50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8???

Elaine

I'd hope to someday have both, but if I were to just get one for now, which one should it be? I'd use it for portraits and general shooting. (I'm also planning on the 24-105L for an all-purpose lens.) I'm leaning towards the 50, just because on a crop body it wouldn't be so long. Any reason to think otherwise? I'd like something quick to focus with nice bokeh.

Right now, with my Minolta system, I have a 50 1.7 that I don't like to use because of the odd shaped specular highlights and a 90mm macro that I love because of its wide-open sharpness and nice bokeh. However, it's a macro so it's s-l-o-w...not helpful for portaits.

Thanks!

chopsky

Elaine wrote:

I'd hope to someday have both, but if I were to just get one for now, which one should it be? I'd use it for portraits and general shooting. (I'm also planning on the 24-105L for an all-purpose lens.) I'm leaning towards the 50, just because on a crop body it wouldn't be so long. Any reason to think otherwise? I'd like something quick to focus with nice bokeh.

Right now, with my Minolta system, I have a 50 1.7 that I don't like to use because of the odd shaped specular highlights and a 90mm macro that I love because of its wide-open sharpness and nice bokeh. However, it's a macro so it's s-l-o-w...not helpful for portaits.

Thanks!

I'd definitely go 50 1.4. In fact, I'm looking to trade my 50 1.8 in for the 1.4.
On a crop body it really is the perfect length for potraits and general shooting.

pathfinder

Ann McRae

Me too, Elaine. I have both - the 85 is really lovely and I use it for indoor sports. Having said that, I haven't done indoor sports since I got my 'day job' and will likely sell it. I bought the 50 to do indoor, low light candids with and really like it - it works for team photos too, so is more versatile than the 85.

Knowing what I know now, and given your stated uses, I would buy the 50 1.4 - and it is about half the price as well (at least here).

ann

coleygm

I'd go with the 85 IMO. Better portrait lens in my experience, unless you simply need the wider opening. The longer focal range allows for more easily gotten bokkah too, assuming that's what your after. Otherwise it's a fantastic sports lens as well. No substitute for the 70-200 2.8 IS of course, but for closer action sports, it can't be beat.

Granted i agree with you that in a perfect world you'd have both....and I'd have a 600mm white bazooka lens

coleygm

although the 85 on a crop body is a little long i'm finding in basketball. wonder if the 50 would be better?

ChatKat

Crop or no crop?

coleygm wrote:

although the 85 on a crop body is a little long i'm finding in basketball. wonder if the 50 would be better?

If you are shooting with a crop sensor then the 50 - with full frame the 85 is the choice - they are almost equal. That said - I shoot at 50 frequently with my 5d and I used my 35 all the time when I had the 20d

jeffreaux2

What about....?

An easy and realatively inexpensive way to find out if you really need a 50mm prime in your bag would be to get a 50mm F1.8. No, it does not approach the 50mm F1.4 in build quality or focus speed. It does, however, resolve very well for a $70-$80 lens. I know I have said it a thousand times, but I am still shocked by how many of my favorites were taken with this lens. If you could locate a used one, then you wouldn't take a loss on selling it later on if you decide you indeed want a 50mm F1.4.

I have both the 85mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.8. Admittedly the 50mm is more useful more often than the 85mm.

Below are samples where I used the 50mm F1.8 Lens. Again it does not compare to the F1.4 in build quality or speed, and it's bokeh is not as smooth....but it is sharp, and has surprised me time and time again.

Elaine

Thanks, all!

When I got my 40D in Dec, I ended up getting the 17-55 2.8 IS and 85 1.8 at the same time. I have really enjoyed both lenses a lot! I have learned that the 85's MFD is nearly 3 feet, which has frustrated me at times when I really want to fill the frame with something. So, I'm planning to get a macro (probably the Canon 100) and I'd also like to get the 50 1.4.

Jeff, you have some wonderful and stunning examples from the 50 1.8! At this point, I guess I just don't want to feel like I'm taking a step backwards with my equipment. Obviously the lens can perform, but the 1.4 seems to carry with it fewer frustrations regarding focus (speed and accuracy) and bokeh, and I want to set myself up for the best user experience possible, if that makes sense. As I mentioned above, I had a 50 1.7 with my Minolta that was fun to use, but it kinda soured me on trying another "nifty-fifty" of the $80 variety, because of the odd-shaped specular highlights and lack of sharpness wide-open. I'm ready to step up!

Hope that didn't come across as snob-ish. I've been spoiled with the 17-55 and expect that the 1.8 may disappoint me, overall. I'd rather skip that.

jeffreaux2

Jeff, you have some wonderful and stunning examples from the 50 1.8! At this point, I guess I just don't want to feel like I'm taking a step backwards with my equipment. Obviously the lens can perform, but the 1.4 seems to carry with it fewer frustrations regarding focus (speed and accuracy) and bokeh, and I want to set myself up for the best user experience possible, if that makes sense. As I mentioned above, I had a 50 1.7 with my Minolta that was fun to use, but it kinda soured me on trying another "nifty-fifty" of the $80 variety, because of the odd-shaped specular highlights and lack of sharpness wide-open. I'm ready to step up!

The F1.8 50mm can be very finicky....and it has the dreaded 5 blade aperature rather than the buttery smooth looking 8 blade like the 1.4 version. It was just a suggestion for you to "see" if you really found a need for a 50mm prime while you have a 17-55mm zoom also. Thats all.

Hope that didn't come across as snob-ish. I've been spoiled with the 17-55 and expect that the 1.8 may disappoint me, overall. I'd rather skip that.

Gosh Elaine you are such a snob!!!

Just kidding.....I didn't think of your reply in that way at all.

It is easy to get spoiled with that particular zoom. It could spell disappointment for any number of lens purchases!!

You want to borrow mine?....for a few months....see if you really want a 50mm prime? Just to see how often you reach for a prime 50mm instead of your zoom? I'd be willing to do that.

A year ago I would have never been caught comparing a zoom to a prime, but the 17-55 IS is pretty dang close in sharpness. Tough to beat.