50L vs 85L II

After picking up my first fast prime a couple weeks ago, the 50L, I've fallen in love with the DOF and ability to shoot in low light at wide apertures. I'm thinking about picking up another prime, the 85L.

My question is, Is the 50 and 85 different enough to justify purchasing the 85? Thanks for your time and input.

-tyler

nope!

Simple answer, yes, they are different enough. It would be relatively easy, and I would be happy to shoot an entire wedding day with the 35L, 50L, and 85L II.

Of course the justification all depends on how much disposable $$ you have on hand and what your preferred shooting style is.

I have the 85 II and I sold my 50 1.4 because I never use it - if I need fast aperture and huge separation I reach for the 85, the 50 just sat on my film camera to make me not feel bad neglecting it.

If you can afford, get both. Good for low light and 50L is fast and 85L is the King of Portrait.

Alternatively, get the Sigma 85 1.4. It is a 1/3 stop slower, but its AF and IQ are higher. You'll also have better subject separation with the 1.4.

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

I forgot to mention that I will be having a newborn in 2 months, that was the reason I purchased the 50L. I'm looking to purchase the 85 for outdoor use as I feel the 85 will be a tad tight indoors.

-tyler

I have the 24L, 35L, 50L, and 85L and will be selling the 50L to a family member because I always tend to grab the 35L or 85L instead. They are different, but it depends on you whether it's worth it.

Sp1207 wrote in post #11884918
Alternatively, get the Sigma 85 1.4. It is a 1/3 stop slower, but its AF and IQ are higher. You'll also have better subject separation with the 1.4.

...are so sure
Price is surely lower .... 85L1.2II is probably one of the most accurate available on the market .. but as we can so so many people getting troubled on the net with the sigma 85F1.4 AF I doubt this point is in favor sigma.

On a fullframe 85L1.2II is surely sharper in the center from F1.2 than sigma at any aperture.
Also with less CA than sigma (Canon as nearly no CA from F1.8).
Go dxomark lens comparison, you will see easily that sigma is the weakest lens in 85mm at least less sharp than Canon 85L1.2II or Nikon 85F1.4 on fullframe.

On crop, the limitation of the sensor won't make any difference between the 2 lenses, so sigma is probably the best ratio price/IQ. On fullframe, 85L1.2II has still a margin in IQ.

newworld666 wrote in post #11885070
...are so sure
Price is surely lower .... 85L1.2II is probably one of the most accurate available on the market .. but as we can so so many people getting troubled on the net with the sigma 85F1.4 AF I doubt this point is in favor sigma.

On a fullframe 85L1.2II is surely sharper in the center from F1.2 than sigma at any aperture.
Also with less CA than sigma (Canon as nearly no CA from F1.8).
Go dxomark lens comparison, you will see easily that sigma is the weakest lens in 85mm at least less sharp than Canon 85L1.2II or Nikon 85F1.4 on fullframe.

On crop, the limitation of the sensor won't make any difference between the 2 lenses, so sigma is probably the best ratio price/IQ. On fullframe, 85L1.2II has still a margin in IQ.

I don't think so. The final answer doesn't come down to the charts and graphs that dxo mark can pump out. The final answer is in what the prints look like. I shot the Sigma 85 & the 85L II side by side and I was actually happier with the Sigma, there is a slightly more "edgy" contrasty look to it. It's personal preference.

I know that the people who pay me to shoot would never pick up on a CA difference in a wedding album print so the difference in price is a business decision that leads me to the Sigma. (just have to test to make sure you get a good copy )

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Yes, I am more than sure the Sigma 85 has better IQ than the 82L. I personally like the L's bokeh better, but the Sigma has better contrast/color. Realistically you won't notice the Sigma's IQ in prints, but you may notice the better AF and ~1000$ saved.

'Grats on the upcoming newborn!!!!

As to the lens decision, having a 2-year-old myself, I can say with all honesty that you are going to need incredibly fast focusing if you want to reliably get good shots of your child once he/she starts walking.

So while the 85L II is a fantastic lens that will be great for portrait work once your child is old enough to hold still for them I can not recommend it to you at this time. You will just miss way way too many shots, and hitting a randomly moving target with that narrow a DOF is nigh impossible. I would actually suggest the 135L instead. It is a fantastic portrait lens and is notorious for having one of the fastest and most accurate AF systems of all Canon lenses. Use the 50L indoors and the 135L outdoors and you will be set.

There are also two additional advantages to the 135L. If you child does indoor sports it will be a great lens for capturing him/her in action on the court, and of course it costs half as much. You could even get the Sigma 85 1.4 as well as the 135L and pay less than you would for the 85L II alone.

Before I purchased the 50, I was thinking about getting the 35 instead. After going through a lot of my pictures I noticed that I tend to shoot at 50 a lot more than I shoot at 35.

Before purchasing the 50, I used my 24-70 almost exclusively so I rarely shot at 85. I'm just so amazed by the images produced by the 85 that I'm sure I can work it into my shooting.

I just want to make sure there is enough of a difference between the two so I can persuade my wife into letting me buy one!

-tyler

arentol, thanks for your input and suggestions.

I figure once she starts running around outside, I'll be using either the 24-70 or 70-200 which I have relied on for the last couple years. I picked up the 50 for indoor, low light situations when I don't want to use flash. The bokeh was just a welcomed bonus. The 85 will be used primarily as an outdoor portrait lens or indoor when I want a tighter composition.

As for the 135L, I think I'll stick with my 70-200 for now. If she decides to play indoor sports in the future I may consider it when the time comes. Thanks!

-tyler

TeeBoi wrote in post #11884767
After picking up my first fast prime a couple weeks ago, the 50L, I've fallen in love with the DOF and ability to shoot in low light at wide appertures. I'm thinking about picking up another prime, the 85L.

My question is, Is the 50 and 85 different enough to justify purchasing the 85? Thanks for your time and input.

-tyler

Yes. While 35mm doesn’t sound like much, the 85L is a 70% longer focal length. I have both and use them for totally different types of photography. The 50L is my favorite walk around lens and the 85L is my favorite portrait lens.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your decision.