85mm

To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!

I own an 85mm f/1.4 and it is an outstanding lens for any kind of portraiture. It renders bokeh beautifully and provides excellent background control on a full frame camera. I also have a 50mm f/1.4, which I chose over the 50mm f/1.8 (Canon) for the extra stops, as well as the better build quality/manual focus override. The 50mm f/1.8 does not produce pleasing bokeh, but the 50mm f/1.4 does.


From Ken Rockwell's website on his review of the 50mm f/1.8:

"Bokeh, the character of out of focus backgrounds, not simply how far out of focus they are, is great. Out-of-focus backgrounds are always soft and never distract."

I've read, on a non-rockwell site, that the 1.8 and the 1.4, have pretty similar bokeh. The 1.4g is for fx/dx so if you ever want to go full frame you could still use the 50mm 1.4 on it!
 
To the OP:

I order the 85mm af-s f/3.5 micro lens online and they jipped me and sent the 85mm af f/1.8d lens. I say jipped because it costs less then the micro lens. I was so disappointed because I had been waiting for the macro.

Customer service told me they would exchange the lens or refund me the remaining money. I decided to try the lens out even though it doesn't autofocus on my camera - now I almost want to keep it. It's obviously a little more difficult to manually focus (since I've never done it before) but I really like it. It's fast and seems to be sharp with nice bokeh. Once I actually load the pictures on the computer I will know for sure how great this lens is.

If I had a camera that this lens autofocused on - I would take it in a heartbeat! I'm already thinking about keeping it!
 
A 50mm and an 85mm are two entirely different pieces of equipment. It's like saying, "Why would you order halibut when there's ahi tuna on the menu? I mean, they're both saltwater fish!"

The big,big thing about the 50mm lens is that it has a reasonably "normal" angle of view, and not too high of a magnification, on either APS-C or on FX digital. The 50mm renders the foreground objects normally, and makes objects in the background appear to be a "normal" or "realistic" size, and distance, behind the main subject.

An 85mm lens is significantly longer than a 50mm lens, and it tends to render objects in the background as if they were CLOSER in proximity than they are in reality, AND it magnifies the size of background objects very slightly, in relationship to the foreground objects.

People who say the photographer can "zoom with his feet" with a 35mm lens, instead of a 50mm, or who can use a 50mm lens to do the job of an 85mm lens, are simply not informed or learned enough to realize that different focal length lenses actually have qualities, or properties, or characteristics, that are the reason for their very existence in the lens lineups of all the major camera and lens makers.

Zooming with one's feet can equalize the size of foreground objects, like a standing couple, or a seated person, but the angle of view that extends BEHIND the subject, as well as the SIZE of objects in the background,and their apparent distance from the foreground subject, alters radically with focal lengths from 50mm to 85, and even more so between 50mm and 105mm or between 50mm and 135mm.
 
Nice and interesting info.

I love this Forum already!

Tks
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top