Canon 85mm 1.8 vs. 50mm 1.4

kmh · November 17, 2006

I love my Canon 50mm 1.8 for portraits and would like to upgrade to the 85mm 1.2...can't afford that right now, so I'm wondering if anyone has experience with the 85mm 1.8 vs. the 50mm 1.4. I have read great things about the 85 mm, but think it would be nice to have the extra f/stop with the 50mm 1.4. Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated. -Kate

Tom K. · November 17, 2006

For the price the 85 f/1.8 can't be beat. The IQ is superb as well. Also the speed of autofocus is lightening fast. While the f/1.2 version has a well deserved legendary reputation....the f/1.8 will come very close to matching it at equal apertures.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/bokeh.htm

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

Buying the 85 f/1.8 is a no-brainer in my opinion.

Khaos · November 17, 2006

I think the camera makes a difference. On a 1.6 crop, I feel the 50 1.4 is great for portait shots with the 85 leading the way on a FF.

I actually sold my 85 1.8 because I didn't use it much on my 20D since I tended to use the 70-200 2.8 IS L for the focal length more. Even though the 85 was faster, the IS helped a lot. When I move to a FF, I'll probably get the 85 again.

LiquidAir · November 17, 2006

On my (full frame) 5D, the 85/1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. It is fast and sharp and has snappy auto-focus. In many ways is performs like L-glass. By comparision the 50/1.4 is a little clunky. The AF is a bit slower and noisy and the lens is soft enough at f/1.4 that I feel like I have to make sure it is stopped down to at least f/1.6 or f/1.8 and preferrably 2 (no Tv on that lens--Av f/2 is my usual setting in low light). Despite the legendary reputation of the 85/1.2L, of these two lenses the first in line for an upgrade is the 50.

I wouldn't choose between these two lenses based on the apeture. f/1.4 on the 50 is a desparation move only. If you want sharp pictures at f/1.4 you have no real choice but to buy L glass. What you get from either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 is excellent image quality at f/2.

kmh · November 17, 2006

Thanks so much for your thoughts! I'm leaning towards the 50 mm 1.4. I should have mentioned that I have the Rebel XT, so the 1.6 factor...I would like to upgrade and will likely get the 30D and will sell the XT, my Sigma 18-125mm lens, the 50 mm 1.8, as well as a film camera and lens to pay for it. So the lens I buy will be my only lens for a while -- yikes! Is that crazy? And does anyone have any thoughts about upgrading to the 30D? Would my money be better spent on lenses? I would like better image quality and a larger LCD (I can't see anything on mine)...Thanks again for your input! -Kate

kmh · November 17, 2006

I forgot to say that my focus is portraits (I plan to start charging $$) and street photography.

System · November 17, 2006

Andy mentioned this several months ago-

"I can't say enough about the 85 f/1.8 for in-studio portraits. A great value, sharp lens, super results. The 85 f/1.2 is 4x the price, some think it's 4x the value but I do not."

good luck-

saurora · November 17, 2006

I would give the 1.8 a try and if it doesn't suit you I am sure you would have no problems selling it and trading up. I have the 1.8 and I think it's a beautiful (and light-weight!) lens.

Khaos · November 17, 2006

Both will work very well. They 85 is better wide open, but will be rarely used at that aperture. Both will easily be resold. Going through my shots I actually used the 85 more for animal portraits.

I would also like to mention that even though it's big, I really love using my 70-200 2.8 IS L for portraits. Examples are always nice so....

Examples:

85 1.8

50 1.4

70-200 2.8 IS L

And to throw another one in just to make it harder

, the 24-70 L is really good also.

k2c1959 · November 17, 2006

agree on 85
i actually bought khaos 85mm from him, i would not part with it for lover nor money...well that maybe pushing the envelope a little...

i use it for indoor sports photography mainly wrestling tournaments and such, absolutely astounding results.

kmh · November 18, 2006

Wow, khaos...wonderful photos! Thanks for those examples. It's a hard decision...I would like to do some indoor shooting, natural light only (I do have a reflector), and my 50mm 1.8 isn't great inside. I usually don't shoot below 2.2 (2.0 in a pinch, but never 2.0). k2 -- what kind of lighting are you using for indoor sports? What is the lowest setting you can use? Any other lenses I should consider for natural light portraits in the widest range of settings?

k2c1959 · November 18, 2006

lighting

kmh wrote:

Wow, khaos...wonderful photos! Thanks for those examples. It's a hard decision...I would like to do some indoor shooting, natural light only (I do have a reflector), and my 50mm 1.8 isn't great inside. I usually don't shoot below 2.2 (2.0 in a pinch, but never 2.0). k2 -- what kind of lighting are you using for indoor sports? What is the lowest setting you can use? Any other lenses I should consider for natural light portraits in the widest range of settings?

i always use the available lighting in the gymnasiums when i shoot. i bump iso to about 640 and shoot at f 1.8 and shutter around 125 and use tungsten wb. and i always shoot on manual. it is an excellent lense for wrestling matches which is what i shoot this time of the year. high school and jr. i have tried my 50 and really no comparison to the 85 IMHO.

kmh · November 19, 2006

Ok, I've decided to go with the 85mm lens...and maybe I'll find I won't need to upgrade to the 1.2 afterall. I'm convinced it's an awesome lens for the price, and k2, I'm very encouraged to hear you're able to shoot wide open, indoors, and get good results. Once I upgrade to the 30D I should hopefully get less noise at higher ISOs (1600 with the XT produces disappointing results). Thanks again for everyone's input! -Kate

Canon 85mm 1.8 vs. 50mm 1.4

Comments