Should I ditch my nifty fifty if...

Recently ordered a used 7D and am awaiting it's arrival ()! I've been contemplating a few things though...after searching through the lens forums, I've heard that the 85mm 1.8 is the best prime portrait lens for crop bodies.

In order to fund the 85, I'd probably have to sell my 50mm 1.8...is it worth it? Should I wait till I have more $$$ and keep both?

Input please

Additional info: I'm a student, so money is tight...applying for college in a few months..yay. I don't have much to spare, and I'm hoping that the Christmas season will bring clients my way. That would probably help to fund a new lens as well.

Or...I could ask for a lens for Christmas/birthday...u​nlikely wish though haha.

Nice to see other college students from Hawaii on the forum. If I were in your situation I would just wait a little longer until you could afford a 85/1.8 without selling the nifty fifty. It just seems that selling a nifty fifty wouldn't help to finance much. As far as lenses go what else do you have?

Hey Natalie,

First of all, I'm also a (double) 7D user and will say you're going to love that camera but you must take a look at TeamSpeed's threads about getting the most from high ISO.

Despite the groaners, it is a gem of a body, after you learn how to use it.

Back to your question, and I've taken a look at your Flickr pics.

I'd say that you should ditch that lens asap, because the not-so-pretty bokeh has, IMHO, taken away quite a bit from the finish of some of your shots.

But, saying that the 85 1.8 is "the best portrait lens" on a 7D is like saying "L-lenses are wasted on anything less than a 1Ds body". My response to these kind of statements is usually, "HUH?!" because I use various lenses for portraits, depending on the distance from me to the subject. And depending on what kind of image I'm after.

So, if you're a "poor student", what about something like the Sigma 30 f1.4 or 17-50 f/2.8 OS? The wider lens offers great bokeh and a good FL, while the the zoom, I've found, is on par with the much more expensive Canon EF-S 17-50.

Or, save up for the Sigma 85 f/1.4. That's next on my list, as I sold my 50mm f/1.4 and want something faster than my 70-200L 2.8 (which I mainly use for classical concerts).

Regards for now, and keep shooting!

Simon

Thanks for the input guys! @coirchlid I'm actually planning on leaving the island for college haha. But I really don't have much else in my lens collection. I just found some in my photo teacher's room and he said I could have them: 80-200, 75-300, 25-80, and my nifty fifty :P

@skygod44 Thanks for your in-depth response and feedback

I have to admit, I really don't know much about lenses, so this forum is helping me quite a bit. I just had the notion that I should upgrade lenses soon. So you don't think the 85mm is worth it?

I took a look at some of those lenses, and I have to say that the last one is my favorite...and of course it's the most expensive one hahaha. But I will definitely be saving up more money for new 'toys'!

true statement on the best lens part. everyone has different opinions and reason for use. for me i have never tried the 85mm but i like the 70-200. at 200 it produce nice dof and bokeh.

why not try to get the 85 and see how that is before you decide to sell the 50?

either way, hurry up and take more pics of your beautiful friends. i mean landscapes

skygod44 wrote in post #15052907
Hey Natalie,

First of all, I'm also a (double) 7D user and will say you're going to love that camera but you must take a look at TeamSpeed's threads about getting the most from high ISO.

Despite the groaners, it is a gem of a body, after you learn how to use it.

Back to your question, and I've taken a look at your Flickr pics.

I'd say that you should ditch that lens asap, because the not-so-pretty bokeh has, IMHO, taken away quite a bit from the finish of some of your shots.

But, saying that the 85 1.8 is "the best portrait lens" on a 7D is like saying "L-lenses are wasted on anything less than a 1Ds body". My response to these kind of statements is usually, "HUH?!" because I use various lenses for portraits, depending on the distance from me to the subject. And depending on what kind of image I'm after.

So, if you're a "poor student", what about something like the Sigma 30 f1.4 or 17-50 f/2.8 OS? The wider lens offers great bokeh and a good FL, while the the zoom, I've found, is on par with the much more expensive Canon EF-S 17-50.

Or, save up for the Sigma 85 f/1.4. That's next on my list, as I sold my 50mm f/1.4 and want something faster than my 70-200L 2.8 (which I mainly use for classical concerts).

Regards for now, and keep shooting!

Simon

Thanks for the advice Baan, sounds like a plan

Haha I'm working on it..you know I'm busy. Will be setting up photo dates as soon as my camera comes in though!

The nifty fifty is an OK lens really. It can give you very nice portrait but sometimes doesn't focus accurately or produce not so good bokeh. However you can learn to fix both of those issues. For exemple, larger blur will look good with this lens. Smaller blur, like at f2.8, or if the background is not very far, will create nervous distracting bokeh. Be sure to have a good distance between your subject and the background. Also the lens is a tad soft at f1.8 but it is actually better when doing portrait. Too much details on the skin is not very beautiful. Experience with f1.8, f2, f2.8...

I have the 85mm f1.8 and it is, of course, way better than 50mm f1.8. It's also better than most non L lenses Canon produce. It is very good indeed for portrait. The bokeh is smooth and the lens is sharp. very sharp. I'd say yes, it is worth selling the 50mm to get the 85. You probably can get it used for not too much. I use my 85mm a lot more than my 50mm and it is the first lens I take when I do portrait. The Sigma have a good reputation but at 800$, I dont think it's worth it with Sigma usual problems. With the Canon you are quite safe. It's a lot better than Nikon counterpart. The canon 85mm f1.8 produce a lot of "purple fringing" on high contrast (white on black) area at f1.8. It's however easy to fix in softwares like Lightroom. The photos taken with the 85 also pop more than the 50. It look more pro.

@skygod44: She want a portrait lens on a tight budget... I dont see why you propose a 30mm or a 17-55 f2.8. The Sigma 85mm idea is good but way out of her budget.

Good luck!

@Earwax69 (Interesting username )

Thanks for your feedback! I am considering the 85mm, hopefully I will be able to make some money to buy it soon. I'll probably have to buy it used though :/

i never, ever used my 85mm on my 60D, too long. i almost always used the 50 for portraits. not to say it isnt a fantastic lens, i just really had no use for it.

You should set one of your zooms to 85 and see how you like the length, you may feel it is too long for what you are trying to do. If the length works, you will not be disappointed in the image quality of the lens.

I liked the 100mm L for portraits on my 7D.

http://www.flickr.com …ol&s=int&w=7780​5784%40N00

Skip the geisha then there's lot of nice shots... but we could find just as much for the 50mm f1.8..!

OP, nearly same boat as you. I have a 50D. When I got it I had the nifty fifty. Sometime thereafter I got the 85 1.8.

A couple of things about the 85 1.8. I LOOOOOVE it. What a phenomenal lens for the price (or I would argue, what a phenomenal lens, period). It is by far my go-to for portraits. People will tell you it is too long for portraits on a crop body. It is indeed long. But I do 90%+ of my portrait work outside. Too tight? I usually just step back! Pretty easy! In fact I am currently experimenting with my 135L I just got. On a crop it is definitely loooooong, but outdoors it is workable, and it is such a great lens I just want to make it work. That's how I am with the 85 1.8.

In fact, in some portrait session settings I prefer the long length. Sometimes I want the subject(s) to act as if I am just not there (e.g., couples/engagement pics, or kids where I just want them to play with a toy or interact with each other). The longer length lets me stay out of their faces and lets them have an easier time acting natural.

Now, there will indeed be times where the 85 is too long. Indoor portraits could be one, where you want more than just a head and shoulders shot. Also, certain shots outdoors. For instance, in one recent session I took pics of a bro and sis from directly above them with them laying with heads together on the ground, also got above them on a staircase and took shots looking down. 85 was most certainly far too long in both cases there. Thus the nifty fifty is definitely worth keeping for now.

If you do much portrait work, you WILL need a shorter focal length than the 85. But you will also be surprised how much you can make an 85 work on a crop body if you want.

One other thing...I did use the nifty fifty for a long time. Another really great lens for the price. Like someone above said, though, the bokeh could be a little wonky if your background was close behind the subject, or in other instances (like bright spots of light in the background). I recently retired the nifty fifty in favor of a 50 1.4. I have found that much more to my liking for my portrait work. BUT, I really really appreciate what the nifty fifty was able to do for me along the way.

One final thought...unless you are desperately in need of the $$, or unless you have the Mk I nifty fifty with the metal mount, you are really not going to get much at all for it in resale. I think you are far better off to keep it and take the time to save the $90 or whatever small amount you would get for it.

duane0524 wrote in post #15053174
You should set one of your zooms to 85 and see how you like the length, you may feel it is too long for what you are trying to do. If the length works, you will not be disappointed in the image quality of the lens.

good advice here.