Which one?

jennhunter · Nov 17, 2009

I want a lens upgrade but am having difficulty deciding between 2. I am a Canon user, and am debating between the 85mm prime, and the 24-70mm. Pros and cons anyone? I am mostly doing portraits (or learning to) of children, but some other stuff here and there. I have a family members wedding in June, that I am doing as a 2nd shooter, any suggestions are welcomed please! ???

Plato · Nov 17, 2009

jennhunter said:
I want a lens upgrade but am having difficulty deciding between 2. I am a Canon user, and am debating between the 85mm prime, and the 24-70mm. Pros and cons anyone? I am mostly doing portraits (or learning to) of children, but some other stuff here and there. I have a family members wedding in June, that I am doing as a 2nd shooter, any suggestions are welcomed please! ???

The 85mm f/1.8 has long been my absolute favorite lens. It's ideal for separating the subject from the background without the facial distortion of a shorter lens. I shoot Nikon.

TJ K · Nov 17, 2009

are you talking about the 85 1.2? Not to sure if you're just doing portraits then the 85mm might be your best bet but the 24-70 gives you more leeway being able to zoom and all and still have 2.8

jennhunter · Nov 17, 2009

TJ K said:
are you talking about the 85 1.2? Not to sure if you're just doing portraits then the 85mm might be your best bet but the 24-70 gives you more leeway being able to zoom and all and still have 2.8

No not the 1.2, the 1.8, although I guess if I am spending the money on the 24-70, the price is not much different from the 85 1.2 huh? What to do what to do??? I am pretty much just portraits. No landscaping, macro, just mainly people.

Derrel · Nov 17, 2009

Well, the 24-70mm f/2.8 would be the best overall choice for the Canon Rebel that you currently have. On a 1.6x body, to get a field of view that is 8.5 feet tall, the camera MUST BE positioned 34 feet from the subjects. Sooooo, if you want to photograph a man and wife, both standing up, and have enough room for their feet, and a little bit of room for head space above them OR you want to be able to make an 8x10 proportion enlargement, with the 85/1.8 on a Canon body, you will need to be 34 to 40 feet away from them. Seriously. Those are the facts.

For people work on 1.6x or 1.5x bodies, the 85mm prime lens is very difficult to work with in many social photography situations. The Bob Atkins web site has a nice field of view calculator for those who are inclined to check results.

The 24-70mm will be more useful in more situations, especially indoors or in smaller outdoor environments where you need to shoot full-length or group photos.

TJ K · Nov 17, 2009

jennhunter said:
TJ K said:

are you talking about the 85 1.2? Not to sure if you're just doing portraits then the 85mm might be your best bet but the 24-70 gives you more leeway being able to zoom and all and still have 2.8

Click to expand...

No not the 1.2, the 1.8, although I guess if I am spending the money on the 24-70, the price is not much different from the 85 1.2 huh? What to do what to do??? I am pretty much just portraits. No landscaping, macro, just mainly people.

Then the 85 would be you're best bet. I don't shoot canon so i'm not to familiar with the 1.2 but if you got the 1.8 or 1.4(is there a 1.4?) the money you save could be put towards a nice flash and wireless setup if you don't have already.
tj

jennhunter · Nov 17, 2009

2 different opinions isn't helping me much

But I am beginning to learn that photography is pretty much just a matter of opinions

Plato · Nov 17, 2009

Derrel said:
For people work on 1.6x or 1.5x bodies, the 85mm prime lens is very difficult to work with in many social photography situations.

At the same time, it's ideal for isolating a single person in a social situation.

Brian L · Nov 18, 2009

If your only doing portraits then go for the 85mm f1.8. I own that myself and love it. I use it for so much stuff. Its pretty much always on my 30d. I am saving for the 24-70 and 135mm f2.0 for another protraits lens. Get the 85 your gonna love it.

Derrel · Nov 18, 2009

Plato said:
Derrel said:

For people work on 1.6x or 1.5x bodies, the 85mm prime lens is very difficult to work with in many social photography situations.

Click to expand...

At the same time, it's ideal for isolating a single person in a social situation.

You know, this actual subject is one of my "pet peeves". The amount of pure misinformation on the 85mm lens is so widespread, I've even done a blog post on how the 85mm lens works on APS-C versus FF.

Isolating a person in a social situation with an 85mm lens on a 1.6x Canon??YEAH--if you're 34 feet away! That's how far you have to be to show a six foot tall person with an 85mm lens on 1.6x bodies--thirty-four feet away. It's almost impossible to put 34 feet between the camera and a subject in many social situations--people come in between you, so it's very difficult to deploy an 85mm lens indoors in any home that's not a mansion. How big is the living room in an average home???? If a social event has people milling around, or the venue is not huge, an 85mm lens on a crop-body is nearly useless in many situations. "isolating them"? What? Here is the field of view calculator URL Field of View - Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses

Uh, no, 85mm on 1.6x is almost impossible to use in a social situation, unless the room is HUGE. And as we know, at longer shooting distances, depth of field on APS-C increases very,very quickly. With the aperture set to say f/8, DOF is from 28 feet to 43 feet, with a depth of field band of 15.4 feet in depth--there is virtually NO "isolation" whatsoever; that much depth of field will render the foreground AND the background quite recognizable. The visual effect is worse than the numbers might indicate.

For a person who hopes to shoot family portraits/events/news/documentary work with a Canon or Nikon APS-C body, an 85mm prime lens is USELESS in many situations, but a 24-70mm f/2.8 will allow the photographer to actually have some flexibility at normal distances, in normal sized rooms. Sure, an 85/1.8 is inexpensive compared to a Canon 24-70-L, but it is also a one-trick pony, while the zoom lens offers like 46 different focal length and framing choices. The choice is obvious.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

iolair · Nov 18, 2009

You've already got the 50mm 1.8 and the kit 18-55?

I guess if you've been shooting portraits with the 50mm, you have an idea if you need to get closer up - but as people have pointed out, on the crop body, the 85mm indoors will only be much good for head shots or head & shoulder shots. If that's what you want, you'll probably be very happy with the 85mm. I don't have the 85mm, but it's got great reviews - very sharp, very nice bokeh and very fast.

Which is more important to you - the image quality of a prime or the convenience of the zoom? (Of course, the IQ on a quality zoom will be nothing to complain about).

If it was me choosing, I'd get the 85mm.

iolair · Nov 18, 2009

jennhunter said:
2 different opinions isn't helping me much But I am beginning to learn that photography is pretty much just a matter of opinions

Absolutely! It's an art form ... and while the "accepted wisdom" for portraits is a certain range of lens sizes, you can shoot portraits with pretty much any focal length according to your personal style and tastes.

Stosh · Nov 18, 2009

Derrel said:
Plato said:

Derrel said:

For people work on 1.6x or 1.5x bodies, the 85mm prime lens is very difficult to work with in many social photography situations.

Click to expand...

At the same time, it's ideal for isolating a single person in a social situation.

Click to expand...

You know, this actual subject is one of my "pet peeves". The amount of pure misinformation on the 85mm lens is so widespread, I've even done a blog post on how the 85mm lens works on APS-C versus FF.

Isolating a person in a social situation with an 85mm lens on a 1.6x Canon??YEAH--if you're 34 feet away! That's how far you have to be to show a six foot tall person with an 85mm lens on 1.6x bodies--thirty-four feet away. It's almost impossible to put 34 feet between the camera and a subject in many social situations--people come in between you, so it's very difficult to deploy an 85mm lens indoors in any home that's not a mansion. How big is the living room in an average home???? If a social event has people milling around, or the venue is not huge, an 85mm lens on a crop-body is nearly useless in many situations. "isolating them"? What? Here is the field of view calculator URL Field of View - Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses

Uh, no, 85mm on 1.6x is almost impossible to use in a social situation, unless the room is HUGE. And as we know, at longer shooting distances, depth of field on APS-C increases very,very quickly. With the aperture set to say f/8, DOF is from 28 feet to 43 feet, with a depth of field band of 15.4 feet in depth--there is virtually NO "isolation" whatsoever; that much depth of field will render the foreground AND the background quite recognizable. The visual effect is worse than the numbers might indicate.

For a person who hopes to shoot family portraits/events/news/documentary work with a Canon or Nikon APS-C body, an 85mm prime lens is USELESS in many situations, but a 24-70mm f/2.8 will allow the photographer to actually have some flexibility at normal distances, in normal sized rooms. Sure, an 85/1.8 is inexpensive compared to a Canon 24-70-L, but it is also a one-trick pony, while the zoom lens offers like 46 different focal length and framing choices. The choice is obvious.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

You've mentioned this (these) situations several times before, so I see it is one of your pet peeves. Although the reality is it's only 1.6x the focal length as it is on a full frame. If you focus your argument on difficulty using the 85mm in a room, it's almost as difficult to use it on a full frame. So I think your real argument is that the 85mm isn't the right lens no matter which body you're using. But he obviously isn't trying to take a full picture of 8' tall inside a small room. It's a portrait lens. Not all portraits are 8' tall.

As for isolation in a crowded room, fast lenses rule. Assuming you have a certain field of view in mind, getting closer will NOT isolate better because what you gain from shorter distance, you lose in shorter focal length. They almost EXACTLY cancel each other out. It comes down to f-ratio. The lower the f-ratio, the narrower your depth of field in a crowded room. If you're referring to background blur (where the background is at a significant distance from the subject), then you're right. Going to a shorter focal length would do better in that situation, but that's not what others were talking about. Background blur moves out of the equation in a crowded room.

So my recommendation? It depends. If you're looking for flexibility, the zoom certainly has that. If you looking for the best isolating portrait lens, the 85mm will do better. Obviously the 1.2 will do even better than the 1.8, but wow those depths of field are paper thin!