50mm 1.2 Vs 85mm 1.2 (The longest battle known to DSLRS)

I know this question has been asked for the longest time, but I could not find any recent threads on it.

I have a canon 6d and I have rented both of these lenses. Yet I still can't decide lol. I loved loved loved both of these lenses.

50mm 1.2- My favorite focal length. The weight of the lens just felt perfect to me. I got some great pictures with this lens, but I had to work harder for them than its rival the 85mm. The quality of the pictures were a lot softer than the 85 as well, but they did have some equally sharp pictures on occasion...

50mm 1.2 shot-

50mm 1.2 shot-

Framing the question in terms of rivaling lenses or that it's the longest battle known to DSLRs is overstating it a bit. They're different tools. If you can have only one, the 50mm will be a more versatile focal length that's adequate for portraits and general walk-around.

Without knowing what other lenses you have, what other subject matter you shoot, and your tolerance level for more affordable alternatives, I can't offer any meaningful suggestions.

Yes, I did exaggerate it a bit haha. I actually really like the look of your photos with the Sigma 50mm art lens! Im going to look into that lens as well.

My friend, your photos are great! Either way you go will be fantastic for your photography!

I went through the same thing a few years back, so I know the feel! In the end, the 50L ended up being my choice due to:

- better general use focal length (most important!)
- closer MFD
- faster AF
- weather sealing
- smaller size

Like you said though, the 85L more than makes up for it with better sharpness and bokeh. It's one of Canon's best, no question.

My advice: get both If you can only afford one? 85L first, and then keep an eye out for a Refurb 50L.

I have both & love em, the 50 gets more action due to size & weight for me, easier as a walk around.

You won't go wrong with either...but the 50 for me is the winner & my all time favourite canon lens.

gabe212 wrote in post #17887427
I got more keepers with this lens [85mm f1.2] almost a 4:1 Ratio.

Unless I'd already made all the great photos I'd ever want to make, this would be the deciding factor for me.

gabe212 wrote in post #17887427
85mm 1.2- The focal length was a little tight for me, but I could work with it no problem. The lens was very heavy. Almost annoyingly heavy. The pictures from this lens were just beautiful! Crisp and Sharp as can be. I got more keepers with this lens almost a 4:1 Ratio.

In my personal opinion, the 85L purchase needs to be supplemented with a BG-E13 battery grip if you don't already have it. The 85L is awkward to wield on a lightweight body without battery grip as counterweight.

gabe212 wrote in post #17887427
I have not used either of these lenses with a flash, but shopping around for a studio strobe as of now to buy with my new lens. (Einstein 640 or a Canon 600rt speedilte.)

You probably need a studio strobe (or two) AND a speedlite, long term. Maybe one more than the other in the short term. There's not a huge cost difference if you're considering a Canon 600ex-rt rather than one of the knock-offs. My 600ex-rts cost me around $400, same as my Rovelight 600. In hindsight, I should not have bought more than one 600ex-rt, and have already sold one of my 3. I'll no doubt sell another soon and add another battery-powered strobe (likely a Godox AD600).

Years ago, I had an Einstein. It's a good unit for AC mains use, but I would not buy it again only because I no longer feel it's price and feature competitive with current portable (DC) offerings. The market has just exploded with battery-powered, E-TTL, HSS compatible strobes in the wake of the Profoto B1 success. I also didn't like the speedring mount on the Einstein, I wouldn't trust it with the size modifiers I use these days, the Bowens mount is better for me.

I own the 50 f/1.2L (paid $900), and the 85mm f/1.8 (non-L)--paid $300. Since I got the fast 50, I don't shoot the 85mm as much anymore

Truth be told I think I like the 85mm focal length better but the f/1.2-1.8 becomes the deciding factor. With the additional compression from the 85mm I wonder if I'd have enough DOF to practically use the 85mm f/1.2 for wedding photos. the 85mm f/1.8 focuses faster, so I'm told.

If money were no object, sure i'd buy it, but I'm thinking the next for portraiture will be the 135mm f/2 Rokinon (manual focus only). In side by side photos online, its markedly better than the Canon 135mm f/2... if you can nail the focus.

I'm not very helpful.

Silver-Halide wrote in post #17887647
Truth be told I think I like the 85mm focal length better but the f/1.2-1.8 becomes the deciding factor. With the additional compression from the 85mm I wonder if I'd have enough DOF to practically use the 85mm f/1.2 for wedding photos. the 85mm f/1.8 focuses faster, so I'm told.

I was sitting at my dining room table, shortly after buying the 85L II, swapping it out with the 85/1.8 and comparing at various distances and apertures. I took photos of my daughter walking by, a guitar in the far corner of the room, some pill bottles with tiny writing, etc. My conclusion was that, indoors, the 85mm f/1.2 holds just one thing over the 85mm f/1.8, which is that it has f/1.2 available. In all other respects, and at any aperture they share, I saw no appreciable differences in Lightroom, even pixel peeping the pill bottle fine print with the bottle in the very corner of the frame. Mind you, this was a real world test with me hand holding the camera, not a tripod test chart scenario. The f/1.8 lens focuses WAY faster, and overall I had fewer missed focus shots with it. For two lenses with a 5-to-1 price difference, they are remarkably similar. In the studio, where I rarely shoot f/1.2, I could use either interchangeably.

There are two other performance differences that I have not experienced, but get called out in reviews: the 85mm f/1.2L II coatings make it less prone to flare than the non-L. Also, it's possible that with the f/1.2 aperture, you might be able to autofocus in lower light than with the f/1.8 lens. In practice though, I haven't shot in dark enough conditions to push the limits of what the 6D can focus in, with any lens.

You can see slight perspective distortion in the shots from the 50. He's slightly more apple cheeked in the little boy and in the bw shots his nose is a bit larger. The difference is subtle but can make the difference between a food portrait and a wow portrait especially of your subjects are not thin or have large noses etc.

Heya,

It's a totally personal thing to choose between these.

Personally, I'm not a fan, at all, of ultra-thin depth of field to the point where the subject's noise is out of focus and it looks totally distracting like someone smudged the film. Having a bunch of blur and transition points with sharp eyes and everything else just thrown to blur is not something I'd want. I like shallow depth of field, but there is a point where it's gone too far, and when the subject's central facial feature (nose) is out of focus, it's just... goofy to me. But don't take this as a jab or negative insight, this is merely my own personal opinion. If I had to choose between the two lenses, there would be zero doubt in my mind, it would be the 85L. If I'm going to get F1.2, I want to also have the telephoto look as well, and at 3+ meters, the 85L pulls away from the 50L for causing more blur, and if I wanted a shallow DOF lens, that would be important to me when dropping this kind of money to have as much out of focus stuff as possible.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17887780
Heya,

It's a totally personal thing to choose between these.

Personally, I'm not a fan, at all, of ultra-thin depth of field to the point where the subject's noise is out of focus and it looks totally distracting like someone smudged the film. Having a bunch of blur and transition points with sharp eyes and everything else just thrown to blur is not something I'd want. I like shallow depth of field, but there is a point where it's gone too far, and when the subject's central facial feature (nose) is out of focus, it's just... goofy to me. But don't take this as a jab or negative insight, this is merely my own personal opinion. If I had to choose between the two lenses, there would be zero doubt in my mind, it would be the 85L. If I'm going to get F1.2, I want to also have the telephoto look as well, and at 3+ meters, the 85L pulls away from the 50L for causing more blur, and if I wanted a shallow DOF lens, that would be important to me when dropping this kind of money to have as much out of focus stuff as possible.

Very best,

+1, not a bit fan of shooting so close with either lens

the 85 murders the background so much better than 50, however so totally different tools.

f/1.2 for when you want most of your subject to be blurred.

They both have their advantages and disadvantageous. You might consider the Sigma ART 50 f/1.4 as an alternative to the 50 1.2.

As far as lighting goes, if you are going to get into speedlights, the yongnuo yn600ex-rt is excellent, offering 99% of what the canon 600 can do for 25% of the cost. You can actually buy 3x YN600 AND the transmitter YN-E3-RT for less money than a single canon 600. You'll have much, MUCH, more options that way for about the same cost.

My sigma 50A got used more than the 85Lii due to its shorter focal length but I can't lie about the 85L performance when I need it for the job. It's a specialty lens, not for general purpose walk-around lens imo. They were designed for different purposes and go pick the lens suite your style rather than having other choose one for you. I'd rent them both for a week, 2 weeks or heck buy them both if financial isn't an issue then go from there...