeh, in my estimation anyway. I don't have the 35/2, but based on what I've read the bokeh is not a strong point of that lens. On a 1.6 crop frame, the 85/1.8 should be an excellent, longish portrait lens. I use it as a shortish portrait lens on a 5D, and it is awesome in that capacity.</p>

<p>I use both. The 85/1.8 has superior in bokeh to the 35/F2, IMO: 8 vs. 5 Blades is likely the technical reason.<br>

<br>

The 35/F2 is a more flexible portrait lens in regard to all shooting situations, especially if you are tight for space, large on subjects or both.<br>

<br>

The set of three is very handy. I ahve the 50/F1.4 and I bought the 85 before the 35, because I like really tight Portraiture.<br>

<br>

Outside the question, FYI, the 35/F1.4 is much better (than the F2).<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>meh... 85 is a little long for my useage on the 1.6x.<br>

I got it to use on an Elan II film camera and it's a beauty there... just.... not so much cropped. 135mm has always been challenging for me to effectively use, so take that in consideration anyhow. I do weddings and candids & such.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, OOF areas on the 85mm are prettier than with the 50mm, but focal length is focal length.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 85/1.8 has superior in bokeh to the 35/F2, IMO: 8 vs. 5 Blades is likely the technical reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course if you're shooting wide open the blades are out of the light path. When you stop down the rounder shape of an 8-blade diaphragm is more pleasant to most.</p>

<p>Personally I find the bokeh of the 85 1.8 better because the background blur is more pronounced due to less DOF. With that said, the 85mm is an awkward focus length to be stuck with on APS cameras. Too friggen long. I find the natural perspective of the EF 35 2.0 ideal and often use it as a walkaround on my 50D, save for outdoor portraits</p>

<p>Puppy - Not sure I agree. I can see a clear difference in bokeh between my 50mm f/1.8 (5 blades) and my 70-200 f/4 (8 blades), when shooting wide open.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I searched a "normal" prime for crop 1.6, I bought an EF 28/1.8, an EF 35/2 and finally the Sigma 30/1.4. After I got the Sigma, I didn't use the other two any more.</p>

<p>The uses of a 35 and a 85 is quite different, but if your main intend for them is portrait, the 85 is an excellent addition to the 50/1.8 that you already own.</p>

<p>I use both. The 35/2 is a good lens, but the 85.1.8 is different class, with superb definition and sharpness. I have found it great for candid portraits.</p>

<p>I use the 28mm f2.8 which is actually pretty good, behaving like a 45mm in old money. On an APS-C it can be used wide open, focusing is fast, and the typical portait perspective suits people with flatter features, it is ideal if posing small groups, couple etc.<br>

As well as the 50 f1.8 I also use the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, again usuable wide open on APS-C. Focusing is fine so long as you use the limiter switch. High quality lens trnsalting to a 110 on a canon APS-C.</p>

<p>I found the 35/2 better than the 28/2.8 in image quality. Both lenses use 1987 focusing technology and are well overdue an update.</p>

<p>I've found the 28/2.8 to be pretty fast, it's not tele or super-bright so even at wide apertures the depth of field is such that it doesn't hunt all that often (certainly the 50mm f 1.8 is very different in this regard) and seems to find the mark pretty quick.<br>

One touch manual would be nice, and it could be a bit quieter.<br>

I opted for the the 28mm because I already had a 50, the bigger gap suited me, also I do a fair amount of stitching, the equivalent 45mm is as close to ideal in canons range as I'm gong to get.<br>

Can't see canon redeveloping either when they have the 28 f1.8 and 35 f1.4 to push. The 28mm f2.8 and 35 f 2 are niche lenses these days. They may have a new lease of life thanks to APS-C applications, but i doubt enough to merit significant R & D investment.</p>

<p>I have three primes: 30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 (tokina macro). Each has its own advantages. 30mm inside for multiple people or one person at close distance, 50mm inside from a bit more distance, and 100mm f/2.8 for outside (although 100 is just a bit too long on a crop body and I am thinking about getting the 85mm f/1.8 in addition to my set, also for it ring-USM AF). Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is however becoming more and more my favorite lens out of this set...</p>

<p>Agreed Paul. I just think its a pity that Canon don't produce a really great 28mm prime. The 28/1.8 matches the standards of the 85/1.8 in build quality but not in performance. Canon are more interested in zooms and revamping existing 'L' primes which were already excellent.</p>

<p>I personally really like the 28 1.8. I don't know who writes all these negative reports about this lens but I would bet most people saying its bad have never used it.</p>

<p> As to the OP. I think the 35 is more useful as a general walk around lens and the 85 would be useful for tight portraits. Both can capture good high quality photos.</p>

<p>I have the exact 2 lenses (85 1.8, 35 f2) that I use on my 1.6 Canon 30D. I purchased the 35 f2 because I wanted what was the equivalent of a normal lens. Combined with the 30D I'm almost down to the size of a large point-and-shoot. Perfect for traveling especially when you are shooting indoors, such as in a museum. Don't know much about the bokeh, unfortunately because I dont use it for portraits.<br>

Optically, I don't think it's as good as my 50mm 1.8, but it takes pretty sharp pictures besides all the noise it makes, however the contrast is less than on my 50mm . I also use the 85mm on my 30D, but<strong> not</strong> for protraits, I would have to move back too far.<br>

These days allot of photographers are using short-teles, or even long teles to take potraits, but I rather stick to the 85mm-105mm range when it comes to portraits . Call me old-school. I often use my 50mm for portraits on my 30D although the bokeh on the 85mm is slightly better. </p>

<p>I have the 35mm f/2.0 and it is one of my favorite lenses, giving a nice slightly long "normal" on the 15x22mm sensors. If someone wants to donate the 85mm f/1.8, I'd be thrilled to give it a try ;)<br>

I did go out and buy the Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 for use on my Canons as well as my old Nikon equipment. It is a little long for portrait work on a 15x22mm sensor but it is an incredible lens (and relatively inexpensive in its non-AI mount).</p>

<p>

<p><strong><em>"The 85/1.8 has superior in bokeh to the 35/F2, IMO: 8 vs. 5 Blades is likely the technical reason." :: "Of course if you're shooting wide open the blades are out of the light path."</em></strong></p>

 

<br>

:) Well done!<br>

Ha! one has to stay on one's toes around here. I should have written: "8 vs. 5 Blades is likely <strong><em>one </em></strong>technical reason." <br>

I was thinking "F4 ish" when I wrote. <br>

WW</p>

<p>I have the EF 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 as well as the Sigma 30/1.4.<br>

The 35/2 was a great walkaround "normal" till the AF broke and I replaced it with the Sigma 30/1.4. You have to be careful not to have foliage in the background with the 35/2 when doing group shots or full-length shots.<br>

The 85/1.8 is great for candids or tight portraits on my 20D.<br>

My suggestion would be the Sigma 30/1.4, as it is the closest in build and IQ to the EF 85/1.8.</p>

I love the 85/1.8.

<p>I own The 85 1.8 and a 35L 1.4. Both are great! The 85 has decent image quality and excellent bokeh and is great for portraits, but the 35 has great color, contrast and has an edge on the IQ. Plus the 35 is a great walkaround lens since on a crop sensor it is roughly the equivalent of a 50 on a full frame. It stays on my 40D most of the time.</p>