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



## texasrexbobcat (Jul 21, 2010)

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.


----------



## oldmacman (Jul 21, 2010)

texasrexbobcat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



The biggest challenge will be the depth of focus. If you are doing sports, the athletes will be moving in and out of your focus plane very quickly. The more wide open you are, the narrow the plane.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2010)

The 85 generally focuses a bit faster than the 50, in my experience. The 85's focusing also seems more reliable--the 50/1.4 EF has occasional focus hiccups...it's hard to explain, but hiccup is the term most people would use...occasionally my 50/1.4 will balk, or get confused, stutter, hiccup, whatever you want to call it. That's annoying as hell. The 85/1.8 doesn't do those things. The aperture difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is generally not significant in a real world sense.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 21, 2010)

Reach will be your real priority if you're shooting anything like basketball, soccer, football, etc... where there will be a big distance between you and your subject where you can't move closer to them.


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 21, 2010)

both of those lenses are too short and anything wider than 2.8 is too shallow depth of field for sports. 

Since I got the 7D and don't mind jacking the ISO a little, I don't even shoot sports at 2.8 unless I have to anymore. I hate going wider than 4 because the DOF is just too shallow. 

The only place I can see either of those lenses doing you any good is sitting baseline shooting basketball.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2010)

What are you people talking about??? Indoors, a 50 or an 85mm lens are often very useful for sports like volleyball, wrestling, basketball, judo, karate, dog shows, horse arenas, gymnastics, and many other indoor events. With a 50mm or 85mm you can show some context of the event, and can shoot at very high shutter speeds. For track and field a 50 or an 85 has a huge number of uses, and for softball or baseball from the 3rd base area or the home team dugout area, a 50 or an 85mm lens can be used to capture close-up base action at 3rd and 1st base. For high jump, pole vault, and long jump and triple jump, at many tracks you are forced into an area where a 50 or a 35mm is the only lens length you can actually deploy.

When you have credentials and are shooting from field level, "reach" is often not the issue--the problem is actually being too close to use your longer lenses. In true low light situations at say high school fields and stadiums, the lighting is pitifully bad--much worse than at the NCAA level, and sheer aperture speed can be very necessary. There is low light and there is low light: when you can shoot at f/4 in a sports situation, the light is not "low"...


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 21, 2010)

Whaaaaaaaaat? We're talking about sports photography here. 

Sports = shoot tight & crop tighter. You can never be too tight in sports, but its very easy to be too wide. There is nothing interesting about a package of sports photos all shot wider than they should be. 

A wider lens is nice for shooting a few overalls, but as an editor if I sent a photographer out to a baseball, wresting match, volleyball, etc. and he came back with 300 shots taken at 50 or 85mm with the subject taking up 10% of the frame I'd be pissed.

i agree that shooting at f/4 means that it's not that low of light and that f/1.4 would be a nice trick up your sleeve, but I'm going to stand by my original statement that shooting sports at 1.4 is going to bring some heartache as you catch a bunch of great moments, all properly exposed and all back-focused.


----------



## Sam6644 (Jul 21, 2010)

*** I want to say that I'd happily take either one of them for use on a second body while shooting sports, but I would never call either of them a primary lens for sports. 

My sports set up is my 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8, zoomed all the way in to 55.


----------



## rufus5150 (Jul 21, 2010)

If your choice is between the 50 and the 85 (and other lenses aren't in play), go with the 85. I can attest to the 'hiccups' Darrel mentioned and the 50 at 1.4 is softer than the 85 at 1.8. You'll appreciate the longer reach as well.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 21, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> *** I want to say that I'd happily take either one of them for use on a second body while shooting sports, but I would never call either of them a primary lens for sports.
> 
> My sports set up is my 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8, zoomed all the way in to 55.



Depending on the venue I am shooting, since I am at court/field venue the 85 is for me a much used lens.  Indoors for basketball my primary body usually has an 85mm on it, secondary is either a100 f2, 135 f2L or 24-70 f2.8L and my third body will have my 200mm f2 for far court shots.  Pretty much the same thing for wrestling volleyball etc. For indoors I also usually have in my vest a 50mm f1.4 and the 16-35 f2.8L.  

Outdoor venues, Primary is usually my 400 f2.8L or 300 f2.8L, depending on the sport.  My secondary is usually the 70-200 f2.8L. Most outdoor venues I only carry 2 bodies. 

As for shooting sports, close only counts when it captures all the action.  That requires shooting wide enough to capture the action.  Cropping is a sports shooters friend.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 21, 2010)

rufus5150 said:


> If your choice is between the 50 and the 85 (and other lenses aren't in play), go with the 85. I can attest to the 'hiccups' Darrel mentioned and the 50 at 1.4 is softer than the 85 at 1.8. You'll appreciate the longer reach as well.



Same here, go with the 85mm. On top of that there are rumors of a new Canon 50mm prime, not that rumors are facts.


----------



## usayit (Jul 21, 2010)

I vote for the 85mm... even then, I'd wonder if it would be a long enough focal length for indoor sports.  The 135mm L is barely enough for indoor soccer.


----------



## Dao (Jul 21, 2010)

The AF of the 85mm f/1.8 is indeed faster than the 50mm f/1.4.  I did not know until I bought the 50mm f/1.4 recently.

My friend also use the 85mm lens for shooting his daughter's volleyball game and result were not bad even his camera is a FF camera.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 21, 2010)

I have both of those lenses...  I'd go for the 85, just because it's longer.  Still probably a little on the wide side for sports though.  Depending on what sport we're talking about and how close you can get to the action, of course.

For just general use, I'd get both of them.


----------



## maddenvallis (Jul 21, 2010)

I mean depending on the sport you should get something that is way more narrow than these. But I had to suggest one I'd say the 85MM.

maddenvallis.com


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

texasrexbobcat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jul 22, 2010)

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. (Jul 22, 2010)

Dao said:


> 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 (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


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


 
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. (Jul 22, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > texasrexbobcat said:
> ...


 
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 (Jul 23, 2010)

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 (Jul 23, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


 
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. (Jul 23, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


 
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 (Jul 23, 2010)

texasrexbobcat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 23, 2010)

texasrexbobcat said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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.


----------

