Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Jan 2016 (Tuesday) 16:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 85 1.8 vs Canon 50 1.8 stm vs Canon 100 2.8 IS - Portraits

 
dan84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
42 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 24, 2016 08:41 |  #16

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like there's a good mixture of opinions. Indoors I always reach for the 50 (or wider) as focal length is a limiting factor but outside am always drawn between which lens to go for. Head and shoulder shots I tend to pick the 100 L, but for full body im never sure which to pick... For those using manual focus lenses are you using liveview on a tripod? Seems a difficult task to get sharp focus on an eye when using the viewfinder from a couple of metres away?

There's been a few comments on the bokeh, but i'm interested in hearing more views here in relation to the 50mm stm. I've been very pleased so far with the 50 stm, but going through my photo's i'm not sure i've really tested the 50 stm in hard conditions (e.g foilage in the background).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 24, 2016 10:42 |  #17

dan84 wrote in post #17870633 (external link)
There's been a few comments on the bokeh, but i'm interested in hearing more views here in relation to the 50mm stm. I've been very pleased so far with the 50 stm, but going through my photo's i'm not sure i've really tested the 50 stm in hard conditions (e.g foilage in the background).

I own, or have owned, several Canon lenses that are known to have poor bokeh. These would be the 50/1.8, the 50/1.4 and the 24-105L. The situations where the bad bokeh of these lenses really makes much of a difference are, IMO, few and far between. But then I'm not as picky as some when it comes to bokeh.

Some people are really picky about the blur regions which is why I do tend to point out that certain lenses are not great for it (or that others are quite good). But really it is rarely much of an issue for me. I'll poke around and see if I can find an examples.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moncho
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by Moncho.
     
Feb 13, 2016 05:24 |  #18

The old 50mm f1.8 and the the 100mm non L, were for a couple years my fastest lenses, and because of this the ones I used for my portrait shoots. It is silly to complain about having to much sharpness, you can always tone it down, but if you could make a soft lens sharp, I would still have my old 18-55mm kit lens. Between the 3 of them the 50 is gives you a wider view of the background, and the other 2 show the background less. The 85 is a little over a stop faster, and to get the same framing you have to be a little closer, so for background blurring I think the 85 wins, but, the 100L is weather sealed and has IS, which for action shots doesn't help much, but it is very useful for static subjects and video. Between those 2, I would keep the macro, I find that the distance to background and the background itself, more important.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Carpe Diem
(Seize the carp!)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dan84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
42 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Feb 14, 2016 06:10 as a reply to  @ Moncho's post |  #19

Thanks for your input and great photo's. Really nice atmosphere in the first one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by Bassat.
     
Feb 14, 2016 08:21 |  #20

I recently switched from shooting mostly apsc to mostly FF. On ff, I prefer the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. For environmentals, I use the 35 IS. On apsc, I use the 35 IS. The 135L need 1/320 in my shaky hands to be useful on apsc. Considering that, if I more often reach for the 70-200 on apsc.

The 85 1.8 generates HUGE amounts of PF on both formats. It is light/dark dependent, not sensor size.

Almost forgot. The AF on my 50 1.4 died recently. I don't intend to replace it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dan84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
42 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
Post edited over 3 years ago by dan84.
     
Feb 15, 2016 14:53 |  #21

Bassat wrote in post #17897671 (external link)
I recently switched from shooting mostly apsc to mostly FF. On ff, I prefer the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. For environmentals, I use the 35 IS. On apsc, I use the 35 IS. The 135L need 1/320 in my shaky hands to be useful on apsc. Considering that, if I more often reach for the 70-200 on apsc.

The 85 1.8 generates HUGE amounts of PF on both formats. It is light/dark dependent, not sensor size.

Almost forgot. The AF on my 50 1.4 died recently. I don't intend to replace it.

I've heard great things about the 135L, but would be a bit long on aps-c for my shooting style. The 70-200 F4 is a stella lens but F4 isn't shallow enough for portraits on aps-c imo.

The PF is one of the things that really bugs me about the 85 1.8. I know it can be removed in lightroom, but when it's bad then you get thick grey lines instead of purple. I was looking at the 50 1.4 for a long time before the 50 1.8 stm came out. I think it produces great images, but there are so many cases where people have said the AF broke that put me off.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,037 views & 1 like for this thread
Canon 85 1.8 vs Canon 50 1.8 stm vs Canon 100 2.8 IS - Portraits
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is James Kim
499 guests, 338 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.