85mm 1.8 to go with 50mm 1.4?

I have a 50mm 1.4 on a crop body. I take a lot of indoor/outdoor portraits; head shots/shoulders/full body. I was thinking about grabbing an 85mm 1.8. Would this lens compliment the 50mm or be unnecessary?

I personally wouldn't go for an 85 next if you already have a 50, I would look at a wider prime especially if you shoot much indoors where light can be challenging and space can be tight.

The 85mm is pretty tight on a crop body and if you shoot indoor, you may not use it as much. If you want to stay in 'prime land', go with the Sigma 30mm, or if you can flip the bills, go with the Sigma 35mm. Or you could go the 24-105mm f/4 and a flash route, a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. There's a few ways you can go depending on style/location/funds.

Ok, I'll look into those lenses. If I could I would prefer prime. I'm trying to avoid face distortion and being too close to my subject.

Well since you have a 55-250mm, put it at 85mm and try taking pictures with it because that's what it would be like. (Granted you'd have more aperture to play with, with the 85mm f1.8)

I had a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. I sold them both and got a 35 IS and a 100 f/2. Both work will on crop and full-frame. I am happier with this setup.

p00kienrayray wrote in post #16904478
I have a 50mm 1.4 on a crop body. I take a lot of indoor/outdoor portraits; head shots/shoulders/full body. I was thinking about grabbing an 85mm 1.8. Would this lens compliment the 50mm or be unnecessary?

85mm might be a sound decision, if you're planing to get a full frame body later, as the two lenses would be quite versatile with both crop factors. Getting a wider (35mm) prime to complement the 50mm could be good as well, as it would yield a ~ 50mm FOV, which is good for indoors yet doesn't cause an important distortion when you get closer.

For head shots 85 is much needed over a 50, since a 50 will still distort people's heads.

If you need a fast focusing lens canon's 85mm 1.8 is one of the fastest, if not the fastest yet.

p00kienrayray wrote in post #16904478
I have a 50mm 1.4 on a crop body. I take a lot of indoor/outdoor portraits; head shots/shoulders/full body. I was thinking about grabbing an 85mm 1.8. Would this lens compliment the 50mm or be unnecessary?

Heya,

I find 35mm and 85mm as my go to focal lengths for portraiture on a crop body.

85 is a great compliment, even to a 50. Telephoto has it's own look with environmental portraiture.

I use a 35 F2 IS, manual 50 F1.4 and a manual 85 F1.4 for my portrait work fairly often.

Very best,

I had both at one point in time and I personally didn't like the combination all that much. I was never really thrilled with the IQ or the focal length of the 50. It seemed too long indoors and too short outdoors, so I sold it. I liked the 85 better, but it didn't get much use (I had the 100mm macro at the same time), so I sold it too. I did like the IQ and AF of that one though. For the price, it is a very nice lens.

I think you will find that 50 and 85 are similar in many ways including focal length. If it was me, I would choose two prime lenses whose focal lengths are a little further apart (like 35/85). However, If you like 50, maybe you should consider one of the 100mm lenses to pair with it like the f/2.8 macro or the f/2 (the 85 f/1.8's sibling).

Just my opinion.

I like the Canon 85mm 1.8, but on my crop camera, it mainly gets used outdoors. I think the 35mm and 85mm is a better option for me, but you may like the 50mm indoors and want an 85mm for outdoors.

There are several threads discussing the 85 f/1.8. The crop factor puts you at 136 mm which if you have the distance from the subject, will yield great results. I have not heard many negative comments about the 85. I own it and love it. Crisp lens with a creamy bokeh.

The 85mm f1.8 is a nice lens but unless you have a good bit of distance to back up I do not see you doing full body shots with it indoors (hell I find a 50mm to long for that most of the time).

Like BobDawg said, use your 55-250 at 85mm and see if the focal length will be ok for you.

Well based on the mixed reviews, I'm gonna give the 85mm a chance. More for reach during outdoor portraits than indoor. Although the 100mm sounds interesting. For tight indoors, im still planning to get a wider lens even though the 50 suffices for my shooting.
BTW I do have my kit lens and 55-250 to fill in the rest if I really do need it.

p00kienrayray wrote in post #16905428
Well based on the mixed reviews, I'm gonna give the 85mm a chance. More for reach during outdoor portraits than indoor. Although the 100mm sounds interesting. For tight indoors, im still planning to get a wider lens even though the 50 suffices for my shooting.
BTW I do have my kit lens and 55-250 to fill in the rest if I really do need it.

Do you have any qualms about manual lenses?

You can get great optics, for quite a bit less cost, at the compromise of manually focusing. I bring it up as a lot of folk tend to manually focus when it comes to shallow depth of field anyways, to ensure eyes are both in focus, etc.

I went from the EF 85mm F1.8 for outdoor environmental portrait, to the Samyang 85mm F1.4, and it's really sharp even at F1.4. I use the EF 85 for sports now. And I use the 85mm F1.4 for environmental portrait work. Great optics. Only $280 new.

Very best,