Lens debate/question - 50mm vs 85mm - Min. Focal Distance

[throbinson]

I'm currently looking at getting either the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8 lens.

 

My question is, min. focal distances.

 

I'm a student so no studio really, just bought a few lights and a backdrop to

start shooting models with. I always hear that the 85mm is more 'flattering'

when shooting people, however, my concern is distance.

 

I know the 85mm will give the model a bit more room to work with between you and

them, but worried that I'll be too far back in smaller places like my apartment

to shoot.

 

My friend said that with my 75-300mm lens (the cheaper $180 model) I have to

stand too far back at 75mm so the 85mm will be even further back.

 

Being a better lens, faster, etc... would that be a good comparison?

 

Also, would the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 lens have the min. focal distance?

 

I'm getting told by half the people I ask that 85mm is 85mm, they'd all have the

same min. focal distance because they're all 85mm. I am also being told by the

other half of the people that yes it affects it, but not all 85mm lens' have the

same focal distance, it depends on the quality of the lens.

 

So wanting clarification... anyone?

 

Thanks

[tdigi]

There is a big difference between the 75-300 and a 85mm prime. If your doing portraits I

would highly recommend the prime. Yes 85mm is 85mm but the prime can give you a short

depth of field which is crucial in portrait photography.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by focal distance.

[michael_c11]

Are you using full frame or a crop sensor?

 

I'd be tempted to recommend the 50mm because it seems right for your "studio" conditions. Since you have the 75-300, you should use that to gauge how well the 75-85 range meets your needs. Still, since you already have 85mm covered by the zoom, I'd get the 50mm for versatility.

[jim_karthauser]

I'm going to pick this one. "Also, would the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 lens have the min. focal distance?"<BR><BR>

 

I assume you mean the same minimum focus distance. If so, have a look at this

<a href=http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/index.asp#</a>link</a>

the 50 1.8 has a close focus distance of 0.45m and the 85 1.8 has one of 0.85m. But you have to take into account the field of view and perspective so in this case for portrait use I'd say the 85mm wins. To put it into perspective the telephoto that you have has a closest focus of 1.5metres.

[JDMvW]

FF body - 85mm is a great portrait lens.

 

for crop (APS-C) body, the 50mm would likely be a little better for portraits since the 85 will tend to flatten faces more. Mind some people do use 135mm on FF bodies for portraiture, so it's a matter of taste and also of how big the nose of your loved one is, perhaps.

[peter_popp1]

Concerning which lens to buy, the best thing to do here (IMO) is get the 85/1.8 and then

stretch yourself a bit or wait a little longer and get the 50/1.8 for $80 more. They are

both great lenses and the 50/1.8 can't be beat for the price.

 

If, down the road, you find yourself using the 50 most of the time and want the f/1.4

version for better dof control, you can sell the f/1.8 easily or keep it as a backup. Either

way, you start off with both focal lengths and don't need to worry that you're missing

something.

 

If you're worried about the close-focusing distance of any of these lenses, consider

picking up a 12 mm extension tube to use with them. Another $80, or less if you go used

or off-brand.

[rainer_t]

The min. focus distances for the lenses in question are:

 

- 45cm for the 50/1.4

 

- 45cm for the 50/1.8

 

- 85cm for the 85/1.8

 

- 95cm for the 85/1.2

 

As you see in the example of 85/1.8 vs 85/1.2, minimum focus disance cannot be derived from focal length. See ...

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/standard.html

 

for more lens data. If the portrait you want to take can be done at minimum focus distance , is a completely different story.

[pturton]

You can get all the Canon lens sepecification info to compare the 50 vs 85 here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=152

 

You do not mention which body you are using but I am assuming you have a 1.6 crop body.

 

If you require full body or half body shots in a restricted space, the 50mm lens will be more appropriate. On the other hand in the same restricted space, if you want only head and shoulders or 1/3 body shots, the 85mm lens may work.

 

Considering the price of the 50 f/1.8, you may be able to afford it and the 85 f/1.8 to cover both focal lengths at a reasonable price.

 

I use both the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 on my 1.6 crop bodies for shots of my children and grandchildren in my home.

[trebor_navilluso]

The minimum focus distance in this case is not as relevant. Both the 50 adn 85 min focus distance are comparable at a given field of view. But in this close you will not get the entire face in the portrait. It's too close for what I believe you are trying to do.

 

I have both these lenses so can speak from experience.

A head and shoulders shot with the 50 will require you to be about 4 feet away. The same shot with the 85 will require you to be 6 to7 feet away. Think about the size of the rooms your working in and go from there.

[aubreyp]

The 85mm is too long for a crop body in constrained quarters, unless you are doing face only. I used to shoot in my 14x14 bedroom and I used the 50mm 1.8 mostly. Remember the model has to be away from the backdrop to keep from casting shadows on it, which makes your effective studio even smaller.

 

If you're on a crop body, I might recommend the Canon 35mm f2, since it would be a little longer than "normal" and also has a very short close focusing distance.

 

I recently picked up an Olympus Zukio 50mm 1.4 for $50. Add in an adapter and you've got a reasonably priced, well built 50mm -minus auto-focus. Just a thought.

[throbinson]

Crop body?

 

New term for me... I don't know. I have a Canon 300D SLR right now.

 

As for focal distance, not sure if I am using the correct term or not.... basically, how far back do you have to be before you can focus on an object. I assume that with a 50mm lens I can stand closer to the subject than with the 85mm. I know with my 18-55mm I can stand a few feet back, but with the 75-300 I have to stand way back before it will focus.

 

The one question I have which is where I am getting mixed answers from the people I know, is, do all 50mm lens' have the same 'focal distance'? Do all 85mm?

 

I'm just trying to figure out what affects how close you have to be aside from the lens size itself... I know a 50mm is closer than a 300mm.... that's not an issue. But... if one 50mm can focus closer than another 50mm, then what affects that? Just quality? does the F number affect it? does the width (58mm vs 72mm) affect it?

 

Trying to figure the 'science' behind it I guess...

[SCL]

Think of this situation...you stuff your camera in somebody's face with a 50mm lens at minimum focusing distance and take a shot. If it has a short minimum focusing distance, it will enlarge their nose, lips and face out of normal perspective. Now, you stand back and use an 85mm lens and focus on the same subject...ensuring that the image size is the same as in the first instance. In this case the facial features won't protrude as much (they will be flattened) and you will have a more flattering picture. When you move back with either lens...you won't have as much of a perspective problem. That's why some people like the 50mm (but not usually at minimum focusing distance) and others like the 85mm. Personally, I've always found with a film camera I prefer 90mm for portraits (face, not body), and with a DSLR which crops, the 50mm does just fine, equating to what I would get with a 75mm lens full frame, given my crop factor of 1.5. Hope this helps.

[throbinson]

Thanks for the answers so far by the way...

 

My situation sounds like Aubrey Pullman, I will be in a living room wanting to shoot shoulder-up shots, but mostly, be interested in doing full body Pin-Up style shots indoors.

 

Outdoors I hope to do a lot of shooting for which I am sure the 85mm would be best. Model shoots, maybe weddings one day.

 

The big concern is that I am in such a small space indoors that to take nice details shots with a good prime lens, I may not be able to use the 85mm simply because I can't back up enough to get the person all in frame and in focus.

 

I currently have a Canon Rebel 300D SLR 6.3MP. Bought it used because well, I'm a student and the 5D would cripple me. :) I have the stock 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, and the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens as well.

 

... also, anyone have a good link about lens' for portraits? I hear people say that an 85mm is more flattering than a 50mm, but, no one can explain it.

[throbinson]

Ha... someone replied while I was typing that last one.

[alan_myers]

Some of the above is not entirely true!

 

The 50/1.4 is an excellent "short" portrait lens on any 1.6X crop D-SLR (like your D-REbel 300D).

 

The 85/1.8 is an excellent "long" portrait lens on these cameras.

 

Either will work, and give you appropriate distances.

 

The 50mm will likely work best for a head and torso type shot, depending upon how far you can stand back from your subject. If you have lots of room to back up, you can use it for full length portraits of a couple. The 85mm will give a tighter face shot.

 

So either the 50mm or the 85mm will do the job, depending upon how "tight" you need to frame the person you're photographing, and how much room you have to back up.

[throbinson]

Hmm...

 

is there really a huge difference between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8? Other than $250? I know it affects the DoF, and I love using DoF in my photos... but debating now if maybe getting the cheaper 50mm would be better AND the 85mm (both f/1.8)... quantity vs quality?

[alan_myers]

Go to a store and look at them, you'll see many of the differences.

 

The 50/1.4 is a better built lens. It has a metal bayonet, USM (although it's the older design of USM) auto focus motor, which is faster and quieter, plus allows full time manual focus (which some say shortens the life of the AF motor, but I've never had any trouble with my rather old copy of the lens... knock on wood).

 

The 50/1.8 II (current version) uses a plastic bayonet mount and is more lightly built overall, thus smaller and lighter weight. It uses a 52mm filter while the f1.4 uses a 58mm, for example.

 

Optically the f1.8 lens is fine for many situations, but there are a couple other key difference besides the slightly smaller maximum aperture, that would directly effect images made with it. The f1.8 uses five diaphragm blades to form the iris of the aperture. The f1.4 has eight blades for the same purpose. Fewer blades makes for a less perfect circle being formed, and that in turn means that background blur or "bokeh" won't be quite as nice. This also effects the appearance of out of focus highlights.

 

"Bokeh" is even more important today when using these lenses on a crop sensor cameras like yours and mine, where a 50mm acts as a short telephoto and is even more likely to be used for portraits, where a nicely blurred or defocused background is often a highly desirable lens capability.

 

For more about this and other comparisons of these two lenses, you might look at http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

 

There you will also see examples of how well these two lenses control flare in difficult lighting situations, which to my mind is a major point of difference where the f1.4 lens does a noticeably better job than the f1.8.

 

Now, these are fine points of difference, but they just are the sort of thing that can make the difference between a "nice" photo, a "great" photo and a "wow" photo in some situations. Many excellent photos are taken with both the lenses, I'm sure.

 

Those who can afford and justify it will step up to the mid-level f1.4 lens, for it's additional capabilities, just as those who have even deeper pockets and higher expectations might opt for the 50/1.2L instead.

 

Only you can say if one is worth $250 more to you, or not. I opted for the f1.4, which looks like a bargain itself if you compare it's price with that of the even more premium 50/1.2L!

[throbinson]

I'll def check out that link... and ya that 1.2 lens is a no go for sure. :) For that much, I'd rather a new camera than the lens. :)

[baivab]

I would buy a 50 f/1.8 Mk.ii or thru eBay 50 f/1.8 mk.I and the 85. Either way, over above the 85 mm., I spend more than $130.00 max. Shoot, shoot, shoot. I feel I like the 50 mm. more or use it more, sell it and buy the 50 f/1.4 (however looks like you'll just retain the 50 f/1.8 and not even buy the f/1.4 - since f/1.8 is truly a great sharp lens). On the other hand, it very well might be that even 85 mm is not to your liking , then since you saved the $200 initially (by buying the f/1.8 instead of f/1.4) you can use that to go for a 135 mm.