Canon 85mm f/1.8 or Canon 50mm f/1.4?

[Neil S.]

Okay, so I was wondering which lens would be better for low-light sports photography, or which is just a better lens in general?

I know that neither of these are the lenses of choice when it comes to sports, but I don't have the money for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

I've read some of the reviews on both of these and I was wondering about image quality at the widest aperture.

The 50mm has a wider aperture but is the IQ at 1.4 going to as good as the IQ of the 85mm at 1.8?

Is there even that much of a difference between 1.4 and 1.8?
As in; will 1.4 even be useful or needed? Or will the tradeoff between IQ and shutter speed be too great?

As a side-note: I recently purchased a used 1D Mark II. I'm not sure if that affects which lens is better though.

To be honest I don't think either of these are very good for sports photography, especially the 50mm 1.4.

You need something with more focal length, espeically if you aren't using a crop body. I would advise you get something at least 200mm on the long end for a full frame body.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is only about $500 and would be much better suited to sports than the lenses you mentioned. The problem is that it isn't very fast, which is something it sounds like you want. Also I think that the IQ isn't that great, but you get what you pay for.

If there was any way you could afford it (save, loan, etc.) I would highly recommend the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version I or II. They are such good lenses, and are perfect for low light sports photography.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS would be another good option at about $1200. It is slower though and clearly not as well suited to low light shots.

Hope this helps.

 

[Dao]

I think it really depends on what sports OP is planning to shoot. The 85mm is good for indoor Volleyball / basketball.

When I search "volleyball 85mm" and "basketball 85mm" in flickr, I saw a lot of great examples.

 

[Neil S.]

I think it really depends on what sports OP is planning to shoot. The 85mm is good for indoor Volleyball / basketball.

When I search "volleyball 85mm" and "basketball 85mm" in flickr, I saw a lot of great examples.

Ya I guess it does depend on the situation.

I just think the 70-200's and other zoom lenses offer a much better focal range for sports.

Don't get me wrong, I love primes.

I think primes limit you somewhat for this type of shooting though. It can be very difficult or impossible to "foot zoom" when shooting sports.

 

[Village Idiot]

Okay, so I was wondering which lens would be better for low-light sports photography, or which is just a better lens in general?

I know that neither of these are the lenses of choice when it comes to sports, but I don't have the money for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

I've read some of the reviews on both of these and I was wondering about image quality at the widest aperture.

The 50mm has a wider aperture but is the IQ at 1.4 going to as good as the IQ of the 85mm at 1.8?

Is there even that much of a difference between 1.4 and 1.8?
As in; will 1.4 even be useful or needed? Or will the tradeoff between IQ and shutter speed be too great?

As a side-note: I recently purchased a used 1D Mark II. I'm not sure if that affects which lens is better though.

To be honest I don't think either of these are very good for sports photography, especially the 50mm 1.4.

You need something with more focal length, espeically if you aren't using a crop body. I would advise you get something at least 200mm on the long end for a full frame body.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is only about $500 and would be much better suited to sports than the lenses you mentioned. The problem is that it isn't very fast, which is something it sounds like you want. Also I think that the IQ isn't that great, but you get what you pay for.

If there was any way you could afford it (save, loan, etc.) I would highly recommend the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version I or II. They are such good lenses, and are perfect for low light sports photography.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS would be another good option at about $1200. It is slower though and clearly not as well suited to low light shots.

Hope this helps.

IS is crap for sports where you're struggling with light anyways. I'd reccommend a 70-200 f/2.8 way before I'd say to get the 70-200 f/4 IS. If your shutter speed is slow enough that you're depending on IS, then it's not going to be fast enough to prevent motion blur from fast moving people/objects.

 

[Neil S.]

Okay, so I was wondering which lens would be better for low-light sports photography, or which is just a better lens in general?

I know that neither of these are the lenses of choice when it comes to sports, but I don't have the money for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

I've read some of the reviews on both of these and I was wondering about image quality at the widest aperture.

The 50mm has a wider aperture but is the IQ at 1.4 going to as good as the IQ of the 85mm at 1.8?

Is there even that much of a difference between 1.4 and 1.8?
As in; will 1.4 even be useful or needed? Or will the tradeoff between IQ and shutter speed be too great?

As a side-note: I recently purchased a used 1D Mark II. I'm not sure if that affects which lens is better though.

To be honest I don't think either of these are very good for sports photography, especially the 50mm 1.4.

You need something with more focal length, espeically if you aren't using a crop body. I would advise you get something at least 200mm on the long end for a full frame body.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is only about $500 and would be much better suited to sports than the lenses you mentioned. The problem is that it isn't very fast, which is something it sounds like you want. Also I think that the IQ isn't that great, but you get what you pay for.

If there was any way you could afford it (save, loan, etc.) I would highly recommend the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version I or II. They are such good lenses, and are perfect for low light sports photography.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS would be another good option at about $1200. It is slower though and clearly not as well suited to low light shots.

Hope this helps.

IS is crap for sports where you're struggling with light anyways. I'd reccommend a 70-200 f/2.8 way before I'd say to get the 70-200 f/4 IS. If your shutter speed is slow enough that you're depending on IS, then it's not going to be fast enough to prevent motion blur from fast moving people/objects.

You do make a good point.

This also brings up the point that the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma and Tamron can be had for under $800.

I think we can all agree though that you don't buy one of these lenses "only for sports". Unless you are a professional that is.

It can and will be used for other things, and IS is so useful.

 

[texasrexbobcat]

Okay, so these two lenses probably aren't going to be enough for sports that require some distance.

But, the sports I'll be shooting, will be football, and track/field, and I will be on the sideline, close to the action for both of them. I can see where 85mm wouldn't be enough though....and the f/1.8 would be hard to focus without causing the subject to become part of the background...

What about the 135mm f/2.8? It's longer, and it has a smaller aperture (but not too small). Would this be a capable lens? I can also take into account the 1.3x crop of the 1D Mark II.

Heh. I could eventually have enough money to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L, but it would take about 4 months, and I don't think I have the long. XP

 

[Village Idiot]

To be honest I don't think either of these are very good for sports photography, especially the 50mm 1.4.

You need something with more focal length, espeically if you aren't using a crop body. I would advise you get something at least 200mm on the long end for a full frame body.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is only about $500 and would be much better suited to sports than the lenses you mentioned. The problem is that it isn't very fast, which is something it sounds like you want. Also I think that the IQ isn't that great, but you get what you pay for.

If there was any way you could afford it (save, loan, etc.) I would highly recommend the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version I or II. They are such good lenses, and are perfect for low light sports photography.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS would be another good option at about $1200. It is slower though and clearly not as well suited to low light shots.

Hope this helps.

IS is crap for sports where you're struggling with light anyways. I'd reccommend a 70-200 f/2.8 way before I'd say to get the 70-200 f/4 IS. If your shutter speed is slow enough that you're depending on IS, then it's not going to be fast enough to prevent motion blur from fast moving people/objects.

You do make a good point.

This also brings up the point that the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma and Tamron can be had for under $800.

I think we can all agree though that you don't buy one of these lenses "only for sports". Unless you are a professional that is.

It can and will be used for other things, and IS is so useful.

I've seen many thread asking what a person should buy, 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200f/2.8. It's a common question as they can both be had for around $1000 and not everyone has the time, money, or patience to save the $1,600+ that they're costing now.

 

[Neil S.]

IS is crap for sports where you're struggling with light anyways. I'd reccommend a 70-200 f/2.8 way before I'd say to get the 70-200 f/4 IS. If your shutter speed is slow enough that you're depending on IS, then it's not going to be fast enough to prevent motion blur from fast moving people/objects.

You do make a good point.

This also brings up the point that the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma and Tamron can be had for under $800.

I think we can all agree though that you don't buy one of these lenses "only for sports". Unless you are a professional that is.

It can and will be used for other things, and IS is so useful.

I've seen many thread asking what a person should buy, 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200f/2.8. It's a common question as they can both be had for around $1000 and not everyone has the time, money, or patience to save the $1,600+ that they're costing now.

The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II is $2300 on B&H as of today, and it was $2400 when I bought it.

Best money I have spent so far on photo gear in my opinion, worth every penny.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Okay, so I was wondering which lens would be better for low-light sports photography, or which is just a better lens in general?

I know that neither of these are the lenses of choice when it comes to sports, but I don't have the money for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

I've read some of the reviews on both of these and I was wondering about image quality at the widest aperture.

The 50mm has a wider aperture but is the IQ at 1.4 going to as good as the IQ of the 85mm at 1.8?

Is there even that much of a difference between 1.4 and 1.8?
As in; will 1.4 even be useful or needed? Or will the tradeoff between IQ and shutter speed be too great?

As a side-note: I recently purchased a used 1D Mark II. I'm not sure if that affects which lens is better though.

For sports I would suggest a short fast tele (80-90 f/1.4-2.0, for indoor stuff) a 200-250mm f/4ish lens, and a 350-400mm f/4-5.6ish lens.

 

[table1349]

Okay, so these two lenses probably aren't going to be enough for sports that require some distance.

But, the sports I'll be shooting, will be football, and track/field, and I will be on the sideline, close to the action for both of them. I can see where 85mm wouldn't be enough though....and the f/1.8 would be hard to focus without causing the subject to become part of the background...

What about the 135mm f/2.8? It's longer, and it has a smaller aperture (but not too small). Would this be a capable lens? I can also take into account the 1.3x crop of the 1D Mark II.

Heh. I could eventually have enough money to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L, but it would take about 4 months, and I don't think I have the long. XP

Ok, lets look at this in the long term, not in the moment. You need a field lens, not an indoor lens. That means reach. My two preferred field lenses are the 300mm f2.8L or the 400 mm f2.8L. Neither are anywhere near your budget, so they are both out.

The 135 f2.8 is reasonably priced consumer lens that is soft wide open and known for inaccurate focus. The soft focus aspect of the lens is no advantage for sports shooting. It was designed as a portrait lens not for action photography.

That leaves a couple of reasonable choices. First one, the 200mm f2.8L. It is one of Canon's hidden gems in L glass. Sharp, fast and for L glass cheap. At around $700 a lot of glass for the money. Only down side, if you want to call it that, it's a prime.

The last choice is one you eluded to already, and is the lens that is always on my second body on the side lines and at track events and that is the 70-200 f2.8L. It's fast, sharp versatile and a standard workhorse for sports photography. Notice I didn't link to the IS version. IS is pretty much useless for sports photography. If you don't need IS for your other interests there is no reason to spend the extra money on the IS version.

Unless all the games/meets you shoot are in the early afternoon, you need fast glass. Nothing slower than f2.8. You also need glass that is sharp when wide open. For sports you want large apertures for three reasons, Keep you ISO as low as possible, keep you shutter speed up in the 1/250th at a minimum to 1/500th range to freeze action and for shallow DOF to make the action pop. A 4 -5.6ish lens will let you do none of that unless you are shooting in bright sunlight in late morning/early afternoon.

Keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with a good condition used lens of this caliber. My personal 200 f2.8L I picked up used for $500. It looked and shot like it was new out of the box. With the MK II version of the 70-200 f2.8L IS out there now there are lots of MK 1 versions out there to be had as well as the non IS version. There is also the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 that runs around $800. Not all of us on the sidelines at a Division I NCAA football game have a 400 f2.8. I see plenty of shooters using a 70-200 f2.8 as their main and often only lens. Either one I mentioned would do you far better than the 135 f2.8 soft focus and would be in your lens arsenal for years to come. Good luck.