Low light portrait lens?

NewCreation517

Hey all!

I've been doing a lot of work in the local music scene, and I'm finally ready to take the plunge into a good fast lens! I've narrowed it down to one of two lenses, and was hoping to get some input from you guys!

Choice #1 - Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM (This lens is nice and fast, quick focusing, and a bit cheaper than choice #2. $1119 on Amazon.com.)

Choice #2 - Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM (This lens can get a little more wide open. Perfect for the low light, plus a little more zoom... however the focus speed has been called "deliberate" and the price goes up a bit. DOF might be lacking as well ... $1250 on Amazon.com)

Any thoughts? Thank you!

jogle

From those two, I would get the 35mm f1.4

I already have both the f1.8 and the f1.4 50mm's they are great and very handy, the f1.2 doesn't get you much more the the f1.4, costs heaps more and from what I hear isn't any better then the others over f1.8

a wee while ago, I borrowed the 24mm and 35mm f1.4's to do a shootout and see what one I liked the best, I used them both to take behind the scenes pics for a friends indy short film. On my 5D the 35mm was definitely my pick, it's just a nice easy length that you can get close with or shoot further away without that wide angle feeling that everything comes out too small. It is stunningly sharp and contrasty at 35mm and I just love all the images from it. It is the next lens on my wishlist. If you are using one of the 1.6 crop cameras, the 24mm gives you a similar field of view.

I also have an 85mm f1.2 as of last friday. It's the older mkI version that focuses slower but I've been having a ball with it. This lens has a great reputation for good reason, the images are stunning. if you are wanting to shoot headshots, if you are stuck at the side of the stage or stuck in the crowd, this is the lens to get, the mkI versions are much cheaper on the second hand market then the mkII's I got mine for about a third of the cost of a new one. If you are on a crop camera, the 85mm will be too long and you should get a 50 to get the same field of view.

hope this helps. I don't do much band photography (except this: http://ogle.smugmug.com/gallery/1434754#68204137 ) but a fair bit of street and part photography at night

swintonphoto

Not to throw a wrench into the pool, but the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8 is only $70. And the reviews give it good ratings optically. Just a thought - close in terms of aperture, but a lot less money.

rpcrowe

The "Nifty-Fifty"
I am going to swim against the cult of "nifty-fifty" admirers. It is a fairly nice lens which compared to the Canon "Kit" lens kicks butt but, compared to better lenses is not great.

It is only fair to good wide open and the focus tends to hunt in low light (where it is most needed). However, my greatest complaint is the poor build of this lens. It is relatively fragile. I knocked a front element off the lens by just tapping it against a door frame as I was entering a room. As a comparison, I recently fell (I weigh 220# + or -) on concrete and landed on my 24-70mm f/2.8L. The hood was smashed but, the lens still functions well.

I realize that the 24-70L is in a different price ballpark than the "nifty-fifty" but, consider the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I which preceded the "nifty-fifty (the Mark-II model). The Mark-I is similar in IQ but the build is much better. Additionally, the Mark-I has a focus scale which I find invaluable in very low light photography, especially with a lens that tends to hunt in low-light AF. The Mark-II eliminated the focus scale as a cost cutting factor. I bought a used Mark-I for about $125. You can get an idea of the relative esteem in which photographers hold these two lenses by the fact that a used Mark-I will cost more than a new Mark-II which replaced it.

IMO, the Mark-II was produced by Canon to keep the low level Rebel film cameras competitive as the "kit" lens was produced to allow the original Rebel 300D to break the $1,000 price tag for a DSLR for the first time.

Now for a neat, but expensive, low light level portrait lens, my new 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is great. The IS gives you a couple of stops advantage and the IQ is terrific. Most of the time, portraits tend to be shot when the subjects are not moving at any great speed and this is where IS comes in handy.

The extra 5mm of the IS lens compared with a 50mm prime equates to a difference between 80mm and 88mm on a 1.6x camera. The additional 8mm equivalent is IMO better for head and shoulders portraiture.

yoshi

swintonphoto wrote:

Not to throw a wrench into the pool, but the plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8 is only $70. And the reviews give it good ratings optically. Just a thought - close in terms of aperture, but a lot less money.

I too got the 500 f/1.8 as it's very shape lens for the money.

~Jan~

I did not like my 50 1.8. If you have the cash for an L lens. GO FOR IT. And I'm jealous. You cannot even compare the 50 1.8 to an L lens. Of course, there's the 50 1.4 which is much better than the 1.8 and signifcantly cheaper than the L, but nothing beats an L prime. Nothing!

gryphonslair99

~Jan~ wrote:

I did not like my 50 1.8. If you have the cash for an L lens. GO FOR IT. And I'm jealous. You cannot even compare the 50 1.8 to an L lens. Of course, there's the 50 1.4 which is much better than the 1.8 and signifcantly cheaper than the L, but nothing beats an L prime. Nothing!

Never say nothing beats and L prime. I am an admitted Lcholoic and own my fair share of L glass. But every lens has a purpose. Try shooting basketball with the 85 f1.2L. It's just not a good lens for indoor sports. Yes it's an L but the autofocus is too slow. My 85 f1.8 will outfocus it all the time. That is why I use it and the 135 f2.0L for indoor sports. They are fast in the auto focus area.

The problem I see with the 50mm f1.2 for what the OP describes is the razor thin DOF that 1.2 will give. The 50mm f1.2L and the 85mm f1.2L a better suited for the studio or more controlled portrat use.

For my money I would look at something like the 50mm f1.4 or the 85 f1.8 shot at least 1/3 stop slower and bump the ISO up to get the shutter speed needed. Stopping down a tiny bit increases the DOF as well as improves on sharpness.

rosselliot

I'd get the 50 f/1.4 - go to www.the-digital-picture.com and read the review of those three lenses (they're compacted into one review) - he definitely feels the 1.4 is by far the better deal - and so do I. I use the 1.4 for EVERYTHING...pretty much. I love it. I will not buy the 50 f/1.2 - my next purchase will be the 85 f/1.2...

just wanted to throw in there that I love the 50 f/1.4 and that you don't HAVE to buy one of those two lenses to have great quality lenses with amazing quality. you can have a look at my website - pretty much every picture on there was taken with that lens.

- Ross
www.rossfrazier.com

~Jan~

gryphonslair99 wrote:

Never say nothing beats and L prime. I am an admitted Lcholoic and own my fair share of L glass. But every lens has a purpose. Try shooting basketball with the 85 f1.2L. It's just not a good lens for indoor sports. Yes it's an L but the autofocus is too slow. My 85 f1.8 will outfocus it all the time. That is why I use it and the 135 f2.0L for indoor sports. They are fast in the auto focus area.

The problem I see with the 50mm f1.2 for what the OP describes is the razor thin DOF that 1.2 will give. The 50mm f1.2L and the 85mm f1.2L a better suited for the studio or more controlled portrat use.

For my money I would look at something like the 50mm f1.4 or the 85 f1.8 shot at least 1/3 stop slower and bump the ISO up to get the shutter speed needed. Stopping down a tiny bit increases the DOF as well as improves on sharpness.

Okay, you got me--I know nothing about sports shooting. In my portrait cave, I think L primes rule!