Prime Decision 85/60/50

[PhotoB]

I am looking for a portrait and nature prime lens to go on an XSi. I have it narrowed down to the 85 f/1.8 and the ef-s 60 2.8 macro...and why not throw in the 50 1.4 for discussion.


Thanks for the thoughts...

[Garrett-Grimsley]

I own both the 50mm and the 85mm f/1.8 primes, and I find myself using the 85mm about 95% of the time. It's an amazing lens, and the FoV seems to be perfect for portiats on a x1.6 body.





It can be tack sharp wide open if you manual focus, but after f/2.8 you can do whatever because it's razor sharp after that.


Here's two examples of mine; one stopped down a bit, and the other wide-open.


http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/808bou/IMG_0010-2.png


Canon Rebel XT 350D, 85mm, F/3.2, ISO200, 1/800sec





http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/808bou/IMG_1125-Edit.png


Canon Rebel XT 350D, 85mm, F/1.8, ISO1600, 1/1250sec








All in all, I highly reccomend the 85mm over both the 50 and the 60.

[PhotoB]

Great pictures...I like the 85 because I think it would fit me better...but am entertaining the 60 for the macro


Thanks for the input!

[Sean Setters]

I'll throw in a second opinion here. I owned the 85 f/1.8 for a brief time, but ended up selling it on ebay. It was a great lens, very sharp. So why did I sell it? It didn't fit my shooting style. I wanted to use the lens indoors and utilize it's wide aperture, but it was simply too long on my 1.6x crop sensor. After the sale I bought the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and came to appreciate the wonderful versatility of a zoom. I later purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for use outdoors and at weddings. Again, the versatility of the zoom was key.


Only recently have I purchased another prime lens--the 50 f/1.4. Is it a better lens than the 85 f/1.8? Nope. But it fits my needs better. A couple of years ago I wanted a lens that I could take indoor photojournalistic-type portraits. The shorter focal length makes it much more useful to me than the 85mm lens.


The 85 f/1.8 may be a perfect nature lens, but most of the time people want even longer focal lengths for that purpose. It's a great portrait lens, but you need substantial distance for any full-length body shots. Just make sure you know exactly how you want to use the lens so that you make the right choice the first time (unlike me).


As I said, the 85 f/1.8 is a fantastic lens (especially for the money), but it didn't fit me as well as the 50 f/1.4.

[PhotoB]

You make a good point about indoor shots. That, in part, is where the 60 came into play for me. I am looking for it to be a part portrait plus the capability to snap some action shots of kids...both indoor and out. I have entertained a fast zoom but started to explore primes and think they may be the way to go right now.

[Jarhead5811]

I've got a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx) and 50mm seems awful tight to me indoors. It could be that my house just isn't big enough but I'd like to check out a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx)for that use.


I've got a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx)that I love and it stays on my XSi 99% of the time.


I will say that without a flash, even at ISO 1600,it is unlikely you'll get any real good action shots on a consistant basis indoors with any f/2.8.

[Sean Setters]

The 50mm f/1.4 is still a little tight indoors, but it's not nearly as tight as the 85mm! The more I use that 50mm, the more I like it. I took this shot earlier this evening with it.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_5460_5F00_copy_5F00_small.jpg

[Rodger]

Garret, love both images.


I have the 50mm f/1.8 II. I find it a bit tight inside, but I really like the 50mm focal length. There are times outside doing non-portraiture that I wish I had more reach even on a 1.6 crop sensor.


My $0.02, hope I helped a little.

[PhotoB]

Great input...so it sounds like for outdoor use the 85 is great but for indoors more of a wide angle is needed...makes sense. I too, Rodger, like the extra reach of the 85 (over the kit lens) for outdoor shots.


As a walk-around, would the 85 be a better than the 50?

[PhotoB]

Anyone have thoughts on the 60's capabilities for either portraits or outdoor fun?

[Sean Setters]

Keep in mind, I've never owned or used the 60mm f/2.8 EFS Macro lens. That said, I wouldn't get it over the 50mm f/1.4 unless you planned on doing alot of macro work.


Reason #1: In my opinion, the larger maximum aperture of the 50mm lens makes it a much more versatile and useful lens. According to Bryan, the lenses are as sharp as each other at comparable apertures. However, the 60mm lens only goes to f/2.8, while the 50mm lens gives you alot more light to work with using f/1.4 through f/2.8.


Reason #2: I realize it's only a small 10mm difference in focal length between the two, but it can be significant when trying to take pictures indoors. As mentioned before, the 50mm lens is still a little tight in small indoor areas. Why push it that much farther?


Reason #3: The 50mm (and 85mm) lenses are EF lenses, not EF-S lenses. If you ever choose to upgrade to a full-format camera, the 60mm lens won't be able to be used on it.

[PhotoB]

That is my only hesitation with the 60...and it seems that the 50 (compared to the 60) is more versital with the 1.4 and better in tight, indoor spaces...


Thanks!

[Jayson]

Why don't you purchase the 85 1.8 and purchase the 50 1.8. Last time I looked on Amazon the 50 1.4 was about the same as both of these combined. If you have the budget for the 1.4, why not get two for the price of one. I have the 50 1.8 like most everyone out there and it is very sharp after f2.2. If you planning on doing a portrait in studio, this lens works awesome. I don't have the 50 1.4 but have read this is an awesome lens. However, I was hesitant to purchase this over the 85 based onsome focusing issues I read about on some other forums. Although, I don't think anyone in this forum has had issues.All that said, I have heard nothing but positives about the 85 1.8.


Check outBryan's ISO crops for the two 50's. They are very similar in sharpness, or at least it appears that way on my screen.Plus, if your doing studio work with the 50, most of the time you will be using strobes or flashes. Contrast and saturation are a little flatter on the 1.8, but I usually just bump that up on the camera when I put the lens on.


That was mythinking when making my purchases. I have a limited budget and that is how I justified what I have.

[Jorundr-Jorgensen]

Tell you what, a few months ago I made a very similair post on here with the question what a good lens would be for portraits, and through the many useful tips and recommendations I got from it I bought the 85mm 1.8. And I didn't regret it a single time. But I shoot 99% outdoors with this lens so I've got more then enough space to walk around the object im photographing, but of course sometimes the 136mm (on 1.6 body) gives me a bit trouble since it's really the recommended max distance you should have for portraits.


It makes superbe head/shoulder shots, amazingly sharp and a near perfect bokeh in the background.


But if you are planning to go indoors you should indeed take a look at the 50mm 1.4 (which might still be too long) or perhaps a zoom lens. Beside the 85mm I also own the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which I use when it's getting to tight indoors or if I want to throw in some wider angels.



Good luck with your decision,
Jørundr.

[PhotoB]

Jayson...that is exactly what I thought about last night...


Jorundr...I was going along those lines with getting the 85 as I would like the range outside. From there I would see if it would be too tight indoors and what setups I could do with it. If that doesn't work, I would then go with the 50 for an indoor portrait and even a 35mm...


Thanks for the ideas...

[bradlove]

You should strongly consider the Sigma 30 1.4 if you want to do low light indoor shots. It's a fantastic lens. Center sharpness is on par with the 35L. It's small and light. It's a very enjoyable lens to use and is available for a reasonable price as well. Give it a look!

[PhotoB]

I will take a look at that Sigma...it seems to have great reviews. I think I am going to go with the 85mm to start for more of an outdoor, active lens. If I can't get it inside, the Canon 50 (f/1.4) or 35 (f/2) will be my option along with the Sigma...

[engrmariano]

since you've included 60/2.8 macro, i'll recommend it for dual purpose, portrait & macro. also because its sharp.