50 1.4, 85 1.8, or 135L

[orly_andico]

<p>Hi all</p>

<p>I posted a very similar question some time back.</p>

<p>I have a 40D, 17-40L, and 100 2.8 Macro. I have been using a 70-200 4L IS for some weeks. I'm looking for a general-purpose (but mostly portrait) longer lens. The 17-40L is too slow at 40mm to blur backgrounds nicely.</p>

<p>I don't like the 70-200 on crop body. It's too long, I end up using it at 70mm most of the time, and at f/4 it doesn't blur backgrounds satisfactorily.</p>

<p>I've pretty much narrowed down my choices to the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L.</p>

<p>I've used 50mm extensively in the past, I know I am comfortable with this focal length. And f/1.4 will blur backgrounds (I know) albeit with aberrations galore. I am a bit apprehensive about the non-ring USM. I know it is FTM, but it's not a ring drive, so not sure about the AF speed.</p>

<p>For exactly the same price as the 50 1.4, I can get the 85 1.8 which does have a ring drive. Getting a bit long for me but I believe still manageable. I believe it has less aberrations than the 50mm as its not a Gaussian design (everybody says it has gorgeous bokeh wide-open).</p>

<p>Then there's the 135L. This is actually overly long for me on my crop body. But I can get a used one for $780 and that red ring is calling to me..</p>

<p>I can also get a 70-200 2.8 non-IS for $1000. I dislike the 70-200 4L for its weight and length, the 2.8 is even heavier and has the same FL. But it's f/2.8 so would knock backgrounds out better. The idea of lugging that weight around doesn't appeal to me though.</p>

<p>Suggestions?</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Sounds like you should buy an EF 85 1.8 USM: sharp, ultra fast ring-type USM, nice MF ring and ideal for large studio and outdoor portraits. It's certainly one of Canon's best values. Too bad the 50 1.4 USM isn't built as well. I found the 50 1.4 a lesson in frustration as AF is iffy. It's fast enough but tends to miss a lot in low light, the purpose I bought it for. All my slow zooms AF better.</p>

<p>I love the 135 2.0L but it's too long for most indoor portrait use, unless you have a huge studio or use it for sports. I liked it for street and concert photography. The EF 135 2.8 SF is another bargain optic with top quality. It lacks USM but the internal focus group design makes focus very peppy and it's tack sharp if you choose not to use the SF feature.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>If those are your choices I'd say the 85/1.8 would be the way to go.</p>

<p>Throwing an odd ball here: how about the EF-s 60/2.8?</p>

<p>Nicely in the middle of your zoom and your other macro and shorter than the 70-200 of which you say that you mostly use it at 70mm.</p>

<p>If you need longer just use the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>Good luck, Matthijs.</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>Such a classic question and really no perfect answer other than to own them all! However, having been in your situation (40D before 5d2) I can tell you what I learned.</p>

<p>The 40D was my first DSLR, purchased mainly for kid pictures. Within a month the kit lens never saw the camera again and a 50 f/1.4 pretty could have been welded onto it. I always felt it was just a bit longish but it worked. Maybe it was my copy, but I really only used it at f1.8 and maybe once in a while at f1.6. But everyone really, really liked the pictures and the bokeh and it was what got me interested in photography.</p>

<p>Next, I purchased a used 85mm f/1.8 - and like all photographers, I feel in love with this lens. The 50mm came off the camera for the first time. I had no problems using it wide open, focus was very fast and for the first time the pics started to have a bit of the cinematic feel to them. Some of my favorite kid pictures are from this lens. However, it was always a bit too long indoors on the 40D. </p>

<p>But then I found a beat up, used 35L. Wow, just something about the contrast, color, etc. The 35L was the perfect lens for kid pictures, some indoor pics, outside pics, etc. For the first time I was using something close to 50mm (effective). I had wished from day one I had started with 35mm on the 40D instead of the 50mm.</p>

<p>Just before switching to full frame I found a used 135L at a price too good to refuse (your situation!). So I sold a kit lens and few other items and bought it. I tried to make it work indoors but on a 40D, just too tight. However, once outdoors the sharpness, color rendition and bokeh really did give the cinematic look I think I was always searching for. So in the end, I usually just carried the beat up old 35L and the 135L along with the 40D. </p>

<p>Fast forward to present day. The EF-50mm f/1.4 has failed - as they all seem to do. However, I absolutely love the look of the 50mm on the full frame. So I use it with live view for manual focus and video. I will never sell it. The focus ring on the 1.8 is too small and the 50 f/1.2 is just to darned expensive and from the charts, the 50 f/1.4 will give better edge to edge sharpness.</p>

<p>I will never part with the 85mm f/1.8 - unless I can somehow afford the 'keg' one day:) On the 5d2, I find I use 85mm more often now for dabbling in video as it just seems "right" and it is such a sharp fast lens. I also use the 85 for pictures of single persons as they seem to like their own photos best at 85m and up.</p>

<p>If you just want to crush backgrounds, get the 135L and buy a lot bigger house so you'll have room to back up!</p>

<p>Since you already have a awesome 100mm f/2.8 and you seem to be wanting to go less than 70mm, I would look at the 50mm ... full well expecting it to fail sooner or later. Or, take a day to try / rent a 35mm and verify that 50mm (effective) isn't what you are really after. </p>

<p>If you do get the 135L you will never regret it, you will probably find new areas of photography that interest you and you can always sell it again for almost the exact same price. </p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>All are great in their own right. The thing to consider is that you are using these on a crop sensor. Are you planning on moving to a "full frame" sensor one day? If so the 135L is a great (yet way more expensive) choice. If you are not using the longer range of your 70-200 at the moment you may not be happy really. Plus you already have the 100. So for a fast prime for mostly portraits it's between the 50 and the 85. Both very reasonable priced in my opinion for what you're getting. The 50 seems to fill more of the "gap" that you currently have and would make more of a classic "85mm" portrait lens on your camera. I don't have the 85 1.8 but heard good things about it. I do have the 50 1.4 and love it (on 5dII). The classic Canon 50 1.4 has been one of my favorites since the 80s.<br>

Yes, the build quality is a little underwhelming compared to by old FD versions of the very same lens. Optically its as great as ever. I decided to go with it and pass on the much bigger and way more expensive 50 1.2L. I'm very careful with my gear and bought the matching hood and always leave it on which protects the focusing mechanics of the thing. So far so good.<br>

The 85 is said to be a better build quality but may just be too long for you still. 35L may be worth a though depending on budget.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>Don't forget the 100mm f/2.0. Nice.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>If the 70-200 is too long, and you're always at 70mm, I'd rule out the 85 and 135. Doesn't really matter how great they are (they're terrific!) If the focal length is wrong, it's wrong. Kinda like the joke about the guy looking under a street lamp for his missing watch because the light is better there.</p>

<p>The 85 on a 1.6x crop body is a bit long for indoor portraits, in my opinion. I think you'd be better off with the 50. That said, I much prefer the 85/1.8 over the 50/1.4 due to build quality. I don't think you'll be able to tell the difference when it comes to prints. They're both good.</p>

<p>I'd echo the recommendation of the 35/1.4. You said the red ring is calling. The 35 has a nice red ring. :) I bought these in the following order: 85, 50, 135, 35. And I use them in this frequency: 35, 135, 85, 50. Kinda ironic, eh? :)</p>

<p>If you can't afford the 35 now, go with the 50. It's a good lens. Just not as good as the others, but if that's the focal length you need, so be it.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I think the OP answered his own question. if 70mm (112mm eff) is too long, why even consider the 85/1.8 or the 135/2? both of which are going to be longer than 70mm.</p>

<p>My recommendation would be the Sigma 50/1.4. FAR better performance WO, an AF system that's fast, has FTM, and is missing the 18yr old track record for complete and utter spontaneous failures that the EF 50/1.4 has accumulated. I bought my second (EF) one (guess why I had to) just before the Sigma 50 came out. When this one dies (I do say when, because it has already failed twice... just miraculously, and spontaneously came back to life both times), I'll, w/o hesitation, order a Sigma to replace it. At only about $100 more it's a steal.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>THe 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens and could work well for what you have in mind. However, I get a feeling that you might be coming at this backwards. You have put your consideration of a number of (slightly theoretical) issues ahead of the most basic question, namely "what focal length do I need?"</p>

<p>If a 135mm f/2 has gorgeous OOF stuff - which it does - but is longer than your ideal for the work you want to do with the lens, getting it would seem to make little sense. Frankly, any of the lenses you mentioned can blur backgrounds quite nicely, especially if you pay attention to all of the elements that contribute to this including such things as camera to subject distance and camera to background distance.</p>

<p>If 85mm is one notion of "standard" portrait focal length on full frame, then 50mm provides virtually that coverage on the cropped sensor camera. If you get the 85mm FL - which can also work - you are using the angle-of-view equivalent of more or less a 135mm lens on full frame, so if you would use 135mm for your purposes on FF then this could be fine. 135mm on your camera is going to produce a very narrow angle of view - not "wrong" to go that route but at least a bit unusual.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes I would take a look at either the 50mm f/1.4 (which, contrary to some L-caholics, can produce wonderful images), the 85mm f/1.8 (same story), or perhaps the more versatile and also quite excellent EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Hi all</p>

<p>Thanks for the insights. The 35L is just way too expensive for me, unfortunately.</p>

<p>I don't want to gamble with the Sigma (piss-poor resale value, history of AF errors).</p>

<p>Didn't get the 17-55 2.8IS (which is why I have the 17-40L) due to future full-frame considerations (yeah I should've gotten the 16-35L but as always, budget considerations).</p>

<p>I'm not keen on buying a 50 1.4 that's "guaranteed to fail" at some point.</p>

<p>I would qualify on the 70-200: I don't think it's "too long" at 70mm. It's "too long" at most of its range, but at 70mm is just fine. The problem is that 70mm f/4 doesn't have shallow-enough DOF for my liking.</p>

<p>Really looks like the 85 1.8 I suppose (85L too pricey and I hear the AF crawls)..</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>If a 135mm f/2 has gorgeous OOF stuff - which it does - but is longer than your ideal for the work you want to do with the lens, getting it would seem to make little sense. Frankly, any of the lenses you mentioned can blur backgrounds quite nicely, especially if you pay attention to all of the elements that contribute to this including such things as camera to subject distance and camera to background distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Words of wisdom. In fact, the 70-200/4 L IS is also capable of producing very fine bokeh if you pay attention to camera to subject distance and camera to background distance. I know this firsthand, since I have and use the zoom often.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Really looks like the 85 1.8 I suppose (85L too pricey and I hear the AF crawls)...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But if bokeh is your primary concern, no D/SLR lens made touches the EF 85/1.2 L.</p>

<p>If I want a new lens, I sell other lenses to finance its purchase. You might want to consider doing the same in this case.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Hi Mark</p>

<p>The 85L costs more than my entire existing kit put together, I think.. am not willing to sell off some of my other stuff for it. You do pay a huge premium for that last 5% of performance.</p>

[Brad_]

I would pick a lens based on the focal length that you *need* for the type of portraiture and subject matter

you want to shoot, rather than primarily on bokeh characteristics.

 

Just as an example, for the type of portraiture I do, an 85mm on a crop body would be totally insane.

Even if the OOF characteristics were better than any other lens on the planet.

 

A lens decision driven by bokeh variations without first defining the focal length required for what you want to shoot makes little

sense.

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>You do pay a huge premium for that last 5% of performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true, Orlando. The <em>law of diminishing returns</em> clearly applies with respect to lenses.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I own both the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8. I love them both, though I find myself turning to the 50 f/1.4 more often simply for the focal length. The Sigma is sharp from wide open, built very well, and has legendary bokeh.</p>

<p>I would recommend either. If you're comfortable with 50 and worried that 85 might be a bit tight, start with the Sigma and add the Canon later.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>The EF 85/1.8 is a non-L lens that should be an L. Excellent value and performance, fast focusing.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>I have a 40 D, a 50 1.4, and an 85 1.8. The 85 1.8 is a great lens on the 40D, much much better than the 50 1.4. I also have a 1DS and 85 1.2, two beasts mated toghther.<br>

The 40 D and the 85 1.8 are great.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I also have a 40D right now, and purchased the 85 1.8. This is an excellent combo, although a little long for indoor use. I have also been using my 70-200 f4 IS with my 40D, and have taken some great portraits of my students with an inexpensive flash setup. Yet, The OOF background the 85 1.8 provides is hard to beat. Good luck.<br>

Paul</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>Looks like I'll have to pass on that red ring.</p>

<p>Indeed for my purposes the 85 (or 50) are far more usable than the 135. I'm not after bokeh per se, there are other considerations (for example, I think the 50 is more usable than the 85 for me.. but I don't want that micro-motor USM, and I'm willing to take 2 steps back).</p>

<p>Just checked the price on the Sigma 50 1.4 it's not much more than the Canon 50 1.4 -- but photozone among others reports on strong back-focusing with the Sigma..</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Well, no wonder you can't decide, I can't tell what you DO want (other than a new CANON EF 50/1.4 USM mk2 -- Something that we've <em>ALL </em>wanted...<strong>badly</strong>... for a very long time ;-) ). If bokeh isn't a consideration, then you must not intend to use the lens WO very much, in which case, why bother with a prime at all... a fast zoom oughta do ya, a 24-70/2.8 for example.</p>

<p>When I shoot w/ my primes I use them almost exclusively WO, or near WO. That's why I have such problems w/ the EF 50/1.4, not only is the AF destined to fail (and when it does, it locks up tight as a drum, so MF is out too), but IQ from f1.4-f2 ranges from poor to moderately acceptable, esp FF, anwhere even approaching an edge just becomes a mess. The 85/1.8 is vastly better WO (except for some ridiculously bad CA), plus it has 'real' USM. You should buy it, if you are stuck on primes.</p>

<p>As far as the Sig goes... read closer, it's not back focusing, it's focus shift... inexperienced users tend to misreport that (and as a result, utterly fail to properly compensate). But you probably shouldn't buy it regardless... despite it's superior IQ, AF, and price/performance (considering it performs on par w/ 50/1.2L and ziess 50/1.4), based on your statements, it seems you <em>don't want</em> to like it... which will, most likely, lead to you NOT liking it. Don't feel bad, many people have 'third party lens hate'. It's quite normal ;-)</p>

[stamos]

<p>In my opinion the choise is Canon 85 1.8. Good optics, good AF, nice price, nice background blur and not very long on crop body (for me).</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>If you need an excellent portrait lens, the 100mm 2.0 is worth consideration. It's a nice mid focal length between 85mm and 135mm.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Marcus, the first page of the PZ review states ".. The tested sample had a fairly strong back-focus problem but this may be an isolated issue." This is quite aside from the focus shift stopping down. I've been told the 50/1.2L also has focus shifts stopping down.</p>

<p>I did say bokeh wasn't the <em>primary</em> consideration.. but it is a consideration nonetheless. I hear you about the 50 1.4 -- I used to have a Pentax 50 1.4 and the aberrations wide open were eye-popping. I didn't know that the 50 1.4 locks up if it can't focus and thus you cannot MF.. good to know.</p>

<p>I never considered the 100 2.0 because I have the 100 2.8 Macro, which is only one stop slower and focuses much, much closer.</p>

<p>Anyway I just went out and got an 85 1.8 :-)</p>

<p>It is a bit long for me :-P But I guess beggars can't be choosers, I'm not willing to tolerate the "locks up tighter than a drum" behavior of the 50 1.4 and don't want to buy the Sigma (it's not third-party lens hate, I just don't want to deal with FF/BF issues, which I did a lot of when I was using Pentax). I guess I'll pick up the 50 1.8 plastic wonder for those times when the 85 1.8 is just too long.. after it is dirt-cheap.</p>

<p>One other thing.. maybe it's the focus throw but the 85 1.8 seems to AF slower than some other lenses I've used (17-40L, 17-55 IS, 70-200 4L IS). Or maybe the barrel is still tight. Don't know if that makes sense. :-) But it does have gorgeous bokeh. I've quickly decided to use it at f2.2 to suppress the CA (even in the center!) when it's wide-open.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are so concerned about the "micromotor USM" on the 50mm. What it is called makes not difference whatsoever to your photography. The bottom line is that the 50mm lens is a fine performer, no one even thinks about what kind of AF motor it has while shooting with it, it produces fine bokeh... and it is probably the closest thing to the ideal focal length for your purpose on your camera.</p>

<p>I often seem people falling into certain equipment traps as they try to decide what gear to purchase. One of the strangest is to see them look <em>away</em> from the most basic feature they need - in your case, the "right" focal length - and obsess about other aspects that are barely relevant to their intended use and would probably produce no visible difference anyway - sharpness, bokeh, color.</p>

<p>It is as if one really, really needed a small, compact car with high mileage to drive to work but heard that the very best rear view mirrors came on some pickup truck, so in order to have "the best" you bought the pickup truck instead of the car you need.</p>

<p>Dan</p>