# 85mm vs 50mm?



## JaimeGibb

So I bought the 85mm 1.8 a while back, which is a fantastic lens. However I soon realized it's limitations when I had to be practically miles away to shoot a child (my main subjects). I am getting a 50mm for Christmas, and though people rave about the 85mm, I wonder what the real benefit of keeping it would be. Not that I dont love it, but I find myself needing the benefit of closeness in most shoots I do, weather they be inside someone's small house or in studio where I STILL can't get far enough back to get the whole person in the shot. ( I dont necessarily want to sell it, I just want a great reason to still value it!)

I am getting the 50 1.8, so maximum ap. is the same...the only real difference is the mm length, right? When would I really want to use the 85 over the 50? 

So basically, what really IS so great about the 85mm?!


----------



## Overread

Remember that a lot of people raving about the 85mm are going to be (or have) used full frame cameras - on a crop sensor like yours the field of view is going to be greater than 85mm (closer to 100mm on a full frame camera) whilst the 50mm will be closer to what 85mm is on a full frame camera.
these are approimations but if you have any though of moving to a full frame camera than certainly hold into the 85mm


----------



## rufus5150

The 85mm 1.8 shares more in common build-wise with the 50mm 1.4 than the 50mm 1.8. You'll definitely notice the sluggishness of the 50mm 1.8's autofocus (no USM).


----------



## Big Mike

Longer focal lengths tend to 'compress' things.  The opposite is that short lenses tend to accentuate distance (think wide angle distortion).  

People don't usually look as good in photos taken with a wide angle...especially as you get close to them.  So as you use a longer focal length (and back up) the more 'flattering' they will look.  
This is why 100mm is often talked about as a good portrait length.

I too know that it's hard to shoot that long, on a crop body, in somebody's living room.  Which is why I often shoot with a 17-50mm lens.

Also, you will soon see differences between the 50mm F1.8 and the 85mm F1.8.  The 50mm F1.8 is a very cheap lens.  The optical performance is good but the rest of it is...well, what you might expect for a $100 lens.  
The 50mm F1.4 is a lot more similar to the 85mm F1.8.


----------



## Dao

The bokeh effect on the 85mm f/1.8 is better than on the 50mm f/1.8.  (Because of the extra focal length as well as the number of shutter blades)

I do not own the 85mm lens (yet), but from what I read, seen and take photos of my 3 years old daughter with the telephoto zoom lens, I personally like the longer range (from 70mm to 100mm) when taking the portrait type shots outdoor.  The background just looks better that way even with my not so fast telephoto zoom lens (F/4 max at that range, but I often use f/5.6).  And there will be less perspective distortion issues with the longer focal length lens. 


However, for indoor photos.  50mm f/1.8 (i currently have) is better because of the limited space.  For me, I would like to have both lenses in my camera bag.  Sometimes, I just like to take a very creamy looking out of focus background portrait type photo, and I am sure the 85mm f/1.8 should be able to do the job nicely.

Now I just need to keep my eye on the used lens market.


----------



## benhasajeep

Actually that 85mm lens on your 20D has the same field of view as a 136mm lens 35mm equavillant. That is getting to be pretty long for portraits, especially indoors. The 50mm will be equal to a 80. Which is much closer to the sweet spot. It may be a bit slower, but your not going to be trying to catch a car going by at 200mph either.


----------



## Christie Photo

JaimeGibb said:


> ...I wonder what the real benefit of keeping it would be.     ...I just want a great reason to still value it!



It's really very simple.  You NEED more than one lens.

I've always used a twice-normal lens (like your 85mm) for head-and-shoulder and 3/4 length portraits, and something shorter for full-length.

Essentially, I nearly always choose the longest lens that the prevailing circumstances permit.

So...  you'll have your 85mm for individuals and your 50mm for groups...  or something like that.

I bet you have more than one screwdriver in your tool drawer...  so you'll have the right tool for the right job.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo

benhasajeep said:


> Actually that 85mm lens on your 20D has the same field of view as a 136mm lens 35mm equavillant.



Wow!  I had no idea the format of that camera was that small!  I agree....  136mm on a 35mm is a bit longer than I'd be comfortable with indoors.

-Pete


----------



## JaimeGibb

Thanks for all the great advice!!

Based on your responses, it seems that the 50mm is not as well made...is it still a fine lens to use professionally? Or should I invest in the 1.4 at some point?


----------



## benhasajeep

I see no reason why not to get one now.  They do hold their value pretty good (not to far to drop price wise).   As long as you take care of it.  You will get a pretty good chunk of it back if you do sell it after getting the 1.4.


----------



## Dao

If you are going to take a photo with 50mm f/1.8 of someone lay down on a ground in the way that the person's head is closer to the camera and the feet point away from the camera. 

With the 50mm lens, you may notice the person's head is a little out of proportion (bigger than it should).    However, if you use the 85mm lens and backup a little more and take the same shot.  The subject will look better.

Of course, if the subject is standing up or sit on a chair, it is going to be fine on both lenses.


----------



## Dao

benhasajeep said:


> I see no reason why not to get one now.  They do hold their value pretty good (not to far to drop price wise).   As long as you take care of it.  You will get a pretty good chunk of it back if you do sell it after getting the 1.4.




Yes I agree.   When you look at the 50mm f/1.8 mkII lens in the used market, you will find it cost about 70 to 80 bucks.  When the new one is about 90 bucks. So it's value really hold up.

You can also try to find a older version of the f/1.8 in good condition, it is a better build lens.  It has a metal mount, dof scale and the stronger feel plastic (weight a little more).   I sold my F/1.8 MKII (bought it new) and bought the MK I (used).


----------



## benhasajeep

Christie Photo said:


> Wow! I had no idea the format of that camera was that small! I agree.... 136mm on a 35mm is a bit longer than I'd be comfortable with indoors.
> 
> -Pete


 
The small sensor Canon DSLR's have a sensor size of about 22.2 x 14.8 mm.  Thats a crop factor around 1.6x.  The 20D was the first and only Canon I have ever had.  I have since upgraded from it to new Nikons.  Thinking about doing a permanent IR mod to the 20D.


----------



## Big Mike

> Based on your responses, it seems that the 50mm is not as well made...is it still a fine lens to use professionally? Or should I invest in the 1.4 at some point?


For professional use, I'd go with the F1.4 version.  
1) Better build quality, less likely to break or stop working on you
2) Better (faster and probably more accurate) auto focus.  
3) Better image quality.  I've heard this debated back and forth, some say the F1.8 is actually better at some apertures but I think that most will say the F1.4 is better, especially when shooting at F1.8.
4) Feel.  The 50mm F1.4 feels a lot better and more 'professional' than the cheap F1.8

Sure, the 50mm F1.8 is inexpensive and optically pretty good...that's why it gets so much attention on the internet.  But the 50mm F1.4 is only $315, which is pretty darn good for a quality F1.4 lens.


----------



## rufus5150

I've used both. I love my f 1.4. At F1.8, there's no comparison. The 1.4 blows the 1.8 out of the water in my experience.


----------



## Early

The Canon 35mm f2 is another useful lens for indoors.


----------



## Big Mike

> The Canon 35mm f2 is another useful lens for indoors.


And the EF 35mm F1.4 *L* is so magnificent, its blows all the aforementioned lenses out of the water...for only $1150


----------



## Early

Big Mike said:


> And the EF 35mm F1.4 *L* is so magnificent, its blows all the aforementioned lenses out of the water...for only $1150


Ah, to have been born rich instead of handsome.


----------



## table1349

Big Mike said:


> For professional use, I'd go with the F1.4 version.
> 1) Better build quality, less likely to break or stop working on you
> 2) Better (faster and probably more accurate) auto focus.
> 3) Better image quality.  I've heard this debated back and forth, some say the F1.8 is actually better at some apertures but I think that most will say the F1.4 is better, especially when shooting at F1.8.
> 4) Feel.  The 50mm F1.4 feels a lot better and more 'professional' than the cheap F1.8
> 
> Sure, the 50mm F1.8 is inexpensive and optically pretty good...that's why it gets so much attention on the internet.  But the 50mm F1.4 is only $315, which is pretty darn good for a quality F1.4 lens.



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: +1


----------



## JaimeGibb

Damn, now Im thinking I want the 1.4!


----------



## rufus5150

It's worth every penny.


----------



## usayit

The 85mm f/1.8 is one of those lenses that I have seller's remorse.  I really do miss it.
If you like the quality of the 85mm lens, I'd save a little more and get the 50mm f/1.4 over the 1.8.  Quality is much closer to what you are used to on the 85mm.  

I much like the 85mm focal length for portraits.


----------



## notelliot

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.


----------



## usayit

The 50( normal) to 85 (short telephoto) result in a nice compression of space... a wide angle lens simply exagerates the eyes and noses in portraits of face and bust.   It simply is more flatering.  Of course there is absolutely no boundaries to artistic photography.  I once did a shoot with a semi-nude woman who was blessed with wonderful curves.... a slight wide angle lens brought out the curves in some of the shots.  There are many examples of portraiture that worked wonderfully with wide angle lenses BUT you have to understand how spaces are presented and work it to your advantage.

As many have discovered.... one of the difficulties of setting up a portrait studio is space.... you need a good enough working distance.

You have to understand that focal length doesn't just impact how much you can fit in a "frame"  it impacts how spaces and distances are presented.


----------



## DWS

I highly recommend the 50mm f/1.4......I recently shot a friend's reunion, and the 50 was on a 2nd body for candid shots while the other body was riding a tripod for group shots


----------



## notelliot

usayit said:


> The 50( normal) to 85 (short telephoto) result in a nice compression of space... a wide angle lens simply exagerates the eyes and noses in portraits of face and bust.   It simply is more flatering.  Of course there is absolutely no boundaries to artistic photography.  I once did a shoot with a semi-nude woman who was blessed with wonderful curves.... a slight wide angle lens brought out the curves in some of the shots.  There are many examples of portraiture that worked wonderfully with wide angle lenses BUT you have to understand how spaces are presented and work it to your advantage.
> 
> As many have discovered.... one of the difficulties of setting up a portrait studio is space.... you need a good enough working distance.
> 
> You have to understand that focal length doesn't just impact how much you can fit in a "frame"  it impacts how spaces and distances are presented.


I completely agree with you on these points. But, when you have a little knowledge of how a wide lens distorts, and what parts of the frame will be distorted, I don't see the value in a mid-tele for portraits. Bear in mind that it's only my preference, and I'm not trying to preach. But with a little thought on the angle of your camera vs the subject, keeping noses and ears towards the center of the frame, wides win my heart every time. I actually just sold my 85/1.4 (Nikkor, with the intent of putting the money towards a 70-200/2.8, but realized I never used anything beyond 50mm) for money towards a wide, fast prime - that is, if and when Nikon chooses to make a new 24, 28 or 35/1.4 or something faster than 2.8. I've said it in a similar thread, but my 17-55/2.8 has been my go-to lens for people lately, and it's always in the 20-35mm range. I guess it's just a personal preference.. if I was doing headshots, or more formal portraits, I'd probably opt for a 50.


----------



## photogmatt

Have both, and like both a lot. I find it better to shoot kids further away, let them be more comfortable in their own space. It's a great candid lens for me, but the focus length can be a factor.


----------



## JerryPH

notelliot said:


> I don't get everyone's lust for 50-85mm for portraits..  My vote is still with the 20-35mm range.



One word... Chipmunk Cheeks.  Ok, that was 2 words... lol

Ever hear the expression that the camera adds 10 pounds to how you look?  That is because you used a shorter focal length.

The 85-105 mm range is best for quality, unfortunately, in a smaller room, you may not have the choice.  But if the choice is facial distortions or a happy client, you will find a way to make the room.


----------



## JerryPH

photogmatt said:


> ...but the focus length can be a factor.



Focus length??? Wazzat??

I think you meant to say focal length.


----------



## JaimeGibb

Ack decisions decisions!! Maybe I should rent some lenses and play around before I buy.


----------



## 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

notelliot said:


> 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

Joves said:


> 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

yinwu said:


> 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

anubis404 said:


> 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

usayit said:


> 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

FidelCastrovich said:


> There is no such thing as a 35mm perspective.



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



FidelCastrovich said:


> 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

Mike_E said:


> 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


----------



## FidelCastrovich

Christie Photo said:


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


 
When he mentioned 35mm perspective he was talking about a lens, which would be equivalent to 56 on FF. The fact that 35mm is also a camera format, is coincidental and irrelevant. 
What you say regarding wide angles and teles is true, for discussion. I was just correcting a statement which mistook focal length and/or camera format for perspective and vice versa. 
By the way, objects which we know to be round appear elliptical or oval to us too, when we look at them from an angle or up close. No different from a camera lens. 
We just have the privilege of KNOWING that the object is round and compensate in our mind. The camera shows it the way it sees it without prejudice.


----------



## yinwu

Hehe well I stand corrected on the perspective issue.  And yes I was referring to focal length and not camera format.  But DOF will still be different between 35mm crop and 50mm ff


----------

