85mm vs 50mm?

[Early]

The Canon 35mm f2 is another useful lens for indoors.

 

[Big Mike]

The Canon 35mm f2 is another useful lens for indoors.

And the EF 35mm F1.4 L is so magnificent, its blows all the aforementioned lenses out of the water...for only $1150

 

[Early]

And the EF 35mm F1.4 L is so magnificent, its blows all the aforementioned lenses out of the water...for only $1150

Ah, to have been born rich instead of handsome.

 

[table1349]

For professional use, I'd go with the F1.4 version.
1) Better build quality, less likely to break or stop working on you
2) Better (faster and probably more accurate) auto focus.
3) Better image quality. I've heard this debated back and forth, some say the F1.8 is actually better at some apertures but I think that most will say the F1.4 is better, especially when shooting at F1.8.
4) Feel. The 50mm F1.4 feels a lot better and more 'professional' than the cheap F1.8

Sure, the 50mm F1.8 is inexpensive and optically pretty good...that's why it gets so much attention on the internet. But the 50mm F1.4 is only $315, which is pretty darn good for a quality F1.4 lens.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: +1

 

[JaimeGibb]

Damn, now Im thinking I want the 1.4!

 

[rufus5150]

It's worth every penny.

 

[usayit]

The 85mm f/1.8 is one of those lenses that I have seller's remorse. I really do miss it.
If you like the quality of the 85mm lens, I'd save a little more and get the 50mm f/1.4 over the 1.8. Quality is much closer to what you are used to on the 85mm.

I much like the 85mm focal length for portraits.

 

[notelliot]

I don't get everyone's lust for 50-85mm for portraits.. For headshots, yeah sure. For anything creative, they leave far too much out of the frame for me. With a wider lens, you can get a lot closer, which is great for extra detail in your subject, and as I said, allows other elements of the environment to fit into the frame. My vote is still with the 20-35mm range.

 

[usayit]

The 50( normal) to 85 (short telephoto) result in a nice compression of space... a wide angle lens simply exagerates the eyes and noses in portraits of face and bust. It simply is more flatering. Of course there is absolutely no boundaries to artistic photography. I once did a shoot with a semi-nude woman who was blessed with wonderful curves.... a slight wide angle lens brought out the curves in some of the shots. There are many examples of portraiture that worked wonderfully with wide angle lenses BUT you have to understand how spaces are presented and work it to your advantage.

As many have discovered.... one of the difficulties of setting up a portrait studio is space.... you need a good enough working distance.

You have to understand that focal length doesn't just impact how much you can fit in a "frame" it impacts how spaces and distances are presented.

 

[DWS]

I highly recommend the 50mm f/1.4......I recently shot a friend's reunion, and the 50 was on a 2nd body for candid shots while the other body was riding a tripod for group shots

 

[notelliot]

The 50( normal) to 85 (short telephoto) result in a nice compression of space... a wide angle lens simply exagerates the eyes and noses in portraits of face and bust. It simply is more flatering. Of course there is absolutely no boundaries to artistic photography. I once did a shoot with a semi-nude woman who was blessed with wonderful curves.... a slight wide angle lens brought out the curves in some of the shots. There are many examples of portraiture that worked wonderfully with wide angle lenses BUT you have to understand how spaces are presented and work it to your advantage.

As many have discovered.... one of the difficulties of setting up a portrait studio is space.... you need a good enough working distance.

You have to understand that focal length doesn't just impact how much you can fit in a "frame" it impacts how spaces and distances are presented.

I completely agree with you on these points. But, when you have a little knowledge of how a wide lens distorts, and what parts of the frame will be distorted, I don't see the value in a mid-tele for portraits. Bear in mind that it's only my preference, and I'm not trying to preach. But with a little thought on the angle of your camera vs the subject, keeping noses and ears towards the center of the frame, wides win my heart every time. I actually just sold my 85/1.4 (Nikkor, with the intent of putting the money towards a 70-200/2.8, but realized I never used anything beyond 50mm) for money towards a wide, fast prime - that is, if and when Nikon chooses to make a new 24, 28 or 35/1.4 or something faster than 2.8. I've said it in a similar thread, but my 17-55/2.8 has been my go-to lens for people lately, and it's always in the 20-35mm range. I guess it's just a personal preference.. if I was doing headshots, or more formal portraits, I'd probably opt for a 50.

 

[photogmatt]

Have both, and like both a lot. I find it better to shoot kids further away, let them be more comfortable in their own space. It's a great candid lens for me, but the focus length can be a factor.

 

[JerryPH]

I don't get everyone's lust for 50-85mm for portraits.. My vote is still with the 20-35mm range.

One word... Chipmunk Cheeks. Ok, that was 2 words... lol

Ever hear the expression that the camera adds 10 pounds to how you look? That is because you used a shorter focal length.

The 85-105 mm range is best for quality, unfortunately, in a smaller room, you may not have the choice. But if the choice is facial distortions or a happy client, you will find a way to make the room.

 

[JerryPH]

...but the focus length can be a factor.

Focus length??? Wazzat??

I think you meant to say focal length.

 

[JaimeGibb]

Ack decisions decisions!! Maybe I should rent some lenses and play around before I buy.