85mm vs 50mm?

[plentygood]

I'd personally go with the f1.4. I recently bought one and when you shoot at f2, you might want to bring some bandaids because it is razor sharp when you nail the focus.

Just feeling the two will show you difference in build quality. I've dropped my lens several times, atleast once from a good four feet up and it's never cracked at all. I've seen countless threads and pictures at POTN of f1.8's broken from a drop and if I've ever seen a broken f1.4 picture, it's escaping my memory.

Also, the f1.4 has USM and while I've never shot kids, I would imagine fast focusing would be crucial.

It's $315 at BH and they usually go for about $280-300 on forums used.

 

[viridari]

In portraiture, it is often flattering to have the camera lens down around the solar plexis area of the subject, and then tilt it up to get their face. It helps to give a subtle suggestion of importance. With a shorter lens like the 50mm that could give you a good view up the subject's nose! But with the 85mm you are a safe distance back and don't have this problem.

So I have the 50mm now on my DSLR, and love it! But I'd really like to have an 85mm or even 100mm for that camera for close-up portraiture and head shots.

 

[Christie Photo]

I came across this video and thought about this thread.

-Pete

 

[yinwu]

The 85mm 1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field than the 50mm 1.8 in addition to a slightly more compressed perspective. Not sure the extra money on the 1.4 is worth it. If you want it for the shallower depth then you might has well use your 85mm which as mentioned is better for portraits.

The 250 bucks you save is probably better used to get a flashgun/tripod/bag/ whatever else you need. Yeah the 1.4 is better build but if you are using for studio/portrait work I don't see what you need the build for. Ditto for AF speed. Not sure what bigmike means about less accurate AF... The only real advantage is easier handheld shooting in low light.

 

[Joves]

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.

I agree on the 35mm on a cropped sensor. In which case it is close to a 50mm on a full frame. Jamie you might try the 35 while you are at it.

 

[Montana]

I strongly suggest reading the reviews of Sigmas new 50mm lens! Its pricey, but one heck of a lens....

Derrick

 

[yinwu]

I agree on the 35mm on a cropped sensor. In which case it is close to a 50mm on a full frame. Jamie you might try the 35 while you are at it.

35mm on a cropped sensor looks nothing like a 50mm full frame. The main subject might be the same size but the perspective is still a 35mm "wide angle" perspective... its just that you are looking at the middle bit of it when compared to what it would look on FF.

 

[Mike_E]

As you said that you were getting a 50 for Christmas a month ago, I'm wondering if this thread is still relevant

If you're still looking for a studio lens have you looked into a Tamron 24-70mm? Shallow enough DoF for most studio work and if you need shallower you can use the 50.

If you want to go still longer in studio then the 24-105mm would be fine. You don't need a super lens in studio because you have complete control over your environment. You don't need a super shallow DoF because 999 out of 1000 people are going to want all of their faces in focus and that generally doesn't happen till f/4 and after (given peoples tendency to move around a bit even when they are trying to be still ).

$0.02

 

[anubis404]

Some say that the 50mm F1.8 is optically better than the F1.4. That extra $200 would be better spent on something else. One stop and a bit of build quality just aren't worth it in my book.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

35mm on a cropped sensor looks nothing like a 50mm full frame. The main subject might be the same size but the perspective is still a 35mm "wide angle" perspective... its just that you are looking at the middle bit of it when compared to what it would look on FF.

There is no such thing as a 35mm perspective. Perspective is exactly what it means : the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer.

It is the distance that dictates the perspective. Not what you are holding in your hand. A 35mm lens on a crop body will give the EXACT same perspective as 56mm if they are used to shoot the subject from the same distance.

When it is said that some lenses "distort" and some "compress" or "flatter", it is never by virtue of the lens. The lens makes you move around, closer or further from the subject. And that is the only thing that affects perspective. If you shoot the same headshot using different lenses, you will have differences in perspective, because with a tele you'll be shooting from further away, and with the wide you'll be up close.

BUT - if you were to shoot the same person from the SAME distance with both lenses, and for the wide angle you would crop out the head, you would get the SAME perspective. Exactly the same.

So a 50mm on a crop body will look exactly as a 80mm on a FF, from the same distance. And 28mm will look the same as a ~50mm on FF, and so on, and so on.

 

[usayit]

Some say that the 50mm F1.8 is optically better than the F1.4. That extra $200 would be better spent on something else. One stop and a bit of build quality just aren't worth it in my book.

There is a few things you are missing... USM versus micro motor which impacts AF. For portrait photographers, the f/1.8 has 5 aperture blades versus the 8 in the f/1.4 which results in more pleasing bokeh. I owned both (50mm f/1.8 MI) and they are both excellent lenses. I shot with the 50mm MI for years and eventually sold it to my cousin who does a lot of portraits. I used the funds to graduate to the 50mm f/1.4 with no regrets.

 

[usayit]

The way I read it.... (both are a little confusing to me) Fidel and yinwu are saying the same thing...

Perspective does not change with crop factor. If you stand in the same spot and use the same lens, the perspective is the same whether you shoot with crop or a full frame body. What is different is field of view which might result in the photographer moving which in turns impacts everything else.

Distance to subject, focal length, and camera format. Keep two the same and explain with the third as a variable... it gets confusing when you change two variables.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

The way I read it.... (both are a little confusing to me) Fidel and yinwu are saying the same thing...

Perspective does not change with crop factor. If you stand in the same spot and use the same lens, the perspective is the same whether you shoot with crop or a full frame body. What is different is field of view which might result in the photographer moving which in turns impacts everything else.

Distance to subject, focal length, and camera format. Keep two the same and explain with the third as a variable... it gets confusing when you change two variables.

He's saying that a 35mm on a crop will NOT look exactly the same as a 50 on FF. I'm saying it WILL. Pretty much the opposite.
There is only one variable, as far as this particular debate goes - subject to camera distance. Everything else is irrelevant to perspective.
So, to conlcude - if you stand in the same spot, lenses and cameras make no difference whatsoever, as far as perspective goes.
Perspective will change when you decide that with the longer lens you're not getting in the frame as much as you'd like and move back.

 

[Christie Photo]

There is no such thing as a 35mm perspective.

True. I think someone misspoke. What does exist is a 35mm format.

When it is said that some lenses "distort" and some "compress" or "flatter", it is never by virtue of the lens.

Well... again, true... BUT...
The combination of focal length and camera format can create an image that is a distortion of what we see with our eyes. For example, objects that we know to be round can appear elliptical or oval shaped.

So, for discussion, it can be said that wide angle lenses exaggerate the relationship of objects in a composition and telephoto lenses compress or flatten the relationship between objects.

Remember.... the terms "wide angle" and "telephoto" describe how the focal length of a lens relates to the camera format used.... if it's greater of less than the "normal" focal length for the format. Since the vast majority of people who use cameras have never used a film camera other than 35mm, that format (35mm) has become a bench mark.

-Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

As you said that you were getting a 50 for Christmas a month ago, I'm wondering if this thread is still relevant

Sorry... my fault.

It's just that when I saw Ziser's video, I came back here to share it in hopes of showing how longer lenses are more benifitial for portaits than merely brigher lenses.

-Pete