Canon 85 1.8 vs 50 1.8

I'm just curious of anyone with both of these lenses can chime in on how much of an improvement the 85 1.8 is?

I've heard a lot of good things about it and right now I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and at first I thought it was an excellent lens but I've been noticing that the image quality, sharpness, contrast, saturation, and even focus isn't even close as good as my old 50 1.8 that I sold when I compare the photos between the two lenses in lightroom......

I plan to get an 85 1.8 and go the prime only route as I love primes and how your eye can see the focal length without even having to see through the camera viewfinder.

I remember developing an eye for my 50 1.8 and it really boosts your ability to see the photo before hand in my opinion and envision the photo before you even get set up.

With that being said, how much of an improvement will I see between the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8 in regards to portraiture? Does the 85 1.8 nail focus even at 1.8?

Thanks and all the best.

Simply put, the 85 1.8 is a much better lens than the nifty.

Better build, focuses quicker and more accurate, USM motor.

It can be a lil soft wide open, but plenty sharp once you stop down to ~f2.2.

Only concern is on a crop 85mm can be quite long for indoor, perfect for outdoor portrait thou

Everything is leagues better in 85 1.8 than the 50 1.8. The 85 1.8 is sharp wide open, at least in my opinion. It is sharper than the 85mm f/1.2 II at f/1.8 from what I can tell. 85mm will be better for portraits if you are on full frame but on crop it may be a bit tight.

I think the 85/1.8 is one of the best lenses in all aspects. I really love it. I also have 2 50/1.8 that are wonderful. Recently, at the Thanksgiving dinner at home, I needed a lens to shoot the family (with the 5DII) and the 85/1.8 was too long, so I put the 50/1.8 and the 580EXII strobe, and I got the best pictures ever, sharp, neat and perfectly lighted. I used the 580EXII tilted up 45 degrees with the gel that comes with it and the white reflector. No bright spots at all. THe 50/1.8 is just as good an any 50. Keep both. I have the 50/1.8II, the plastic one, and I love them.

Nice sharp lens. Love it on FF. I use it f2.0 mainly. Main points have already been listed.

All of the above. I have both an original (Mk I) 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8. The 85 has an edge for sports because of the USM's fast focus. Both are very accurate and sharp. I use the 85 in dark gyms where a 70-200 f/2.8 comes up short on shutter speed.

I don;t think it will be tight for what I shoot primarly right now (outdoor portraits). I actually find the 50mm of my Tamron the and the 50mm 1.8 to be not long enough when I shoot portraits IE it doesn;t give me the compression and/or bokeh that I want.

Here's a quick comparison showing the differences between the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 50 1.8 the difference saturation and sharpness wise is huge. Can;t wait to see how much better the 85 1.8 is.

These two photos have not had any PP done to them or WB correction they're straight out the camera but even then the difference is huge. I tried bringing up the contrast and saturation in post with the Tamron but even then I'd have to say optically it's about half as good as my old 50 1.8.

50 1.8

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​028271312/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​248095285/

Nifty 50 is a very good value, the 85 is a very good lens. Big difference.

rick_reno wrote in post #15331886
Nifty 50 is a very good value, the 85 is a very good lens. Big difference.

Well put. The 50 is great for $100, but the 85 is remarkably better in terms of build, AF speed and definitely sharper around 2-2.8.

I have the 28/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 - the AF on my 50 is not dependable on moving subjects. I replaced it with the (new/cheap) 40/2.8 STM - and I'm happy with that. I can even jack up the ISO a notch and shoot poorly lit indoor sports just like the 85 (mostly have to still lighten in PP, though).

The 85/1.8 is just all around dependable - if you can see it, you can capture it. The 40/2.8 has the same dependability - but needs more light.

rick_reno wrote in post #15331886
Nifty 50 is a very good value, the 85 is a very good lens. Big difference.

Own them both. Completely agree.

Own them both too. The 85mm is a LOT more fun to use. Both can produce nice images but the 85mm feel like a real lens, not like a toy. And it's one of the fastest focussing lens in Canon line-up. Highly recommanded.

Nice, I know I change my mind a lot but I'm actually thinking about keeping the Tamron as a general purpose lens and using the 85 1.8 for proper portraiture work. 17-50mm range is too useful for indoor events despite it not being prime quality.

Does 85mm give that nice telephoto compression or is it not that much of a difference compression wise from the 50mm?

It does compress a lot on crop. More than the 50mm yes. That's one of the main quality of the 85mm. I'd say it's the best portrait lens apart from Sigma 85mm, 85L and 135L.

I always felt like the Tamron was as good or better than the 50mm f1.8 @ 50mm.