85mm/1.8 vs 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8 for portraits

[jgbeam]

Both of the 1.8's have both gotten a lot of praise on this forum and the 50mm 1.8 seems like the best lens value around. How about the 1.4? Is it worth $300? In adition to portraits, where lighting is not an issue, I shoot some dance and theatre with some dim lighting at times. The 24-70/2.8 forces me into 800 and 1600 ISO's, which I would rather avoid.

Jim

[CoolToolGuy]

The 50mm f1.8 is a no-brainer for the price. I originally got the 24-70 f2.8L to photograph the production of a high school play. When I saw what I had to crank the ISO up to in order to get decent shutter speeds, I went after the primes. The 85mm was used the most, but when it comes to using a 50mm, the f1.4 gives you an extra stop over the f1.8, which makes it worthwhile for me. I now use ISO 200 in auditorium environments and I get decent shutter speeds and the lens is not always wide open.

Works for me! :wink:

Have Fun,

[Haifidelity]

Question get's asked quite frequently around here, but here's my 2 cents:

1.) 50mm f/1.8 is nearly 90% of the f/1.4, losing out to the f/1.4's better bokeh, psuedo-USM and the build quality (in the case of the mkII).

2.) If I was doing pure portraits, I would have to give the 85mm f/1.8 the nod because of the focal length.

[roanjohn]

I would go for the 85 f1.8 and the 50 f1.8.

The 85 is good for tight head shots. It also produces better "bokeH" that is truly buttery smooth..........especially wide open. About the only thing negative I can say about the 85 lens is purple fringing wide open on shiny objects..........other than that, it is one sharp lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/29391970.jpg

Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel ,Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1/640s f/2.2 at 85.0mm iso200

The 50 f1.8 is soo cheap it's crazy not to get one. And if you want to upgrade, there will always be people willing to pay for your f1.8 version (its so difficult to find).........In any case, its nice for indoor events and portraiture shooting from the waist up. This lens is also sharp without the fringing. Though without any experience from the 1.4 version, I would imagine it to be much sharper than the 1.8 version at 1.8.

http://www.pbase.com/image/30616148.jpg

Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel ,Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1/400s f/2.8 at 50.0mm iso100

Notice how the 85 produces better bokeh than the 50.

Ro1

[jjguest]

i like very muh 85mm 1.8 with d60
http://www.pbase.com/image/27511485.jpg

[sGu]

what's a bokeh? :roll:

[dn7elson]

what's a bokeh? :roll:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

[Tom W]

what's a bokeh? :roll:

Bokeh is the blurry background in a picture. A good bokeh shows up as a very smooth, almost creamy background. Not as good is a choppy, distracting background.

Here's a shot with my 50 mm at f/1.4, 1/50 second, ISO 800:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=5587050&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Notice that everything in the background (the lights, the people, the "mirrored ball", and all) is blurry and for the most part intertwines into a multicolored soup. That is bokeh.

Bokeh can be influenced by the lens as well as the background. This would likely have been smoother with a less "busy" background, but that is the atmosphere of the tavern.

BTW, that was a pretty bad situation for taking pictures - dark, but with many different colored incandescent, florescent, and neon lights. White balance was almost a guess.

[Tom W]

OK, just to be fair, here's a shot with the 85 mm at 1/80 sec, f/2, ISO 800 (another low-light situation). Its not really a good comparison to my 50 mm shot since the two situations were so drastically different, but I present it anyway:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=5565695&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[sGu]

thanks for the reply and demonstration, very nice BOKEH btw :wink:

[roanjohn]

what's a bokeh? :roll:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml

Ro1

[Alexandre Gabriel]

I think you should play with a 50 1.8 before buying some other portrait primes. Then you will realize your needs in this range.
I bought this lens today (as I live in Brazil I paid about 110-120 dollars on it :evil: still a relatively good price, though). I will post some scanned EOS 30 pics later.
The only thing I miss now is a 300D :wink:

[msvadi]

50mm f/1.8 bokeh is not (very) good. But, for the price, it's perfect ;)

[Tom W]

50mm f/1.8 bokeh is not (very) good. But, for the price, it's perfect ;)

Absolutely, and if you choose your setting, you will have a fine bokeh with the inexpensive 50.

[drisley]

I shoot in dark theatres quite a bit.
Initially I used the 50mm F1.8, but I wanted more reach.
So, I got the 85mm F1.8 and LOVE it!

However, the last show I still used F2.8 to increase DOF and cranked ISO to 1600. The images were exposed slightly "to the right" in the histogram, and there is virtually no noise. I didnt need noise reduction on any of them. The ISO800 shots are already as "smoov as butta!" It's best also to shoot Raw, and I highly recommend C1 software, as it produces images with less noise than other Raw software. Dont be afraid to use a high ISO.
I know I sound like a skipping cd, but high ISO's are your friend!


Canon 85mm F1.8 USM, ISO1600, F2.8, 1/200sec, No NR
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/mabba062004/CRW_1835.jpg

[Aylwin]

I recently upgraded my 50 1.8 II to the 50 1.4. Mainly, I just wanted the extra stop. However, I got much more than that. I was pleasantly surprised to get better focus and much better colors compare the old 1.8. Now, it seems the extra stop is just a bonus.

I take a lot of portraits but it's mostly shots of the little ones around the house. I couldn't possibly go longer than 50mm as distance from the subject would be a problem for me.

As many here have already mentioned, the 50 1.8 offers the best value for money. On the other hand, I don't regret upgrading either. As for the 85 1.8, well, it's just not practical for my current needs.

In the end, I guess you can't go wrong with either of the lenses you're considering.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The biggest differences between the 50mm f/1.8 and the f/1.4 are in fact similar to the differences between the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8

EI.. it ISN'Tthe extra fraction of a stop...

1. First and formost.. USM focus motor! This seems to be the main reason to spend the extra $250.00 for either lens.

2. Sharper at the wide open settings... This is all relative at this point as the thrifty fifty is damn sharp too...

3. Overall build quality/heft/sturdiness

In essence.. it is the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm 1.5 that are nearly identical in build quality and features.. with the obvious difference in focal length... the 85mm seems to focus faster too. (though I have not used the 50mm1.4 enough to really say this for sure)

These advantages seem to be far more significant than the tiny fractional increas in light gathering that an f/1.4 offers over f/1.8

[CoolToolGuy]

In essence.. it is the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm 1.5 that are nearly identical in build quality and features.. with the obvious difference in focal length... the 85mm seems to focus faster too. (though I have not used the 50mm1.4 enough to really say this for sure)

These advantages seem to be far more significant than the tiny fractional increas in light gathering that an f/1.4 offers over f/1.8

Wow! There are certainly a lot of new lenses mentioned on this board lately! A 70-200 f28, a 28mm f.18, a 500mm f1.8, and now a 85mm f1.5! When will we be able to acquire these gems? :roll:

OBTW CDS, I believe there is about one stop difference between f1.8 and f1.4. That may be fractional by the numbers, but not to the sensor. :wink:

Have Fun,

[CyberDyneSystems]

OBTW CDS, I believe there is about one stop difference between f1.8 and f1.4. That may be fractional by the numbers, but not to the sensor. :wink:


... not really.. A full stop down from f/1.4 is f/2... therefore it is a fractional difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8....

f/1.8 is a full stop down from f/1.2 :wink:

Might want to check these things before mis-correcting someone. :lol:

[CoolToolGuy]

OBTW CDS, I believe there is about one stop difference between f1.8 and f1.4. That may be fractional by the numbers, but not to the sensor. :wink:


... not really.. A full stop down from f/1.4 is f/2... therefore it is a fractional difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8....

f/1.8 is a full stop down from f/1.2 :wink:

Might want to check these things before mis-correcting someone. :lol:

I stand corrected. So, checking here:
http://www.riversidecardiology.com/fstop/f-stop.htm#4
this link says it is 2/3 of a stop - still a bit more than a tiny fraction, don't you think? :wink: :D


Have Fun,

[Andy_T]

this link says it is 2/3 of a stop - still a bit more than a tiny fraction, don't you think? :wink: :D


Cool down, guys 8)

He didn't say it was a tiny fraction.
But a fraction is a fraction, is it not?

So stop mis-mis-correcting each other and enjoy those great lenses :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

PS:

BTW, a Canon spell checker is a very good idea.
That would highlight the figure '1.4' when used close to the figures 85, 70-200 or 100 ... but not when correctly put close to '50' :twisted:

[CoolToolGuy]

CDS and I have promised to become old drinking buddies over this one, so don't worry. :oops:

But you should read the entire post once again. The words are there, I didn't dream them up. :wink:

Have Fun,

[Andy_T]

OOps ... now I sit corrected, too :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

lol... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Figures Andy comes along and stirs things up again! :wink:

You have no Idea how much I wanted to go back and edit out the word "tiny" :lol: :lol: :lol:

8) :twisted: :P