# 85mm: too close??



## JaimeGibb (Jan 10, 2008)

So I just recieved my 85mm f/1.8 lens. I love it, except I feel like I have to stand so effing far away to get the shot I want. It's like I am taking an extremely zoomed in shot. I heard that this is a great portrait lens, hence the reason I purchased it. But when trying to take pictures of my 10 month old niece and nephew, I have to run practically to the other side of the room to get the shot filled, and by then they are crawling away!! Any suggestions? Should I trade it in for a different one? I am so bummed about this!! Thanks guys


----------



## bhop (Jan 10, 2008)

I have the same feeling with my 50mm f/1.8 (on digital body).  Personally, I feel if you're not happy with it, and won't use it much, then trade it for something else.


----------



## memento (Jan 10, 2008)

I got a 50mm 1.8 and had the same problem.
I think we hear about the 'primes for portrait's' from people that shoot in controlled environments, ie. studio.
IMO, if you want candid shots of kids or pets you need a zoom.
I went back to using the kit lens(28-135) and am looking into a 17-50ish 2.8 zoom for chasing around my 2 year old daughter.


----------



## dbrandon (Jan 10, 2008)

If you genuinely feel the focal length is too long for you, then yes, trade it in for something more usable. Maybe a 50 ?

The 85 is meant to be very good though, and will give a pleasing perspective i'd imagine (i haven't used one).

Is your camera body using a cropped sensor ? 'Cos that's something to take into account when picking focal lengths.

Hope you sort it out


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 10, 2008)

It's a trade off.  

Longer focal lengths usually make for more flattering portraits because they tend to compress features.  
However, you need to be farther back from your subject when shooting with a telephoto.

You could use an 18mm lens to photograph your kids and be very close to them, but the wide angle distortion might make them look funny or weird.

Maybe try a 50mm lens.


----------



## memento (Jan 10, 2008)

Hey, I just noticed you're in Woodbridge.. WOOT!
Small world.
I grew up in Montclair. :cheers:
REPREZENT!! :lmao:


----------



## memento (Jan 10, 2008)

I'd be willing to let you use my 50 to see if that's what you want..
I'm in Falls Church.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 10, 2008)

I think it's the perfect lens for shooting people.  Stick with a while.  I think you'll fall in love.

-Pete


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 10, 2008)

The argument has been made for decades weather to use the 85 or 105 for portraits when shooting full frame (film). I suspect the same argument well go on about the 50 and 85 when discussing portraits when shooting with the clipped chip. It all comes down to personal preference.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 10, 2008)

I'd suggest to stick with it a while longer and use in different environments, such as outside.  It is a very nice lens (for me).  I can get a tight head shot without getting up someones nose and nice "other" types of subjects from a distance where the 50mm is too wide.  It is fast focusing and at f/1.8 low light shots are easily had.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 10, 2008)

The 85 is PERFECT for headshots


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 10, 2008)

So what everyone seems to be saying is if you want something more than a headshot go with the 50.  The 50 works great for my 2 year old if only he would quit running at the camera ever time he sees it.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 10, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> So what everyone seems to be saying is if you want something more than a headshot go with the 50...



Well...   Not exactly.  At least that's not what I'm saying.

Before digital, I always used a "twice normal" focal length whenever possible.  

kundalini mentioned outdoor settings.  I would use a 180mm on my RB for family group sessions.  That lens would be double the "normal" focal length for that format. Shooting at f 8, it achieved very nice separation from the background giving the image a deep look.


----------



## Jeepin59 (Jan 10, 2008)

If after you keep it a while and then decide to trade it in you could also check out the 30mm lens. I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which I like very much. It is about as close to a 50mm film lens as you can get. It also has a nice lens hood for head butts!! Its quite hefty and I think you will come out ahead until the terrible twos.


----------



## Fate (Jan 10, 2008)

Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a nice lens... equates to about 47mm on a digital body.

Used it for the first time today at school.. awesome low light performance and its sharp enough for use wide open IMO.... i dont plan on blowing pics up past 10X8 anyway


----------



## JaimeGibb (Jan 10, 2008)

Wow, thanks so much for all the feedback!! Does anyone know WHY it's zoomed in so close? Does that have to do with the focal length? Is there a lens with the same aperture that would be further zoomed out?


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 10, 2008)

The longer the focal length the more "zoomed in" it will feel.  The 50mm f1.8 I mentioned would feel more zoomed out for sure if you tend to be really close you might want to go with something like a 24mm or a 30mm.  The 50mm would be your most economical though.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 10, 2008)

JaimeGibb said:


> Wow, thanks so much for all the feedback!! Does anyone know WHY it's zoomed in so close? Does that have to do with the focal length? Is there a lens with the same aperture that would be further zoomed out?


 
In that respect, it's all about focal length.  Most short(ish) focal length prime lenses will stop down somewhere between f/1.8 to f/2.0 without breaking the bank.  

If possible, you can take a memory card, go to your local photo shop and test drive various lenses.  Get home and see what you see on your monitor.  This should help give you an idea of what each focal length will/will not give you.


----------



## lextalionis (Jan 10, 2008)

Thinking more about photographing youngsters running about the house...I might take Fate's suggestion and try the Sigma 30mm 1.4. The key for shooting around the house is a fast lens. No doubt the 85mm 1.8 is a pretty fast lens and far better at portraits than the 30mm.  Personally I think the 85mm on a cropped sensor is perfect for portraits. You're not expecting to let your youngsters pose well enough to take a professional portrait right? I have 3 young boys and I find myself shooting close quarters with my 17-55 2.8 IS and my 70-200 f/4 when they are running about on the park playground.

-Roy


----------



## JaimeGibb (Jan 10, 2008)

Actually, I use them as my test subjects for portraits. I am trying to break in to portrait photography. I use back drops with them, the whole deal. I just feel like I can't get a good portrait of a baby with that lens because I have to go too far away from them, ya know? And what about when I start doing on-location shots in peoples homes? What if they don't have the room for me to back up that far?


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 10, 2008)

Well then having the 50mm would be a good thing.


----------



## Rhubarb (Jan 11, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Well then having the 50mm would be a good thing.



Yep, and the 50mm 1.8 is very affordable. So keep your 85mm and add the 50mm to your collection and then you can choose depending on the situation you find yourself in.

I have the 50mm and saving for the 85mm


----------



## JaimeGibb (Jan 11, 2008)

Nice...ok so what is the difference between the 85mm and the 50mm? Like, if I am using the 50mm, what circumstance would make me want to switch and put on my 85mm? Im sorry I keep asking so many questions, but you guys have helped me out MORE than you know!!


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 11, 2008)

When you have more room you might want the 85mm.


----------



## lextalionis (Jan 11, 2008)

Jaime, try this site: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

There's a "Required Focal Length Calculator"

-Roy


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 11, 2008)

JaimeGibb said:


> Like, if I am using the 50mm, what circumstance would make me want to switch and put on my 85mm?



Say...  if you have a person or persons in front of your camera.  That would be a good time to reach for the 85mm.

Think of it this way:  With you format (camera) [I'm presuming you do not have a "full frame" sensor], the NORMAL focal length is approximately 40mm.   So anything shorter than that can be considered as "wide angle" and anything longer than that can be considered as "telephoto."  

There are FIXED FOCAL LENGTH lenses (often times referred to as "prime" lenses), and there are variable focal length lenses which are called ZOOM lenses.

A lens is also described by it's maximum aperture.  So the lens you are questioning is a FIXED FOCAL LENGTH, TELEPHOTO lens with a maximum aperture of f 1.8, which is considered to be pretty "bright" or "fast" for a lens of that length.

The brighter (or faster) the lens, the less light needed to make a proper exposure.  ALSO...  the wider the aperture you use, the SHALLOWER the depth of field you achieve.  So, with your 85mm...  shooting wide open at f 1.8, you will have very shallow depth of field.

Personally, I feel f 1.8 is not a good choice for shooting kids...  or groups...  or most portraits.  I would choose something between f 4 and f 8, favoring the smaller end of this range.

Kids move.  With a very shallow depth of field, it's likely they will move into and out of acceptable focus.  And when posing groups, the subject will likely be too deep to shoot at anything brighter than f 5.6 or f 8.

I hope this helps.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 11, 2008)

Oh...  I wanted to add that, on your camera, the 50mm is considered to be a short TELEPHOTO lens, which is a great choice for candids.  It would also be fine for full length or group portraits, especially when space is limited.


----------



## patrickt (Jan 11, 2008)

The last time I took baby pictures--a two-day old--I used a 35mm lens. I don't like using a flash with babies so a faster--prime--is desireable. For some portrait work I use a 50mm, for some a 77mm, and for some--usually outdoors--a zoom.

One consideration is how comfortable the subject is with your getting close. I saw a man standing about two feet from someone taking a photo and the subject was clearly upset. On the other hand, if you want a shot that has rapport with the subject, standing 35ft. away can be a problem.

Keep the lens awhile and play around. See what you like and how it works--for you. You might also do some portrait work with a zoom--good light--and then review the shots and see what focal length you tended to use most often.


----------



## tpe (Jan 11, 2008)

50mm 1.4 plus 1.4 tc, sounds strange but works a treat, the best of both worlds, in low light keep it at f2 for both combinations, as 1.4 is just a bit to shallow for enough keepers on the 50mm and f2 75mm is still pdg for longer telephoto portraits. It costs less than a 85mm 1.8, is more flexable and I think gives more pleasing focal lengths. just mo 0.2c

tim 

tim


----------



## kundalini (Jan 11, 2008)

Hopefully this can clarify prime focal lengths a little. All shots taken at f/4. Camera to subject distance is 42".

---------------35mm--------------------------------------50mm---------------------------------85mm-----------












Apologies for the subject matter. 

BTW, no cropping or processing - straight out of the camera, just resizing for web.


----------



## JaimeGibb (Jan 11, 2008)

Hahahahaha


Wow, Kindalini, that actually sums up everything PERFECTLY. And I think I need a 50mm!! Thanks so much for ALL of you guys' help!!!


----------



## kundalini (Jan 11, 2008)

JaimeGibb said:


> Wow, *Kundalini*, that actually sums up everything PERFECTLY. And I think I need a 50mm!! Thanks so much for ALL of you guys' help!!!


 

I hope that means an addition.   The 85mm is a sweet lens, you just have to get use to it.


----------



## nossie (Jan 12, 2008)

Is that a pint of Guinness I see before me?


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 12, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Hopefully this can clarify prime focal lengths a little. All shots taken at f/4. Camera to subject distance is 42".



Actually, no.  To illustrate what we've been discussing, we need shots made with differing camera-to-subject distances so that the head size, in relation to the frame, remains the same in all images.  And, we need to know what format camera was used.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 12, 2008)

patrickt said:


> One consideration is how comfortable the subject is with your getting close.



This is a very good point, especially with adults.

-Pete


----------

