35mm f2 vs 85mm f1.8

[birdfish]

I've been researching these 2 lenses and I'm leaning towards the 85mm. Just wanted to see if anyone here had any experience with both or either and how they felt about each. I have a Canon Rebel XS which is a crop body, not sure it that makes a difference with these lenses. I shoot 50/50 indoors and outdoors. But from what I've read the 35 is a little long to be used inside unless you have plenty of space. (which is why I'm leaning towards the 85)

The main things I like to shoot are newborns, toddlers, children, some senior photos, and engagement photos. I don't have the proper lighting equipment (yet) to do portaits with white/black backgrounds etc. inside so I do tend to shoot outside a little more I guess. But I also take tons of photos of my 16 month old son inside, so that balances it out.

Does anyone recommend one lens over the other? Thanks for any info!

 

[Dao]

I think you may mix up the focal length a little. 85mm focal length is longer than the 35mm. So using the 85mm lens may be too long for indoor photos especially for full body type photos.

 

[TCampbell]

The 35mm will provide a near-normal angle of view. Meaning... As you look forward and try to avoid letting your eyes look around, what you can comfortably see with detail is roughly what your camera can see with the 35mm focal length (actually your eyes will see a bit more.)The 85mm will see considerably less. This will a much tighter view.

 

[birdfish]

I think you may mix up the focal length a little. 85mm focal length is longer than the 35mm.

Thanks for the correction Dao.

 

[rexbobcat]

The 85 has superior build quality, image quality, and autofocus, but it lacks the wider angle of view.

I would go with the 85mm especially if you need autofocus in dim areas.

It's also better for portraiture, because it flattens the perspective, which means that the proportions of peoples' bodies will be more accurate. This isn't as big of a deal on crop sensor cameras because they multiply the effective focal length anyways making the 35mm more like 55mm, but if you ever switch to full frame it would be a concern.

 

[birdfish]

Thanks you everyone for your input!!

 

[1000_Islander]

While both these lenses are fairly 'fast', neither has IS. Image Stabilization can provide at least two stops advantage. Combine that with the fact that neither of these lenses is at its best wide-open, the 'fast' aspect is mitigated in this case.
For the subjects you intend to shoot, I personally would suggest a zoom lens rather than a prime. One of Canon's best wide-to-medium range lenses is the 15-85mm IS. Yes, it's more expensive at about $750., but the flexibility and quality will better answer the 'ideal' lens pursuit.
Shooting in low light is a challenging situation and it is too easy to be led into believing that a 'faster' lens is the answer. Good use of flash is much less expensive, and simply shooting in better ambient light will yield better results than any fast lens in poor lighting.

 

[o hey tyler]

While both these lenses are fairly 'fast', neither has IS. Image Stabilization can provide at least two stops advantage. Combine that with the fact that neither of these lenses is at its best wide-open, the 'fast' aspect is mitigated in this case.

Not really. you can get decent sharpness from f/2.2 and onward. IS does nothing if your subject is moving anyway other than somewhat nullify the camera shake of the world around them. The 15-85 is f/3.5 - f/5.6. At the wide end, it's two stops slower than the 85mm. And like you said about the 85mm, it's most certainly not optically prime when shot wide open. It's basically a glorified kit lens, and not fast enough in low light which is what the OP is looking for.

If the OP is looking to do indoor and outdoor portraiture (especially with flash), they will want the 85mm f/1.8.

A lot of people forget that IS/VR/OS etc was not around when photographers were shooting all film back in the day. It's not a necessity.

 

[1000_Islander]

We may agree to disagree, but.........
The Canon 15-85mm is absolutely not a 'glorified kit lens' and you would not likely find a competent review to suggest that. Here's one review:

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review

And I personally have an idea about non-automatic everything photography. Been shooting since before auto-focus and all the innovations since!
Fact is, low light is still low light, and a faster lens will only make it better to get quality results, but better is a relative term.

 

[birdfish]

So is the 85mm going to be to tight on a crop sensor??

 

[1000_Islander]

85mm x 1.6 = 136mm
You will have to decide, but it's quite long for indoor (most homes) work.

 

[birdfish]

Gotcha, think I'm gonna give it a go. Thanks for all the help.

 

[rexbobcat]

We may agree to disagree, but.........
The Canon 15-85mm is absolutely not a 'glorified kit lens' and you would not likely find a competent review to suggest that. Here's one review:

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review

And I personally have an idea about non-automatic everything photography. Been shooting since before auto-focus and all the innovations since!
Fact is, low light is still low light, and a faster lens will only make it better to get quality results, but better is a relative term.

I don't understand your logic. The 15-85mm is more versatile, but it's slower, and the IS only works if your object is not moving. It's image quality is also not as good as the 85mm wide open. The 15-85mm is actually a fairly lackluster lens for the price. You can buy better quality for half the price with either the 85mm or the 35mm.

I don't understand how people can say that consumer zoom lenses can even compete with the quality of prime lenses. There are professional zooms that have comparable quality, but for crisp, lowlight images you need good autofocus and a large aperture, even at the expense of versatility.

 

[TCampbell]

While both these lenses are fairly 'fast', neither has IS. Image Stabilization can provide at least two stops advantage. Combine that with the fact that neither of these lenses is at its best wide-open, the 'fast' aspect is mitigated in this case.

Only for hand held shots of non-moving subjects. Shooting, just as an example, sports/action in poor lighting then aperture wins and IS doesn't save the shots.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The 35mm will provide a near-normal angle of view. Meaning... As you look forward and try to avoid letting your eyes look around, what you can comfortably see with detail is roughly what your camera can see with the 35mm focal length (actually your eyes will see a bit more.)The 85mm will see considerably less. This will a much tighter view.

Not true. The eye have an equivalent focal length of 17mm. The reason people say 35mm focal length is roughly what the eye see it because viewfinder magnification is normally calculated at 50mm focused at infinity.