50/1.4 or 85/1.8 on 5D2 for wedding

[hocus_focus]

<p>Thanks William. Miscommunication is a pity. That's a trait of online fora.</p>

<p>Do you think sigma 50/1,4 is better than canon 85/1,8?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>> There is MORE differential and greater scope of use, when comparing what can be done with an 85/1.8 and the 24-70/2.8, than the 50/1.4 and the 24–70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. Care to elaborate?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>William W.'s analysis is top notch, if you are analyzing. However, I own both lenses, and my suggestion would be to pick the one the would get the most use by focal length. If it were me, it would be the 85mm, no question. For weddings, it is good to have tele primes for those times in church you just need the wider apertures. I also don't use the 50mm focal length as much--by choice. Analyze your focal length usage from previous weddings.</p>

<p>Slight quality differences would not be the top priority for me. I find the 85mm at f1.8 and the 50mm at f1.4 totally adequate and more, for most any shot at a wedding. Many people dislike the slower focus and delicate nature of the autofocus mechanism of the 50mm f1.4. I had to repair mine once, after an 8-12" drop on carpet. However, it has been fine since, and the slower focus does not bother me at all.</p>

<p>Don't know about the Sigma, but I have a Sigma 24mm f1.8, which is perfectly fine. Obviously not the same as a Canon 24mm f1.4L, but again--totally adequate and more. The only consideration with Sigma is compatibility issues, but I'm sure that depends on age of the lens design, etc., to some extent.</p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>My most used focal lengths are 24mm, 60-70mm, 135mm, 100mm.</p>

<p>60-70mm is neither 50 nor 85 :-/</p>

<p>How precise is Sigma's AF?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think sigma 50/1,4 is better than canon 85/1,8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t know: I haven’t used the Sigma 50/1.4.<br>

But there are plenty who say the Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the EF50/1.4.</p>

<p>I own, (and use often), the EF50/1.4 and at the time I bought that Canon lens the only other EF50 options were the F/1.0L the F/1.8MkII and the F/2.5M . . . and a I wanted fast aperture and the F/1.0L was like a lump of lead apropos focussing and was also physically too big (in their face too big, not too heavy for me), for the work I wanted to use it for.</p>

<p>If I were to buy another 50mm lens now, it would likely be the 50/2.5Macro – but obviously not for its fast aperture. <br>

I do use the 50/1.4 at f/1.4 – but I would rather use it f/1.8 or smaller.<br>

I use the large aperture for light gathering, not necessarily Shallow DoF.<br>

As I tend to work quite close, for candid portraiture (not much longer than an Half Shot, even with a 50mm lens mounted), an aperture of around F/2.8 gets me quite a shallow DoF.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em> “ ‘There is MORE differential and greater scope of use, when comparing what can be done with an 85/1.8 and the 24-70/2.8, than the 50/1.4 and the 24–70.’ Interesting. Care to elaborate?”</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have APC-S and 5D cameras and as previously mentioned have both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. Also as I mentioned, I have used the 24 70/2.8 but I favour using the 16-35/2.8 as my main working “standard” zoom (on an APS-C body).</p>

<p>Similar to Nadine, my 85/1.8 was also used much at Weddings and now sees much more work at Social Functions than the 50/1.4. Even though the 50mm on an APS-C Camera is similar to the 85mm on the 5D – I prefer the 85 on the 5D, because of the physical balance, the perspective / compression difference at the same framing (and also the DoF difference). When using Film (135 format cameras) I also had a fast 50 and a fast 85 and the 85 got more use at Weddings than the 50 – the next most used Prime was a 35 – i.e. I favoured / favour the 35 / 85 combination when only using “FF” format cameras.</p>

<p>Using DSLR’s I favour the 24mm / 85mm combination, mainly because the 24 is a more flexible lens than the 35, when using dual format kit. However, If I am travelling “very light weight” the 25. 50 and 135, is my preferred three Prime Lens Set with two cameras, one of each format.</p>

<p>So that sets the background – returning to explain in more detail, my comment: <em>‘There is MORE differential and greater scope of use, when comparing what can be done with an 85/1.8 and the 24-70/2.8, than the 50/1.4 and the 24–70.’</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<ul>

<li>Firstly (obviously) 85mm lies outside the range of 24 to 70 and 50mm lies within that range.</li>

<li>If we are working at an Half Shot or tighter then the DoF differential between F/2.8 (the zoom) and F/1.4 (the 50mm) is not really that much – considering that at 50mm the SD would be quite close to make an Half Shot or tighter (about 6ft or closer) <strong><em>most</em></strong> Wedding Portraits that tight would be shot with a longer lens, for a “nicer” perspective at that tight framing . . . IF it was necessary to shoot at 50mm (e.g. because of a small room / lack of shooting space), then the 24 to 70 would suffice in most circumstances.</li>

<li>For a Full Length Shot (using a 50mm) certainly the DoF differential is more significant, but not very significant – <em>usually</em> if we are at 50mm for a Full Length Shot, it is mostly outdoors for a small group– or if indoors a Vertical Orientation One shot (often a Bridal Portrait) or a Two shot - Mum and Bride Dad and Bride, Bride and Groom etc - and for these F/2.8 would usually be quite acceptable – for other INDOOR shots (such as at the Church) we mostly need WIDER than 50mm to get the group or even two people, so looking at SITUATIONAL USAGE: a 35/1.4 (or 35/2) would usually be a better mate for an 85/1.8 (or 85/1.2) </li>

<li>The apertures - regarding light gathering: the 50/1.4 provides two stops faster than the 24-70, which if we are concerned with light gathering allows a Tv (Shutter Speed) of two stops faster for any given lighting scenario. As a practical example at a typical Available Light EV indoors at a glassy Church or Bedroom with large windows – let’s say: EV10, then to shoot AL (available Light) we would be around F/2.8 @ 1/400 @ ISO400 – quite doable with the 24 to 70. </li>

</ul>

<p>Let’s consider a lower light scenario and if we drop to EV7:</p>

<ul>

<li>We are then shooting at F/1 @ 1/400 @ ISO400 ≡ F/2.8 @ 1/100 @ ISO800, still quite doable (and safe) with the 24 to 70 at 50mm with good Hand Holding and Shutter Release Techniques – BUT moving out to 85mm (or 70mm on the 24 to 70) at 1/100s at 85mm, we are now arriving at the range of “unsafe” Tv. So in this regard of light gathering there is an inexorable link to the Tv which is possible and thus there is more value in the faster aperture at the longer focal length for greater flexibility.</li>

</ul>

<p>Obviously in the Lighting Scenarios described, if we are using Flash Fill and dragging the Shutter for the ambient exposure, we would be likely using about a tad faster Tv anyway - so that covers Flash Fill.<br>

If we are at Flash as the Key Light, then the Tv is irrelevant - and so too is the fast Aperture, predominately</p>

<p> ***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>My most used focal lengths are 24mm, 60-70mm, 135mm, 100mm. 60-70mm is neither 50 nor 85 :-/</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That data can be interpreted in a few ways. Assuming the “24mm” “60 - 70mm” data is derived from the 24 to 70’s usage: this could mean that you required wider than 24 and also could (almost) use 85 exclusively, rather than the 60mm to 70mm range.<br>

But what it does tell is that 50mm is not used that often. But that too can be misleading, depending upon HOW you use a zoom lens.<br>

For example if you generally choose your camera viewpoint for the PERSPECTIVE you require and then you frame the shot then the data is <em>more valid</em> for the application to consideration of Prime Lens choice.<br>

On the other hand, if you generally are less mobile and frame the shot with the zoom, mostly disregarding the nuances of Perspective, then the data is <em>less valid</em>.’<br>

No disrespect intended: but the latter description is mostly how zoom lenses, are always used. </p>

<p>*** </p>

<p>Personally, I’d suggest you buy both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 as they are two of the best value for money prosumer lenses in the EF range for Social Events work, IMO and the additional purchase will not leave you destitute.</p>

<p>Whilst the 50mm FL is sometimes “boring” I am confident that if stretched to the last limit of system redundancy I could cover the whole gig with a 50mm and a 5D . . . just as we used to do not so many years ago – but that was with a 6x6 and an 80mm lens. </p>

<p>The 85/1.8 wide open can be seen here: <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10963088-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10963088-lg.jpg</a> and here: <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10963089-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10963089-lg.jpg</a><br>

The 50/1.4 at larger apertures, here: <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11241039-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11241039-lg.jpg</a> and here: <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10934234-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10934234-lg.jpg</a> <br>

There are other examples, mostly all are defined by their titles </p>

<p>WW </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I would interpret the 60-70mm usage as--would have used an 85mm if it were available. I'd buy the 85mm first, then the/a 50mm.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . and then buy a fast 24.<br>

. . . and sell, that clunky zoom.</p>

<p>WW<br>

(the quip about selling the zoom . . . was a joke)</p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>Thanks William. After reading your breakdown, I think 85mm would suit me better. However, this takes me close to 100mm macro field of view so for now I'll just experiment more with the macro lens.</p>

<p>Sometimes I like going wider than 24mm but not as wide as 16mm. 20mm is nice but I can get around it.</p>

<p>On a dual kit I'd use 16-35/2,8 and 85/1,8 and 135/2.</p>

<p>I prefer to carry one camera though and will keep 24-70/2,8 and 135/2.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>You have everything you already need. Why bother with something "wider" if you're using a FF body with the 24-70? Does not make sense. Stick with what you've got.</p>