50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8?

[st_phane_krakowska]

<p>The 50mm 1.4 is of a good buit quality. But if you think of dropng it to the floor regularly then.. any lens will resist it is a 50/50 chance. By experience I saw many metalic lens and bodybreaking while plastic (and so more supple) just bounce and work properly.<br>

You could also get a 100mm 2.8 macro that can be for portrait and...macro.</p>

[bard_fosse]

<p>Depending on your camera what is best.<br>

If you have a crop sensor (assume you do) the 85 will be about 135 in full frame, which is very nice for portraits. If you read up on it everywhere crop cameras has the 85 as THE portrait lens. It is long enough to flatter a lot...<br>

The 50 is a 80 equivalent on cropped camera.<br>

I was through the same sentiments as yourself and bought the 85, have never regretted that for a second, awesome lens brilliant for portraits. I looked around on flickr went into my camera group, then looked up great portraits, most of them were shot with the 85 (the ones I though were great)<br>

If you have a full frame the best ones are the 100 f/2 in price/performance, the 85 is still pretty nice lens here as well especially in a limited space. The 50 is usable but is just a normal lens so it won't flatter as much as a tele. So if you got ff or one day will go ff the 85 makes sense </p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>Your EXIF is the information inbeded by your camera into your photo file. It can be viewed by the free Digital Photo Professional software that came with your camera body. The information includes: Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO, what lens you were using and at what focal length, and lots of other usefull information. Why don't you get the 85mm 2.8 and a cheap 50mm 1.8 ($100 range). Image quality of the 50 1.8 is still sharper then a zoom and for it's low price who cares if it gets dropped, etc. You've probably noticed it mentioned on PN that the 50mm 1.8 lens is the best bang for the buck lens.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I have used 85mm 1.8 on 5D, and it is just unbelievable.<br>

But since you are using 50D, I think you should go with 50mm 1.4 which again is an excellent lens. 85mm 1.8 will be a little too long for you.</p>

[bard_fosse]

<p>85 mm is not too long on crop cameras, you actually benefit by being able to go much tighter than on FF with it. 85 or 135 equivalent is a perfect portrait lens. The 50 mm is awesome as well, the 50 mm f/1.8 is a steal in price and you really don't need ultrafast focus for portraits, so for 50 mm I'd buy the f/1.8 cheap and great. If I could spend more cash I'd buy the 85 no doubt...</p>

[Brad_]

I do a LOT of street portraits with a 17-50mm f/2.8 on a crop cam.

 

I also have an 85mm f/1.8. Which is way to long for portraits on a crop body as I like subject engagement. I rarely use the

lens because of that. The only reason I'm holding onto it is if I should get a FF in the future.

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I'd get 50/1.8 and 85/1.5. IQ of the 50/1.8 is very close to that of the 50/1.4.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[peter_ferling]

<p>I have to agree with all the comments regarding the research on the Exif data of your past photos. My three favorite primes are the 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro, and 135L 2.</p>

<p>When I wanted a zoom to replace my lowly kit lens, a 28-135 3.5/5.6 for walk around, my first thought was the 24-105L. However, when I check my Exif data (I user LR so it's a few clicks away), I discovered that a majority of my shots ranged from 28 to 60mm. Thus I purchased a 17-55 EFs 2.8 and have been very satisfied.</p>

<p>So either lens you desire will give you excellent results. The real question is which one fits your subject shooting distance.</p>

 

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Both the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 deliver great results - I have both and I use them on my Rebel camera bodies. I shot a lot of portraits and I find the 85mm is on my camera much more - I agree that it is a little long sometimes indoors but that has not stopped me from using it indoors. For me, the built quality on the 50mm is not that good - better than the 50mm f1.8 for sure but not all that great. The 85mm's quality is fine for what it's price. The 50mm hunts for focus sometimes. I have the Sigma 70mm for my Sony and I quite like that lens - just starting to use it for portraits now.<br>

As far as looking at EXIF info, not sure how useful that is since you were shooting with a zoom on them - likely you will think and position yourself different using a zoom vs a prime. What kinds of portraits do you take a lot of - head shots, half body or full body? How much room do you generally have to work with? etc.</p>

[peter_ferling]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as looking at EXIF info, not sure how useful that is since you were shooting with a zoom on them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Focal length is part of the Exif, and is especially beneficial since the user unconsciously sets his or her zoom to his or her 'comfortable' reach. It seems odd as you would think a zoom would be all over the place, but if I grew up shooting only with a 50mm, then much of my data tells me I'm close to that on the zoom by way of habit.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dale,<br>

As Peter says the EXIF (<strong>Exchangeable image file format</strong> ) contains the focal length used within the zoom range. The EXIF below shows me with my 16-35 at 28mm.</p>

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>As Chad said the EXIF, a complete rundown of all your camera settings used when you took a picture, is embedded in your image file. With DPP just click on a picture and then go, File-Info, this box opens and it tells you everything you did. Look through your favourite pictures, the ones that give you the look you are aspiring to, and your EXIF will point you in the right direction. I always thought I was a longer focal length person but when I looked through my library I realised I wasn't, the EXIF doesn't lie :-)</p><div></div>

[al_augustini]

<p>Tyler -<br>

I'm strictly an amateur with two 20D (1.6 crop) cameras. I own Canon's 35/2, 50/1.4, 60M/2.8, 85/1.8 and 135/2.0. I must not be as picky as the other posters, because I find all of these lenses to be terrific, even tho the 60 & 135 are "extra" terrific. I also have the 24L/1.4 -- which is my go-to lens indoors in really bad light or when I need the equivalent of a "true" 40mm lens. But you don't "need" the L.<br>

Because of the 1.6 crop, the 30/2 is "functionally" a 56/2, the 50/1.4 is an 80/1.4, the 85/1.8 is a 136/1.8, and the 135/2 is a 216/2. I shoot all these lenses as tho they were their "functional" equivalent. Accordingly, indoors or in marginal light I typically use the 35 & 50 for portraits (and sometimes the 24 or the 60, depending on light). Outdoors, sports, etc. or in good lite I use the 50, 60, 85 & 135.<br>

This "system" or approach works fabulously well for me. To the posters who say 50mm is a boring lens, I say that on a crop the 50 is "really" an 85 so, ironically, you can't get the 85 "look" with an 85, because on a crop the 85 "looks" like a 135!<br>

I agree with the suggestion of other that you use your zoom @ 35 & 50 & 85 for a while (that's what I did with my 24-85 zoom before I bought my prime lenses). I suspect like me you'll discover the 35 & 50 (i.e., functionally 54 and 80) are wonderful indoors or in poor lite for portraits, and the 60-85-135 are best for outdoor portraits or in good lite. I shoot all these lenses wide-open all the time on my ancient 20D and, using only the center focus point, I get mostly good results. I rarely print larger than 8x10, but even when I print twice as large the prints look wonderful: acceptably sharp, rich colors, good contrast, nice bokeh. I think you'll get even better results on your 40D, shooting at higher ISOs in mediocre lite.<br>

One final point: After shooting many indoor kid portraits, I find myself returning again & again to my 35/2 -- it is light, quik focusing (even tho it buzzes when focusing) and generates pics you will treasure. True, the bokeh isn't quite as creamy as what you get with the 50/85, and the bokeh, contrast, sharpness does look a touch anemic next to the (justifiably) legendary 135, as well as the wonderful 60M. But it gets the job done very, very well.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Peter, you grew up with a prime but I am not sure of the OP grew up with a prime or not - I know I was all over the place with my first zoom because I let my hands do the zooming rather than my feet. What you said was what I was thinking - you grew up with a prime and used to thinking that way so you position yourself accordingly even when you have a zoom in your hands ... if the OP was like me with my first zoom, I'm all over the place so that's why I wasn't sure if the EXIF on the focal length was all that useful.</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Dale, you are correct -I'm not discounting your opinion, and if such is the case for the OP, then the exif data would show that and be discounted. Otherwise, he might as well flip a coin and be happy with the choice. Either lens will do the job. </p>

<p>The 50 f.1.4 will work in smaller, tighter locations, and at least get the shot in some very dark situations. There's more to that lens than just portraits, and if given the choice of having only one, I want all the uses I can get for my money.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Agreed, Peter ... the 50mm would be more useful in other situations as a general lens for sure. Just for me, I end up using the 85mm more.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I wouldn't get either oneof those lens for general portrait use. To me primes are way too limiting when shooting portrait. On my Canon 30D I primarily used a Canon 17-40 F4L and Tamron 28-75 F2.8.<br>

I prefer the Tamron but because my studio is so small I needed a wide angle lens to do full body shots while standing 6-8 feet away. An 85 you will need to be about 15 feet away and the 50 gives about a 3/4 bodu shot. Might be able to get a headshot with it but thats about it.<br>

In your price range the Tamron 28-75 is excellent and is just as sharp as the Canon 50 1.8 which if you must have a prime I would get the 50 1.8.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p> To me zooms are way too limiting when shooting portrait.... :-)</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[adrian_lowe]

<p>85 mm 1.8</p>

[hstelljes]

<p>The 85mm is great for portraits. I've had both the 50mm and the 85mm. I still have the 85mm. I sold the 50mm F1.4 and ended up buying a 50mm F1.8. The 50mm f1.8 is good enough for things I need it to do. I currently use a 40D. I hope this helps. Just my opinion.</p>