EF 85mm f/1.8 USM versus EF 35mm f/2

[dotun famakinwa]

I recently bought the 30D and I would like to get a good potrait lens for

indoor and outdoor work. I've read multiple reviews on the 85mm f/1.8 and the

35mm f/2 and it seems the 85mm is a better quality lens from a hardware and

picture standpoint. My concern is that the 85mm may be a little too

constraining for indoor photography (may not have enough physical room) due to

the 1.6 crop factor on the 30D. I would like to get the opinions of others on

this forum. What are your experiences with either of these lenses? Which would

you recommend? My budget is about $350 which is about the price of the 85mm.

The 35mm is about $100 less. Also any other lens recommendations around my

price range will be appreciated. I currently own the following lenses:

 

28-80 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 II (came with a old camera - not a particularly good lens

IMO)

 

75-300 mm f/4-5.6 III

 

50mm f/1.8 II

 

 

By the way, this is more of a hobby for me so I'm not looking to spend

gazillion $$$$ on gear - at least not at this time :)

 

Thanks.

[will king]

The 50mm f/1.8 you already have should suffice just fine for indoor portraits on a 30D.

[m_barbu1]

I agree with Will. If you're looking to keep costs down, why are you considering the 85mm when you already have the 50mm?

[dotun famakinwa]

I am considering the 85mm because of the much touted sharpness. If the sharpness is close to 50mm 1.8 then I would agree that I don't need the 85mm.

[sattler123]

My 50 f1.8 is very sharp - even wide open (I have three L-lenses that I compare this little gem with) and gets razor sharp stopped down to f/2.8. If you are not happy with yours then you must have a bad copy as this lens is known for its great value.

[buck_rogers1]

I own the 85 50 and 35 you have mentioned. The 85 is definitely the sharpest most pleasing lens. I like the color of the 35 slightly better but in the digital age it is easily corrected. The 85 is sharpest (actually and preceptively) wide open and gets even sharper one stop down than the other two do. The AF is best (fastest I have ever owned). I mention it is perceptively sharper because of the quick and drastic bokeh that comes on because of its narrow DOF. The dramatic out of focus areas make the in focus 'seem' sharper than it actually is. <p>

All that said, I don't regret owning any of these lenses an only wish I could get their performance in a zoom.<p>BTW what is it about the 50 that you don't like? If it's sharpness but the focal length is right for you maybe you should consider the 50 f/1.4.<div></div>

[frolickingbits]

I'd agree that the 50mm is a very good portrait lens on the 30D. I own the 85mm f1.8, and the 100mm f2.8 Macro, and they are both incredibly sharp, but I use the 50mm more than either of them, since with the 1.6x crop, I have to get across the room to get a heads and shoulder shot of somebody. That being said, if you can get the 85mm for $150 used (what I paid for mine), I would definitely get it. If not, I'd go with the 35mm-that turns into a 52mm standard focal length on the 30D, and is supposed to be a very sharp lens. I'm hopefully getting either that or the 28mm f1.8 soon-the 20mm f1.8 I have is great, but a little too wide for many situations, I find.<div></div>

[bueh]

Let me chime in that I too use the 50mm f/1.8 (Mk. I) surprisingly often as my main portrait lens on the 20D. It has a good working distance, is fast and sharp enough wide open and renders nice bokeh. I always loved a short tele lens (which it becomes on a crop factor camera) for portraiture -- that's the ideal focal length for me. I also have the 100mm f/2, but since the working distance is twice as large, communicating with your subject is different than with the normal lens. And it is much larger/heavier than the petite 50mm!<div></div>

[mark f]

If you consider getting the 35mm at some point, I'd recommend trying it before you buy it. I found the optical quality great, but the focusing and build quality very poor. It was much worse than the $80 50 f1.8. These were deal-breakers for me and I sold the lens. I have the 85mm and the 50mm 1.8 and love those lenses.

[PuppyDigs]

I have a 1990 EF 35 2.0 and it's among my sharpest optics. I've owned 3 copies of the EF 50

1.8 and they were no where near as sharp. Plus the 35 2.0 was much better at snagging

focus in low light. As for build quality, the EF 35 2.0 with metal mount, DOF scale, distance

scale and ability to take a standard EW-65 hood, blows the el cheapo EF 50 1.8 II outta the

water. Of course it should as it costs more than twice as much. However build quality is the

same as the older EF 50 1.8 (MKI).

[bobatkins]

Absolute sharpness may not the the primary quality to look for in a portrait lens. It doesn't hurt I guess (you can always soften it post-exposure) but if you take a headshot with a macro lens at, say, f5.6 (very sharp) they may not thank you for it when the see the results unless they are blessed with a perfect complexion.

[William Michael]

I have a 20D and use 50mmF1.4 on it a lot.

 

I also have the 85mmF1.8, which I DO NOT use all that much INDOORS for available light work, ONLY because of the distance restriction often imposed indoors, but I use the 85MMF1.8 a lot outdoors, it is really nice.

 

I too want a fast 35mm for indoor available light work.

 

My comment here is to confirm your view that 85 is restrictive SOMETIMES indoors, but it is a really nice lens: in regard to the 35mm I have no first hand experience with the lens you mention.

 

My comment would be, get both focal lengths, you will use them. Just buy the one you will use more often first.

 

WW

[dotun famakinwa]

Everyone thank you for the responses!

[dogbert]

I like the 35/2 a lot. Great sharpness, small, convenient and good value. It is not the best portrait lens, however, as on a 1.6 crop camera it is close to being normal and therefore requires getting a bit too close to your subject for tightly composed portraits - unless you like that look. The buzzy motor is a little annoying and ring USM motors such as in the 85 are much nicer in this respect.

 

Still it is a great lens, and if I were just going out for a day with a single prime lens, it would be the one I would take.

[brian robinson]

50/1.4 should do the trick

[bluphoto]

I have the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and these suit my purposes well. The only gripe I have about the (very sharp)50 is the flimsy feel.

 

I much prefer the 85 because of its easy to use MF ring and generally more sturdy feel.