upgrade from 50mm 1.8 to 50mm 1.2L , 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2L or something else

I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 VII lens. I have a Canon 7D and have always loved the 135mm f2L lens but even if I get it, with a crop camera, I wouldn't get the same look. I was told to get the 85mm 1.2 (which is super expensive) or the 85 1.8. Any good advice from anyone on which lens I should get? If I did get an "L" lens, I would probably get it used.

I had the Canon 135L f/2.0 for several years. I found the focal length, even on a full frame camera, to be a bit awkward to use, especially indoors. However, the images I captured with it were some of the best I ever made. If you can live with standing back a bit further, for the price, the 135L is an excellent lens IMO.

Canon just released a 85 1.4 IS.

Or maybe the Sigma 85 A that gets awesome reviews.

^ Agree with both those suggestions!

The 85 1.8 is a very good lens, and very often it comes up in discussions around the 85L, so that says something for that lens. The 85 1.8 is the probably the best bang for the buck value in the list of options being considered. It will get you close to the 135L look, other than perhaps bokeh (the nature of the OOF highlights for example).

The 85 1.4 ART is the best bang for the buck at this point to give you the same basic look as the 135L on a FF.

If you are good with manual focus, then the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 85 1.4 is an outstanding piece of glass as well, and quite cheap, same price as the 85 1.8.

Yup.

If was shooting wide open all the time, I would consider upgrading my 85 1.8, but as it is, it is an outstanding lens for my uses. No way I would see the gains from spending so much more for the alternatives.

James P wrote in post #18452817
I had the Canon 135L f/2.0 for several years. I found the focal length, even on a full frame camera, to be a bit awkward to use, especially indoors. However, the images I captured with it were some of the best I ever made. If you can live with standing back a bit further, for the price, the 135L is an excellent lens IMO.

I use the 135L on full frame for inside-the-house work regularly. I think it works well. A bit too long on apsc, certainly. Full frame? Perfect.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18452830
The 85 1.8 is the probably the best bang for the buck value in the list of options being considered. It will get you close to the 135L look, other than perhaps bokeh (the nature of the OOF highlights for example).

... and other than color rendering quality, which is inferior in the 85/1.8.
Color rendering quality is a big part of the character of a lens, and often overlooked even by many "serious" reviewers, because of the myth "colors can always be fixed in post".

There are some direct comparison tips in this thread

1.2L vs 1.8

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1314​808&page=1

OMG, those are some strong arguments. People are really serious about their lenses here. It was suggested that instead of purchasing a lens, I should look at buying a used FF camera. I am so confused now. I really don't know what to do. My 7D works great but in low light, it produced a lot of noise and I have been dreaming of getting a FF, if the price was right.

Is th 50mm your only lens?

What are you shooting?

7D is still a nice camera, but if you do have to push the ISO for a lot of your shots, and the noise is an issue for YOU, a camera upgrade might be something to consider.

anitaw2 wrote in post #18452928
OMG, those are some strong arguments. People are really serious about their lenses here. It was suggested that instead of purchasing a lens, I should look at buying a used FF camera. I am so confused now. I really don't know what to do. My 7D works great but in low light, it produced a lot of noise and I have been dreaming of getting a FF, if the price was right.

There isn't a huge difference between aps-c and full frame (same generation) for noise. Of course, tolerance varies by shooter, but there is a lot you can do to get better photos without spending big money to get a full frame camera, and only getting 1 stop better noise performance. I get acceptable results from my 6D at ISO 25,600, and from my 80D at ISO 16000. I had a 60D (same sensor as 7D), and was happy with it at ISO 6400.

Moving from very good f/1.8 lenses to very expensive f/1.2 lenses isn't going to help much with noise. Your 7D is quite capable of excellent results at ISO 6400, and good, usable results at ISO 12,800. If you are not getting those results, 1 of 3 things is causing that problem.

1.) You are pixel-peeping and you are judging noise at 100%.
2.) You are not exposing properly.
3.) You are not processing your raw files effectively for noise control.

Notice the cause of the problem (hint: first word in each). It is also possible that you have a low tolerance for noise. There isn't much you can do about that. Spending big money on a full frame sensor and outrageously expensive glass will get you a lot less noise control than correcting the three items listed above, and all three of them are FREE.

Bassat wrote in post #18452995
There isn't a huge difference between aps-c and full frame (same generation) for noise. Of course, tolerance varies by shooter, but there is a lot you can do to get better photos without spending big money to get a full frame camera, and only getting 1 stop better noise performance. I get acceptable results from my 6D at ISO 25,600, and from my 80D at ISO 16000. I had a 60D (same sensor as 7D), and was happy with it at ISO 6400.

Moving from very good f/1.8 lenses to very expensive f/1.2 lenses isn't going to help much with noise. Your 7D is quite capable of excellent results at ISO 6400, and good, usable results at ISO 12,800. If you are not getting those results, 1 of 3 things is causing that problem.

1.) You are pixel-peeping and you are judging noise at 100%.
2.) You are not exposing properly.
3.) You are not processing your raw files effectively for noise control.

Notice the cause of the problem (hint: first word in each). It is also possible that you have a low tolerance for noise. There isn't much you can do about that. Spending big money on a full frame sensor and outrageously expensive glass will get you a lot less noise control than correcting the three items listed above, and all three of them are FREE.

#1 I am not a big pixel peeper
#2 do you mean expose to the right?
#3 I process all my raw files in Lightroom, but not sure about the noise control. don't know how to do that...

anitaw2 wrote in post #18452999
#1 I am not a big pixel peeper
#2 do you mean expose to the right?
#3 I process all my raw files in Lightroom, but not sure about the noise control. don't know how to do that...

#1. Good. I look at my photos at 100% while adding NR and sharpening, but I judge the results by 8x10 output. HUGE difference.

#2. Yes. When shooting high(er) ISO, I will push insignificant highlights (white, featureless ceiling) right off the screen. No detail there anyway. Raw files have at least 1 stop of headroom to pull back some 'blown' highlights. Just don't go too far.

#3. The best advice I can give is to work SHARPENING and LUMINANCE noise control together. They aggravate each other and you need to find the right compromise of each. Wait, even better advice: read TeamSpeed's 'high-ISO' threads. He has one specifically for the 7D. As far as I'm concerned, he is a Jedi Master of noise control.

Or, it could be that YOU don't have the same requirements as another shooter.

The need to crop, or make large prints, or have better dynamic range at higher ISOs could easily push a user into a full frame system.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18453006
Or, it could be that YOU don't have the same requirements as another shooter.

The need to crop, or make large prints, or have better dynamic range at higher ISOs could easily push a user into a full frame system.

True. Fair. The end result is that the difference between full frame and crop is simply not what it used to be. Getting that last, ever-declining bit of improvement is getting outrageously expensive. If I sell my 6D and 80D, I'd still need to kick in about $2000 to get VERY little increase in DR (if any) and crop-ability from a 5DIV. Some folks need that. I don't.

I'm not sure if you've used an 80D or not. If not, try one. APS-c is improving. OP's 7D is usable (my standard) at 6400, if the shooter does EVERYTHING right. I can shoot my 80D JPG at 12800, and get SOOC results I don't have to process. That is huge. A used 6D for the same money will get slightly better results. It all depends on if 'slightly better' is worth paying for.