Advice on a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 on crop for portraits

So I've seen some discussions about which one is the better lens for portraits on a crop. My question isn't so much centered around that but rather if its worth it to have both. I just purchased a 50mm 1.4 off of a forum member here (waiting on it to ship out to me). I have a 40mm 2.8 pancake as well. I put in an order for an 85mm 1.8 (still on its way to me as well).

I shoot a 60D and the reason I wanted the 85mm was to be able to get the background thrown out of focus. If the results on the 50mm are good wide open at 1.4 then I could see that providing a decent amount of background blur for portraits but not as much as the 85 I take it.

Is it redundant to have both? I will eventually want to get a FF I imagine so for the time being should I just save the $ for the 85 and put it towards a FF with a kit L lens, or will I be able to get some good use out of it for outdoor portraits with more pleasing results than the 50mm. By most accounts I hear the 85 is a great lens even wide open. Thanks in advance for the advice. I really need it!

Its not nearly redundant to have the 50 and 85 as it is to have the 40 and 50. I prefer longer focal lengths for portraits and love the 85 on a crop and 135L on full frame. I think the 50 would be the odd man out for me, but you just bought it.

Oh so you would prefer the 40 to the 50? I figured the 50 would provide more background blur. I do like the contrast and colors on the 40 but that's why I got the 50 1.4 verus 1.8 because I heard that it did better colors than the 1.8

I never cared for 50 on crop, but that is me. I would prefer a 35 and 85 spread, but again just me.

I like 50mm, 55mm, 58mm, 70mm, 83mm, 85mm, 90mm, 95mm, 100mm, 105mm......... on crop body for portraits.

200mm rocks too.

I have both and I don't feel they are too redundant. I also have the 60/2.8 and if not for it's macro capabilities, I would feel that is redundant with the other two. I just don't use the 60 for portraits as much as I thought I would. It's pretty much only macro with it. I just like having f2 speed available for portraits even if I don't always shoot that fast. Maybe the Tamron 60/2 could serve as a one stop lens for you?

Thanks for the replies. I had the 50mm 1.8 and it was defective so I took it back and added money for the 85mm. I bought the 50mm 1.4 off of a Forum member here (although it's used I'm hoping it'll last longer than the plastic 50). Maybe the 40 and 50 are redundant but for some reason I like the 40 so much. It's not the best for background blur but it's got great colors and is pretty sharp. I guess I'll see how I like the 85mm when I get it.

Part of me was thinking I should save the $ towards a 6D, but then again I may really like hte 85 if I get a FF.

I'm not planning on it right away as I literally just bought the 60D but I just want to have some good and capable gear then I'm focusing on composition.

I like the look of the 50 f/1.4 after correcting the barrel distortion. It's pretty easy to make people (and pretty much any other isolated subject) "pop" at that focal length.

I have both on a 7d, and find them to be pretty distinct. 85 definitely gives more background blur, but it *can* be a bit long. Especially indoors. I like the 50mm focal length on crop, but have a hard time loving the 50 1.4.... once there are more options I'm sure I'll try other 50s (new sigma and possible canon, maybe even pony up for the 50L.)

I'd say keep everything for a month or so, then decide what you actually like / use / should keep.

I have exactly the same dilemma.

You will not be disappointed with the 85mm - it is a wonderful lens, but a bit long indoors for anything other than head and shoulder shots on a crop. I see a lot of people with 35/85mm combinations on the forum, presumably because the 50mm is too close, but I fear that the 35mm will require portraits to be taken too close and thus distort faces. On the other hand, the 35mm allows for group shots, which will be difficult with the 50mm!!! I don't really want to end up with 3 primes either. And finally, I want to make sure that whatever I go with makes sense once I go FF.

At the moment, I can't decide and so am happy to stick with the 17-55mm to cover my wider portraiture requirements for the time being. Sort of makes sense as I don't tend to look for razor thin DOF when shooting groups or couples, and f2.8+ is usually adequate.

Also, when I go FF, I currently see my holy trilogy being the 24-70, the 70-200 and the 85mm. Portraiture would then be covered by all three. The 70-200 providing images with great bokeh and compression and the 85mm for narrow DOF.

So getting a 50 now may become redundant.

As for the OP, isn't this a bit academic as you have bought both primes?

Well I ordered the 85 but have never messed with it. I can always return it. I guess I'll just check it out. I'm thinking the 50mm was a good choice especially if I jump to the FF, then it would be perfect FL. I'm hoping the 50 yields good results at 1.4 because that would offer a decently thin dof. If I'm set for a while on lenses thats good, I can get lighting and then worry about pictures while saving for the FF. I would still plan on keeping the 60D, it's proving to be a very capable camera.

giballi wrote in post #16721870
So I've seen some discussions about which one is the better lens for portraits on a crop. My question isn't so much centered around that but rather if its worth it to have both. I just purchased a 50mm 1.4 off of a forum member here (waiting on it to ship out to me). I have a 40mm 2.8 pancake as well. I put in an order for an 85mm 1.8 (still on its way to me as well).

I shoot a 60D and the reason I wanted the 85mm was to be able to get the background thrown out of focus. If the results on the 50mm are good wide open at 1.4 then I could see that providing a decent amount of background blur for portraits but not as much as the 85 I take it.

Is it redundant to have both? I will eventually want to get a FF I imagine so for the time being should I just save the $ for the 85 and put it towards a FF with a kit L lens, or will I be able to get some good use out of it for outdoor portraits with more pleasing results than the 50mm. By most accounts I hear the 85 is a great lens even wide open. Thanks in advance for the advice. I really need it!

Heya,

I found I didn't want 50mm on a crop.

I found 35mm and 85mm to be a better pair on a crop.

Very best,

One reason to have an SLR is to let you use lots of lenses. The 85 is a nice lens with very fast AF. It is great for outside portraits, sports, and street events. The 50 is more useful indoors, especially where space is more limited. I have both, and a 50 macro, 35F2 and a 35 macro for my 60D.

85 is my go-to portrait lens. I use a 40 when I have to given space constraints (indoors).

200 prime gives the best results, but it requires higher shutter speeds, stabilization of some sort (for best results), and it can be more difficult to make a connection with your subject from that far away.