85 f/1.8 way narrow, wow! What do I use it for?

[jeff_harper3]

<p>I have a 40D. I received my Canon 85 f/1.8 and wow, I was shocked that to get a full shot (head to toe) of a subject I need to be about 40 feet from the subject.</p>

<p>Expensive way to learn. William, you warned me!</p>

<p>I didn't take into account the 1.6 factor. Other than a tiny church/very short aisle for the ring exchange, I'm not sure what I'd use it for. It's virtually unusable off the tripod. Anyone have any feedback?</p>

<p>My intention was to use the lens for portaits. </p>

<p>It is amazing what I have learned in one week here about equipment. </p>

<p>For portraits I have my 28 f1.4, so it would appear the next lens purchase I make should be a zoom for tight shots from the rear of the church and everything in between. Then I could fill in the gaps in the middle with subsequent purchases.</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>You're essentially using a 135mm (136, to be exact) lens, which is a tad long for full length portraits. I use an 85mm on a D700 (full frame) so it's a true 85mm. Still, I usually only pull it out for anything 3/4 length and closer.</p>

<p>I've used it for full length, but, yeah; you gotta back up. I think it's worth it, though. I really find the 85mm useful. I do a lot of engagement sessions, bridal portraits and seniors, so it gets a work-out in that respect.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Actually, it's not hard to estimate focal length. Focal length is nothing but magnification. The sensor in the 40D is 22.5x15mm and 85mm is almost 4 times bigger than 22.5mm. So to shoot something the size of X you need to step back 4 times X.</p>

<p>For example a head and shoulder shot (say 2 feet high) means you need to be 4x2=8 feet from the subject. A full length shot (say 7ft high) means you need to be 4x7=28 feet from the subject. A half length shot (say 4ft high) mean you need to be 4x4=16 feet from the subject. This is in relation to the long side of the sensor.</p>

<p>If you rotate the camera 90 degrees and still want to frame the same subject you need 50% more distance, or 6 times in this case. So a subject 7ft high needs 6x7=42 ft distance.</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>That lens on a crop frame camera is excellent for picking people out at a reception and isolating them from all the background clutter. I frequently use a 135/1.8 lens on a full frame digital camera, which is the same field-of-view as your lens on a Canon crop frame. It's also nice for ceremony shots when you're religated toward the rear of the church. 85mm on a crop frame, or 135 on a FF camera, is one of my favorite focal lengths.</p>

<p>Remember, you need not always shoot it wide open @ f/1.8. A faster maximum aperture lens provides a brighter view through a viewfinder even when you are using it at f/5.6. </p>

[tdj]

<p>I agree with Marc. I keep my 85 1.8 mounted on one of my D300's at every wedding. I love it. I use it throughout the day, but I find myself using it more often at the salon, ceremony, and for the bridal/couple shots. I love to shoot it at 1.8-2.8, and just blow the background details out.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Canon needs to make a 85/1.8 IS. </p>

[danzel_c]

<p>i love this lens with my 40D! my favorite shots are available light shots at 2.8 or wider. mostly use it for ceremony and reception for candids. i also have macro filters that i screw on it for nice ring shots. learn to use it. you'll love it! i have no problem getting sharp images hand holding at shutter speeds down to 1/100th.</p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>Love the feedback. I'll keep it. William told me I wouldn't be sorry. Thanks everyone.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Individual portraits and from further back in the church IMO. That is on a crop body, but if used on FF it works great for couples and first dance too.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The lens IS great for portraits--but head and shoulders portraits on a cropped sensor camera, not full length portraits. It is also great for no flash shots from the back of the church, as others have said. It is totally usable without a tripod in this scenario. The shutter speed should be about 1/125th and faster. Photographing a couple standing at the altar, full length, from 40 feet back, your f1.8 aperture gives enough DOF to get that couple in focus. Remember DOF is affected by subject distance, f stop and focal length. It is the subject distance that gives 'more' DOF in this case.</p>

<p>For full length portraits of a couple, what would be 50mm on a full frame is good. What would be 35mm on a full frame is good for groups.</p>

[savagesax]

Now you have to buy a full framed camera!

 

It's a beautiful portrait lens.

[landscape_shooter]

<p>Best lens on a 40D in my opinion for portraits. Also great for weddings, like Nadine said, I used it at the back of the church at 1.8 and it is sharp and plenty of DOF. The more you use it the more you'll like it.</p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>I had a wedding this evening (Video gig, I'm a full-time videographer) and had opportunity to test the lens, it is amazing. I love it.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Well I am glad it worked out, even after a bit of initial misgivings - it is a nice lens, isn't it?<br>

<br>

You can now think through that expensive 70 to 200 purchase with more experience - perhaps ask yourself: "Is the 85 OK to use for all the long shots inside the Church, for the time being - maybe it just needs a little planning in regard to the Camera Viewpoint?"<br>

<br>

Also you CAN Hand-Hold the 85 on a 40D and pull 1/80s and sometimes 1/50s, consistently - if I can, you can - it just takes practice. </p>

<p>The best reason I like my 85 (at a wedding) is for the separation, as mentioned . . . at 20Ft I can pull a Full Length shot (vertical) with about 2ft DoF at F2.8, and he bokeh is yummy at F/2.8 . . . and “separation” can mean other things too - at 10ft for an half shot I think F/2.8 gives about 4 inches DoF - great for selective focus on hands and rings and creative stuff like that, with the Bridal Gown all OoF or the OoF Champagne Flutes with portions of the Cake and the Rings in focus, behind. Selective DoF can often be used in place of a Macro lens, in these aspects, the 85, is not just a "portrait" lens . . . <br>

</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

[jeff_harper3]

<p>Yes the bokeh is wonderful. </p>

<p>Use as a macro lens? Cool, can't wait to try it.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>What a good excuse to buy a 5D. Many wedding photographers use the 85 on less than FF.</p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>Here's a sample from my shoot the other day, love this lens. </p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>Here's a sample from my shoot the other day, love this lens. </p><div></div>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>it looks like much of the pic is out of focus....i only see his nose in focus.... what was the aperture?</p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>not sure of the aperture, I've reformatted the card already. You are correct, much of it is out of focus, and I had that problem all evening. I was running in P mode and would put the focus point somewhere and only a very narrow amount of the resulting pic would be in focus.</p>

<p>The point of the pic, BTW, was the bokeh, it is so dramatic. Here' another sample where the man's hair is in focus but the face right next to him (woman) is out of focus. What should I do to correct this Mat?</p><div></div>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>BTW, I was trying to put the focus point on people's eyes, but as in the case above I was shooting so fast and moving around so much I didn't always have it where I wanted, and I assumed the general area would all be in focus, but as you can see that was not how it turned out.</p>

[jeff_harper3]

<p>Here's yet another example, where the subjects hair is in focus, but the face is not...</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>You have been having a great deal of fun - it is different to videography (cinematography) - isn't it? <br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[mathew_gardella]

<p>Jeff,<br>

i think the last pic is the best as far as focus... i would just take a moment and slow down during the shoot... perhaps you were so excited that you moved too quickly or maybe the light was not adequate and you had some camera shake.... the main point is if you had a good time it was worth it.... a flash might help with the poor lighting however, that defeats the purpose of the 1.8 aperture unless you just want the back ground.... i had attached a pic taken with my 20D and the sigma 30 1.4 that i think you recently purchased.... perhaps this lens would have been a better choice for this outing?</p><div></div>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>BTW, the aperture was set at 2.5 for this image.....</p>