Help please. Canon 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8

<p>I need a good Prime lens for my 400D for shooting some good closeup and portraits. I'm not a professional photographer so I can't afford more than a few hundred dollars. I'm stuck between a 50mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8. If any professionals or anyone with any knowledge of these two lenses could help with a little advice or opinion, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks all.....</p>

<p>You can come close to the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens -- which <em>is</em> a very fine lens-- for much less money, if that's a problem. At least look at the EF 50mm f/1.8 (the "Plastic Fantastic"). It looks cheap, is cheap, and is both durable and a fine shooter, especially on an APS-C body. It can be bought used, usually, for under US$100 on eBay or slightly more with some guarantee from KEH, B&H, or Adorama and such.</p>

<p>Also consider the other lenses you mention in good used condition. I personally would find the 85mm f/1.8 a little long for day-in-and-out portraiture on APS-C, but that's partly a matter of taste.</p>

<p>The 400D sports a CMOS senor chip that measures 14.8mm x 22.2mm. If we mount a lens about equal to the diagonal measure of this rectangle, we realize what is termed as a normal view. For this camera, that is about 25mm. If we mount a longer lens, we get more magnification (telephoto). If we mount a shorter lens, we enter into the realm of wide-angle. Note that the kit zoom usually sold with this camera has a zoom focal length of 18 - 55mm. Note the approximate center of the zoom range is 25mm.</p>

<p>Now for portraiture a moderate telephoto is considered best. This is because a longer than normal lens forces the photographer to back when composing a head and shoulder shot. This increased working distance delivers a preferred perspective that prevents the size of the nose from appearing too big and the ears too small. In others words a longer than normal lens is judged best. A s rule of thumb (not engraved in stone) 2.5x the diagonal is a good starting point. Thus 25mm x 2.5 = 62mm. The 50mm will slightly reduce the ideal camera to subject working distance whereby the 85 will force you to step back too far for comfort. </p>

<p>Between the two lenses, the 85 is a far better buy. It autofocuses faster and is sharper than the 50.</p>

<p>Between the 50mm & 85mm with the crop sensor, I'd think you'd be happier in the long run with the 50mm.<br>

You may also want to check into the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for a bit more versatility and about the same money as the 50 f/1.4.</p>

<p>I agree that 85mm is a little long for portaiture on an APS-C body, particularly indoors, and that therefore you'd be better off with the 50/1.4.</p>

<p>Neither lens would be very good for close-ups, however, given their relatively long minimum focusing distances.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Between the two lenses, the 85 is a far better buy. It autofocuses faster and is sharper than the 50.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 and ditto. It's a no-brainer decision to get the 85mm -- as long as you realize it's a definite telephoto lens on your 400D. You'll never regret the 85, the 50... I think you would. Some day Canon will fix all the problems the 50 1.4 has. Unfortunately I've been saying those words for too many years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some day Canon will fix all the problems the 50 1.4</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is always the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, love that lens. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>some good closeup and portraits</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 85mm will do just fine. The 50mm will be more of a general purpose lens than the 85mm will, but if I were getting any 50mm, it would be the Sigma (or the f/1.2 Canon!).</p>

<p>I prefer the 85/1,8 for head shoots and even head and shoulder over the 50/1,4. For larger parts is the 50 mm to prefer.<br>

A very flexible alternative to primes is the Tamron 28-75 2,8.</p>

<p>I've got the full framer Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it as flexible as you mention on the Canon 60D, it definitely has its advantages. I use is all the time for portrait work in all kinds of lighting.</p>

<p>I have both lenses; and occasionally use a 400D.</p>

<p>If you are making Portraits, when shooting indoors, the 50mm lens will be easier to work with, as the Shooting Distances will be easier to manage.<br>

Both lenses are quite sharp and for (most) Portraiture you will be working at F/2.8 or smaller and you can make very sharp images from either lens, at those apertures.<br>

<a href="../photo/10963088&size=lg">However the 85/1.8 is noticeably “exceptionally sharp” at F/1.8</a>.<br>

<a href="../photo/11468622&size=lg">The 50/1.4 is reasonably sharp at F/1.4</a>, on a 400D (<a href="../photo/11468625&size=lg">as the smaller image sized sensor only records the guts of the Image Circle</a>).</p>

<p>“Close-ups” is a phrase which I ponder when I read it – if you mean: “<a href="../photo/9272173&size=md">a tight head shot</a>” then either lens will do that more than acceptably – but you will be standing farther back with the 85/1.8 loaded: and the perspective (especially on the nose) will be slightly different, but often not at all noticeable.<br>

If you mean “close-ups” like getting close to “<a href="../photo/14073022">macro</a>”, then a small investment in a set of Extension Tubes would be a good idea: <a href="../photo/14372698">Kenko sell a set of three</a>. The extension tubes will work with either lens and <a href="../photo/14372700">provide a suitable working distances</a> for <a href="../photo/14372699">“close-up photography</a>".</p>

<p>Certainly the EF85/1.8 has a faster AF than the 50/1.4, but I have not found the AF on the 50/1.4 all, that bothersome, to me: but yes it can be a pain in low light levels. </p>

<p>You might consider that you can get the best of both Focal Lengths by considering buying the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.8mkII: do not be fooled by the price tag on the 50/1.8MkII, it can produce some very nice portraits.</p>

<p>WW</p>