canon 85 1.8 vs canon 50mm 1.4 [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

Sean Setters

12-21-2009, 10:09 PM

I've owned both lenses at one time or another. For build quality, image quality, and focusing speed, I'd give a nod to the 85mm f/1.8. However, for most usefulness, I'd have to say the 50mm f/1.4. Why? On a crop body, when I need the wide aperture, I'm not shooting people terribly far away. The 50mm focal length provides a much more useful field of view than the 85mm does for my own personal use.

You can take fantastic images with both. The 85mm is a little better built (and newer), but the focal range proved much less useful for me. For that reason alone, I really enjoy my 50mm f/1.4. I'd suggest letting focal length alone be the deciding factor between the two lenses. I did like the 85mm lens when I had it, and I've often thought about getting it again. However, it would be relegated to special uses like wedding ceremonies and receptions rather than used more often as a general purpose lens.

Wow, I kind of rambled through that one...too tired to change it, though. ;-)

Cozen

12-21-2009, 11:12 PM

sound advice Sean. How does your 50 1.4 handle flare?

Sean Setters

12-21-2009, 11:26 PM

sound advice Sean. How does your 50 1.4 handle flare?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

From the sun, I'm not quite sure. However, I have fired a strobe directly into the lens to simulate the sun, and it's worked very well. I'm actually kind of fond of the starburst that's created. This isn't one of my best, but it shows what I'm talking about...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3964250279_426e4326e3.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/3964250279/)

Rob Gardner

12-21-2009, 11:26 PM

For once I would have to disagree with the esteemed Sean (I would always defer to his vastly superior strobist knowledge). On a 1.6 crop, 135mm is perfect for portrait photography, getting you away from your subject and giving you great background blur. And the 85 1.8 is pure magic for me. It is my most-often used portrait lens, and doubles as a great indoor sports lens, with quite fast AF. I own both the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8, and have also owned the 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2 - the bigger glass definitely have advantages in studio work, but I found their AF speed to be somewhat lacking for non-composed shots. In the end, I couldn't justify the $2600 in lens inventory, when it could be better spent elsewhere. For my needs, the lower-end 50 and 85mm both get the job done.

The AF on the 85 1.8 is definitely faster than the 50mm 1.4, something you might consider in your purchasing decision. If you take a look at my photo gallery at http://www.ithinksmall.com/gallery - most all the portraits were done with the 85mm 1.8.

DavidEccleston

12-21-2009, 11:28 PM

However, for most usefulness, I'd have to say the 50mm f/1.4.

I'll agree. I have the 50mm f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.8 on a T1i. Despite the 85mm being sharper, and having USM, it's rarely used... it's just too long for indoors, except perhaps if you're doing a posed portrait. Perhaps I'll use the 85mm more in summer months, but right now it's rarely used.

Cozen

12-21-2009, 11:33 PM

f you take a look at my photo gallery at http://www.itihnksmall.com/gallery - most all the portraits were done with the 85mm 1.8.

I couldn't get this to work

Rob Gardner

12-21-2009, 11:37 PM

I'll try spelling right this time...

http://www.ithinksmall.com/gallery

Sean Setters

12-21-2009, 11:38 PM

I honestly think that each lens will suit each photographer differently depending on his shooting style. If you have the room to shoot, the 85mm lens is better built with faster AF and fantastic image quality. It is a very good portraiture lens as Rob said. I was just pointing out that for my own personal use (having a 1.6x crop body as well), it's simply too long for everyday use. However, for someone who primarily uses focal lengths longer than 50mm, the 85mm f/1.8 is a hands-down favorite

Sean Setters

12-21-2009, 11:42 PM

Rob-

You could insert the link for us so we don't have to cut and paste. To do that, highlight the text and click on the chain above the post window. Paste the link in the URL textbox, choose Target "Open Link in New Window," and if you're feeling frisky, you can even add a caption title too. ;-)

www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/)

Rob Gardner

12-21-2009, 11:51 PM

Thanks Sean. I was just being lazy on the linking, and already had edited the OP. LOOOOOVE your work!

DavidEccleston

12-21-2009, 11:57 PM

If you take a look at my photo gallery at http://www.ithinksmall.com/gallery - most all the portraits were done with the 85mm 1.8

Some very nice work in there.

I'm just confused as to how you talked that snake into posing for a portrait (82/99). When I see snakes, or rather when they see me, they turn around and slither off into the tall grasses, never to be seen again. What's the trick? Luck? Have an assistant hold their tail? Purina snake chow? ;)

Sean Setters

12-22-2009, 12:01 AM

Thanks Sean. I was just being lazy on the linking, and already had edited the OP. LOOOOOVE your work!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I realized you had edited the original post, so I edited mine to reflect that! ;-)

I've been looking at your site this evening. It's very well put-together, and you've got a really good set of images. I like the wide variety of subject matter (from architecture and interiors to portraiture). I particularly love your use of depth of field (the 85mm f/1.8 is certainly well-suited for you)...

Rob Gardner

12-22-2009, 12:12 AM

I'm just confused as to how you talked that snake into posing for a portrait (82/99). When I see snakes, or rather when they see me, they turn around and slither off into the tall grasses, never to be seen again. What's the trick? Luck? Have an assistant hold their tail? Purina snake chow? ;)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

LUCK!! And a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro lens. That's my second-favourite portrait lens. Shot with a 1D Mk II, ISO 200, 150mm at f/2.8, 1/200 sec.

Rob Gardner

12-22-2009, 12:25 AM

I've been looking at your site this evening. It's very well put-together, and you've got a really good set of images. I like the wide variety of subject matter (from architecture and interiors to portraiture). I particularly love your use of depth of field (the 85mm f/1.8 is certainly well-suited for you)...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Thanks for the compliments, Sean. As an admirer of your work (your Flickr site is bookmarked in the Strobist section, and I've often referred others to how you experiment with your lighting setups), I really appreciate the compliment! You're right about how the 85mm suits me. It's funny how we gravitate towards certain lenses. I've owned most of Canon's lineup from 20mm to 300mm, and just about every L lens made. But only a fraction of them have I kept. It's a matter of what 'clicks' with you. There is no rational reason why I sold my 24-70 2.8L - everybody raves about it - but it never clicked with me. In contrast, the 24-105 f/4 L almost never leaves one of my bodies. Nowadays, I am down to the 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 17-35 f/2.8, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro, and Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. And a Lensbaby in there somewhere. Those are the lenses I keep and use all the time. Everything else comes and goes.

Go figure.

jimgarvie

12-22-2009, 02:49 PM

I have both, use both for indoor and outdoor portraits, use them on a 1.6 crop body, love both. To me from a working standpoint and the standpoint of image quality, the fundamental difference is the focal length. If you like to work close to your subjects, the 50 is probably better for you. If you like a little space, the 85 is lovely. When I'm working with people, I tend to use the 85 more; when I'm working with dogs, the 50.

As for the other stuff like focusing speed, yes the 85 is quicker and quieter but the 50 isn't all that bad. I've not noticed any flare issues with either lens and I use a lens hood on both. Bokeh is a little smoother/creamier from the 85 but you would only notice it if you shot the same image side-by-side with both lenses. Get both[:)].

Jim

Cozen

12-22-2009, 07:04 PM

I would love to get both lenses as I'm sure they are both very nice. But looking at my current line up of lenses, Sigma10-20 f4 and the Canon 50mm 1.8, I need a general zoom lens as well. I was looking at the 24-70 2.8, but it is very pricey, and I'm about to pick up a 7D. So I'm now considering the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 as these 2 lenses combined are cheaper than the canon 24-70. What do you think about that?

jimgarvie

12-22-2009, 10:15 PM

I have the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS and it's a GREAT lens. If you hear anything different, they aren't using it to make $$$. I'm a professional and it's truly a great, sharp, lens. Which is my perspective on the 50 F1.4 and the 85 F1.8. They are great lenses for what I do professionally. I'm not talking about a "nice to have" lens; I'm talking about "they make the images that make the $$$" type lenses. I've owned my fair share of Canon L Zooms and they are great lenses for flexibility. But, when you're looking for the best IQ and need it for reproduction purposes, the primes are unbeatable. Although I must admit the 17-55IS makes me think twice before I put it on the camera vs the 50 F1.4. But, in the end, the image quality and bokeh is unbeatable with the 50 F1.4 and the 85 F1.8.

Jim

Sean Setters

12-22-2009, 10:39 PM

Freeday

12-22-2009, 10:58 PM

I don't have the 80 1.8, but have heard nothing but praise for it. My friend has one on a 1.6 crop and has taken some awesome pictures. However, I use the 50 1.4 almost as much as the 24-70 and have nothing but great things to say about it. It handles flare and CA fairly well and you can get sun shots to look good by adding some post production contrast.

I primarily shoot with a full frame camera, last time I shot with the 50 on a 1.6 crop, I found subjects closer than 8-10 ft. were just to close. I would evaluate distances of persons you plan on shooting and choose by that means, or...

A deciding factor might also be the Bokeh with the 80 is amore pleasing circle and the 50 bokeh is more ovalish despite both being an 8 blade lens.

I think you would be happy with either!

stephen

BryanKing

12-23-2009, 07:09 PM

I have been personally lusting the 85 1.8 and wonder if anyone can tell me if I'm crazy? I have a 24-105 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/4L IS already, so I have this focal length covered on two high-quality lenses already. I'm using a 50D by the way...

The reason I think I need the 85 1.8 is just to get some fast glass to take advantage of the higher precision focusing capability of the 50D, as well as giving me more capacity for indoor available light photography. I have a 480EX flash head, but my style is more non-intrusive. I like to shoot candid portraits, as well as exterior action sports. Do you all think the relatively minor investment in the prime would be worth it? I know a lot of folks will likely say the 85 is too tight indoors on the crop body, but I'm not thrilled about the slower focusing or less pleasing bokeh on the 50 1.4.... Have I justified it enough? Please talk me out of it to help save my marriage. (Not really at risk, but one never knows)

Rob Gardner

12-23-2009, 08:07 PM

I have been personally lusting the 85 1.8 and wonder if anyone can tell me if I'm crazy? I have a 24-105 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/4L IS already, so I have this focal length covered on two high-quality lenses already. I'm using a 50D by the way...The reason I think I need the 85 1.8 is just to get some fast glass to take advantage of the higher precision focusing capability of the 50D, as well as giving me more capacity for indoor available light photography. Do you all think the relatively minor investment in the prime would be worth it?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

An unbiased YES! If you don't feel the 50mm f/1.4 isn't going to work for you, then the 85 is clearly the choice. Although, I'm not too thrilled with my 50D - the IQ is nowhere near what I get from my older 1D Mk II. In fact, I just played a game today and took identical shots with the 50D (15mp) and 1D Mk II (8.2mp) and the same lenses. I took the 1D file (which was significantly sharper BTW with both a 85 1.8 and 24-105 f/4 L) and res'd it up in Photoshop to the 50D file size and voilá - the same file IQ. In all honesty, the only thing that matters to me that my 50D has over my 1D Mk II is ISO sensitivity. Go figure.

But still, the 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens in the right hands...

BryanKing

12-23-2009, 08:27 PM

But still, the 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens in the right hands...

Darn, that last qualification might exclude me.

Sean Setters

12-23-2009, 10:06 PM

Rob-

You might want to try microadjusting the focus of each lens when using the 50D. I had to do a microadjustment with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, and now the images are much, much better.

Rob Gardner

12-23-2009, 10:54 PM

You might want to try microadjusting the focus of each lens when using the 50D. I had to do a microadjustment with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, and now the images are much, much better.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yeah, I've been reading up on that. I would hope that the stock settings of the 50D were not so out of whack - my old 10D produces sharper images from the same lens - but I'll give it a shot. It should really be a better camera than it is...maybe I just have a bum copy.

As always, you da man!

Cozen

12-23-2009, 11:03 PM

Chuck Lee

12-23-2009, 11:44 PM

My only concern with the tamron is the auto focus. Anyone have experience with this? Is it really that loud? is it fast and accurate?

This is a mixed bag depending on who's reviews you listen to. I've used the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII quitea lot and subjectively I can't say I've noticed anything odd. The only objective points I can stateare:

1) I tested two copies at a local shop and found the first to be sub-par in the IQ department. I own the second which is spot on.

2) Very sharp from 17 to 40 wide open fading a bit toward the long end. I don't use this lens very much at f2.8. f4.0 is optimum.

3) I've never noticed any AF noise and still have no clue what reviewers are talking about. Maybe I just don't pay attention.

4) I've never noticed any hunting in low light unless I was as low as 1600 ISO f4.0 1/30th or slower. Then again my 70-200 f2.8 USM will hunt in that level of light. I'm still wondering why folks blame the glass but that's just me.

It is a screw focus mechanism which means that accuracy will depend on the resolution of the screw mechanism. USM will most of the time have a higher keeper rate whencontending with shallow dof shots. I can't say that I've ever come home froma shoot and been disatisfied with this len's AF performance. I would say that I have about the same keeper rate as the 28-70 f2.8L on my 5D as I do with the Tammy on my 40D.

Personally, I like the the EF 50 1.4 on the 40D as a portrait/candid lens and on the 5D as a scene lens. I am still looking for a good deal on a 85 1.8 for my 5D.

It sounds like you have choosen wisely.

Hope my observation helps.

Cozen

12-23-2009, 11:59 PM

Hope my observation helps.

Very helpful. That's what I was looking for. an honest, hands on experience. Reading reviews are sometimes hand to soak in because it seems so distant (not that I don't appreciate them). So I just have to make sure I get a good copy. I haven't been able to find a copy in stock locally, so I might have to order from B&H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?

I'll be using the 17-50 mostly for group shots and when I need to be changing focal lengths a lot. I really liked how my 50mm 1.8 did at the wedding I attended over the weekend, so I'll be using that and the 85 1.8 for portraits. At least until I can get the 50mm 1.4 too

clemmb

12-24-2009, 12:07 AM

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on the tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and the 85mm 1.8

My only concern with the tamron is the auto focus. Anyone have experience with this? Is it really that loud? is it fast and accurate?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I am a professional and used the Tamron 17-50 2.8 when I first went to digital. I found this lens to be great for the price and the IQ quite good. When it is said that the auto focus is noisy, it is noisy compared to USM but not bad at all. The auto focus is fast and accurate. Not as fast and accurate as USM but very good.

I agree you should get the 17-50 and the 85 1.8. Upgrade your 50 later.

Go ahead, pull the trigger.

Mark

clemmb

12-24-2009, 12:14 AM

I might have to order from B&H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I once purchased a Sigma lense from B&H. I found I hated the zoom range and wished I had purchased a different lens. They traded it and only had to pay the additional $20 plus shipping.

I have always found B&H to be honest and trustworthy to deal with.

Mark

Chuck Lee

12-24-2009, 12:40 AM

I haven't been able to find a copy in stock locally, so I might have to order from B&H. Are they pretty good at taking back lemons?

May I also recommend Adorama. They readily accept returns as well. I have always been very satisfied doing busines with them.

I test my lenses with http://focustestchart.com/chart.html ("http://focustestchart.com/chart.html)

Lucky me, we have a 17x11 HP 8100 Laser printer at work!

Cozen

05-01-2010, 08:07 AM

I'm bumping this thread up because I now have a 5D markii. I'm still debating this choice. It's like a never ending merry-go-round =)

my current lens line up is:

canon 24-105 L

canon 135L

canon 50 1.8

canon 20-35 3.5

I really like the versatility of the 24-105 but it's slow. Also, I was shooting some behind the scenes recently on a dark movie set, and I loved the reach of the 135l, but at f2 and around a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed, it wasn't quite fast enough. I was forced to shoot at 2000-2400 iso and the images suffered a bit from it. For something super fast, which would you choose on a FF?

Sheiky

05-03-2010, 10:53 AM

Personally I just bought the Sigma 50mm 1.4 on my 5D2, since now I finally understand why 50mm was the standard focal length for FF. It's awsome! Much better than the Canon version I tried out. But I should say it front-focused originally, but that was solveable with AF-micro-adjustment.

In your case a 50mm makes more sense in the way that you've already got the 135L for head-shots etc. And the 50mm would make a great upgrade over the 1.8 [:P] (I really hated that lens, also hated the 50mm prime on a crop-body)

Jan

Chuck Lee

05-04-2010, 09:40 PM

Totally agree with Sheiky.

50 has always been the kit lens on full frame. Why?

Also, the longer the focal the shorter the shutter speed needs to be for handheld. That's why some love the 35mm and 24mm primes.

My vote... 50 1.4...[Y]

Jon Ruyle

05-04-2010, 10:05 PM

Also, I was shooting some behind the scenes recently on a dark movie set, and I loved the reach of the 135l, but at f2 and around a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed, it wasn't quite fast enough.

It's just a question of reach vs. hand holdability. The 50 is more hand holdable, the 85 has more reach.

Try your 50 f/1.8 to see if that focal length works for you.