Originally Posted by Gred
That's not how I read the initial post where he states that he's buying the 85mm soon anyway...and he's questioning if he should also upgrade the 50mm.
Depends on your own likingsdon't you think? I personally think I would prefer the 85mm on a crop body, but on a full frame camera the 50mm is a "better" portrait lens for me. But manywill disagree with me on this one, it's a personal thing.
Do you mean 85 on ff and 50 on crop?
Yeah that is pretty much what I'm saying.
This shot is 1.4 solely to get a little more depth. My 85 1.2 is nails.
800px portion taken from a larger image and displaying at 100%. No sharpening applied.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5861._5F00_MG_5F00_1057alt2C.jpg[/img]
That was a really stupid joke and I did NOT appreciate it.
Maybe keep the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 60mm f/2.8 macro? That would be a good portrait lens wouldn
Yes, the EF-S 60mm Macro makes a good portrait lens - the focal length is a nice compromise between full body and closer portrait styles. The aperture is 1.3 stops slower than the 50mm f/1.8, and 2 stops slower than the 50mm f/1.4, which means less of the out-of-focus blur that is often desirable in portraits. But f/2.8 will do well, especially if you can have a little distance between your subject and the background.
I was just thinking of this lens because I realized that I shoot my 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 a lot when doing portraits. And if I needed or wanted to shoot at f/2 or f/1.8 I still can with the 50mm.
this is not a bad idea at all!, in terms of IQ, the 60mm macro should be a lot better than the 50mm 1.4, especially the quality of the bokeh(I don't have the 60mm but the 100mm macro) plus you get macro function. when you really need wide aperture, your 50mm1.8 and/or 85mm1.8 can do the job.
Is that because of the lens-specifications aka sharpness etc or because you like the depth of field of f2.8?
Anyway I don't know how the 60mm macro performs, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. And quickly looking trough the review...it looks good. However the difference in field of view between 60mm and the 85mm is obviously smaller than the the difference between the 50 and the 85...
Do you mean 85 on ff and 50 on crop?
Nope I meant it like I said it[] I was arguing between these lenses and I know they would serve different purposes on both camera's. It's just that 50mm on a crop body is not really my thing[
No Jon you're not. I love my 50 1.4. It presently is my favorite lens used on my 5D for photojournalistic style photography. I own the 2.8 L trio of old and certainly get a lot of great shots with those. I use my 28-70 f2.8 L at 70mm @ around f4.0 - f5.6 for portraits most of the time. On a crop the 50mm works great for waist up portrats. I'm not sure but most of the portraits I do for people requires a little more DOF than even f3.5 will yield on a FF camera. I like f4.0 the best. It's a great compromise of dof vs. bokeh vs. sharpness. Trying to shoot @ f1.4 or even f2.8 requires critical focus that not only taxes the photographer but the subject as well. So, should the OP upgrade? I have never used the 50 1.8, but I can say from experience as well as the examples I've posted on this forum that the 50 1.4 is an extremely good lens. I got second place or something a couple of years ago over at the digital photography school site for shooting wide open with this shot:
Canon EOS 40D, EF50 f1.4- <span class="nowrap"]f/1.4 @ <span class="nowrap"]50 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/400, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 800, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash
<span class="nowrap"]Also, Shieky, it may be a your personal preference, but the norm that I see followed is 85mm on FF and 50mm on crop for waist up portraits. Personally, I do not like the 50 1.4 on FF for portrait. I much prefer 70mm plus. The 85 1.8 has been on my list for quite some time. I would think that lens rather long for a crop sensor T2i camera.
<span class="nowrap"]Here is a recent shot. Standard, classic upper body portrait. May be typical, but works every time. The sharpness of a lens is always overated IMHO. A 8 x 10 will hardly begin to test the 12.8meg resolution of my 5D with the old 28-70 f2.8 lens. If I wanted to soften the whole thing up a little I could've dialed down the lights and shot at f2.8. Older women love the smoothing effect. Question is do I want the end of her nose to her eyes to be in focus or her eyes to her ears? There's not much worse than finding out afterwards that you slightly back focusedor front focused and the perfect shot with the perfect smile is all out of whack. There used to be a saying... something like "f8 is safe" or "safe at f8" After thousands of photo's I understand why.
<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]
<span class="nowrap"]Canon EOS 5D, EF 28-70 f2.8 L- <span class="nowrap"]f/4 @ <span class="nowrap"]70 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/160, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 200, Strobist three light setup.
<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]Baker, don't sweat the details too much. Get a selection of good zooms and a few primes and take thousands of photos...you'll see the strengths and weaknesses of each and learn where each works best. You're 50 1.8 @ f4.0 is an assume lens for the price. The bokeh leaves a little to be desired so stay away from high contrast busy backgrounds. Search over at pbase for examples of what each of those lenses can do and you may find that you're money may be better spent on something else.
<span class="nowrap"]
<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]P.S. It's good to post again... I've been away for quite a while. I'm still shooting plenty, just busy with losts of cool things. Hey Daniel B., Hey Sean S.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
