Canon EF 50mm 1.2 vs Canon EF 85mm 1.2 Mk II - which is the better Portrait lens?

[cal_usa]

Which is a good portrait lens, the Canon EF 50mm 1.2 vs. Canon EF 85mm 1.2 Mk

II (for overall portraits, quality and appearance of images, focusing speed,

wt. of lens, ....)?

 

How does the Canon EF 85 1.8 rank amongst them (for overall portraits, quality

and appearance of images)?

 

Is the new 85 1.2 Mk II actually noticeably faster in focusing?

 

I can't decided which one to get, the

Canon EF 85 1.2 Mk II, Canon EF 50 1.2 or get the Canon EF 85 1.8

 

Thanks!

[skipd]

Asking which lens to use without stating which camera format is a question which cannot be answered properly.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>On what body? On a full-frame body, the 50 is shorter than the typical portrait range so its use as a portrait lens is limited to shots that include a significant amount of the body, and the 85 is at the short end of the traditional portrait range and so is typically useful for head-and-shoulders shots. On a 1.6-crop body, the 50 is at the short end of the range and the 85 is at the long end, useful for tighter head shots.</p>

 

<p>Both of them can produce very sharp images with shallow DOF and great background blur. You can get the weights from numerous sources. Neither one is dreadfully quick to focus (both are quicker than their predecessors, but that's comparing them to perhaps the slowest-focusing ring USM lenses ever), but assuming your subject isn't running all over the place, that's not terribly important; each shot will be at about the same distance as the last one, and the lens can make small adjustments quickly.</p>

 

<p>For sample shots from all three lenses you mention, including direct comparisons between the two 85s, see William Castleman's Web site, among others.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

Get the EF 85 1.8 USM. It has 95% of the performance of the EF 85 1.2L USM and you'll have

enough change left over for a new EOS 30D for backup. Plus it's much smaller, lighter and

focuses way faster.

[William Michael]

I have a 20D and will get FF DSLR (most likely a 5D).

 

The answer is simple: get the 50mm F1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 and with the change from the money you would have spent, get the 135mm F2L.

 

Then, like me, you will have a value for money flexible prime portrait kit for both FF and APS-C.

 

WW

[robin_sibson1]

I'm not a portrait expert (Bill is, so take his comments seriously), but I reached the same conclusion by a slightly different route, and, like him, I have the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2L. The reasoning is simple: buying the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 first, and then maybe deciding that you need to sell them and move up on the basis of limitations that are affecting you, makes economic sense, since relative to the price of the L-series lenses the cost-of-ownership of the consumer primes is no more than marginal. Whereas buying the f/1.2 lenses straight off may result in a large amount of money tied up in over-specified equipment.

[William Michael]

Thank you, Robin, for the compliment.

 

Perhaps also, (or moreover) I come from a studio (business) environment, (yes where we did many portraits for money): but in a proper business, one is indentured to reconciling value for money spent on equipment to output achieved by it.

 

Whereas in an hobby, one can be more frivolous spending money on `wants` rather than `needs`.

 

That is not to say I personally do not have wants, but by nature I look at what the extra AUS$2000 could add to my SYSTEM of lenses: (apropos the 50mm F1.2 vs. 50mm F1.4 for example)

 

IMO, and after much research, the 50mmF1.4 and the 85mmF1.8 are the two best non L lenses, compared to their L counterparts, on the basis of value for money to the output capable to be achieved by them.

 

WW

[cal_usa]

Sorry I forgot to mention I have a full frame Canon 5D.

[charliexia]

i have both lenses, and shot portraits with them wide open for available light portraiture on my 5D. from my experience the 85mm 1.2 is sharper, and exhibit less CA wide open v.s. the 50 1.2. under the same conditions. however 50 is good for situations when you want a wider POV. below are samples of the same event shot with the two different lenses.<div></div>

[charliexia]

oops... actually the previous image was shot with the EF 85mm f1.2 USM L MKII

 

this image is shot with the EF 50mm f1.2 USM L<div></div>

[jon_conkin1]

Hey Bill-

Acutually I would say that that a photographers choice of lens would be application dependent as well as subjective to their style of shooting. Not everyone has the luxury of being creative, but then again that is also about choice. Both lenses are maybe the finest examples of creative portrait tools that exceed the human eye.

I have both and there excellent and use them every chance I get and I only shoot them full bore.

Jon<div></div>

[cpy_leitz]

<p>I've read all the comments and I think they all have merits, but I don't think they answer the question fully. There are two perspectives in answering the question, 1) shooting technique and practicality, 2) the optical nature of 50 vs 85.<br /> 1) shooting technique and practicality.When shooting candid, that is, not in studio where everything are staged, shooting prime means you are framing with your legs. In that case, it's always (IMO) easier to move a step forward then to move a step backward. And it's always possible to cheat in post-production to crop the picture. In my years working with prime lens on street photography and wedding, the 50 focal length always got me the most shots in terms of full and half-body portrait shots. But that's just me, some people actually prefers the 35mm focal length.<br /> 2) the optical nature of 50 vs 85. When talking about the two focal length and which one is "best", we must understand the optical effect of the two on prints. Because 85mm got its fame as the best portrait focal length in the era of print photography, not in the digital era when most of what we do is look at the pictures on our monitor and zoom in on 100% crop. Shown on print, the focal length of 85mm for portrait plus the distance of the audience looking at the picture would be the most ideal for portrait photos. Please bear in mind I'm talking about portraits here. 50mm, OTOH, as most of you know, is the closest to human vision perspective. 85mm focal length gives a rounder and more narrow perspective to the subject and that's why it is better for above shoulder shots and half-body shots (because it makes the subject more "pleasing to look at").These are the things you'll only know from the old-school era when everything is judged on slides and prints.<br /> Conclusion, 50mm is always my prefered focal length when shooting candid or wedding or journalistic, it gives me just the right frame to tell a story. For that reason, I don't use 85mm as much in these situations.<br>

Personally, I didn't think the 50 L 1.2 was worth the money. You see, 50mm is the easiest focal length to design, the 1.4 actually does a really fantastic job. As for 85L 1.2 MK II, I think it's really exceptional, very sharp even wide open, but I'm a bit bothered with the heavy CA. Lots of fall-out too as expected from aperture this wide. The two reasons to get 1.2 instead of 1.8 are low light and bokeh. You think they are not important? Try shooting at a cathedral, you'll be so jaw-droppingly amazed with the 85mm 1.2L.</p>