85 f/1.8 a must have for portraits?

I searched through the forums and I have also studied the lens archive for this lens, but I have yet to make a decision. I do mostly portrait work as a "part time pro" if such a thing exists. However, I want to be able to shoot indoor sports and I find the 50 f/1.8 to be too short.
I already have:

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 50 f/1.8

I have found the 70-200 range is good for most of the work that I do, but I feel like I am missing a peice of glass there. The 50mm of the nifty and the tamron is too short a lot of the time.

Is the 85 f/1.8 a suitable lens to fill this "gap"?
I found one for $300 in good shape that is local so I am really considering it.

In short, do you feel you could live without your 85mm for paid portrait work?

ok...getting mixed signals here. Are you wanting a portrait lens, or a lens to shoot indoor sports?

That 70-200 should be great for portraits. And depending on your indoor lighting, it should work well for you. I have the 85 and use it primarly for indoor basketball. But I rarely use it for anything else since I got that 24-70 to compliment my 70-200.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=755661

The 85 1.8 is an excellent portrait lens and i think once you use it, your 70-200 will stay in the bag most of the time. It is also used a lot by people who shot indoor sports, so i think it would fit your "gap" very nicely and will probably become your most used lens

CatchingUp wrote in post #8683214
ok...getting mixed signals here. Are you wanting a portrait lens, or a lens to shoot indoor sports?

That 70-200 should be great for portraits. And depending on your indoor lighting, it should work well for you. I have the 85 and use it primarly for indoor basketball. But I rarely use it for anything else since I got that 24-70 to compliment my 70-200.

I primarily want a portrait lens, doubling as an indoor sports lens is just a bonus.
Indoor basketball and volleyball are my primary sports uses for this lens.
Some gyms dont allow flash or ocf, so I need something with a wide aperture to use then.

gasrocks wrote in post #8683278
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=755661

The first line of that says, "I have $2000". haha, that I do not have.

mxracer535 wrote in post #8683286
The 85 1.8 is an excellent portrait lens and i think once you use it, your 70-200 will stay in the bag most of the time. It is also used a lot by people who shot indoor sports, so i think it would fit your "gap" very nicely and will probably become your most used lens

So im not just searching for new glass to buy? I simply get kinda undecided when it comes time to actually spend money on gear.
Im just making sure all the hype about this lens is legit.

You don't need the 85 for portraits unless you do portraits for which the 85 is the best lens.

What makes a portrait lens perfect, is the portrait style of the photographer. Are you shooting all your portraits around 85mm? Do you find shutter speeds with the 70-200 are too slow because of poor light? Is there a REASON for thinking you need the 85mm other than what you have read on forums?

70-100mm at f2.8 is pretty much perfect for portraiture, so you don't need an 85mm for that. If you shutter speeds are too low for indoor sports, it may help, but will also be a bit short for many sports.

I know what you mean... but no, its doesnt sound like you are just searching for new glass., it sounds like the 85 will be perfect for you.

Im basically in the same boat, and Ive decided on the 100F2. When shooting with my 70-200, I often feel the ~80 range isnt long enough.

rral22 wrote in post #8683356
You don't need the 85 for portraits unless you do portraits for which the 85 is the best lens.

What makes a portrait lens perfect, is the portrait style of the photographer. Are you shooting all your portraits around 85mm? Do you find shutter speeds with the 70-200 are too slow because of poor light? Is there a REASON for thinking you need the 85mm other than what you have read on forums?

I shoot a lot of portraits in the range of 75-100mm. I find that most of my headshots and 3/4 length are around that focal length. And an extremely sharp lens is important for any kind of work, especially portraiture.

tkbslc wrote in post #8683359
70-100mm at f2.8 is pretty much perfect for portraiture, so you don't need an 85mm for that. If you shutter speeds are too low for indoor sports, it may help, but will also be a bit short for many sports.

Shutter speeds are too slow at 2.8 in most gyms in the local confrences. And after looking at EXIF from the indoor sports i have attempted, I shoot between 55 and 115ish.

The 85 f1.8 is great for indoor sports on a crop body, but I prefer my 70-200 f2.8 IS for outdoor non-studio portraits.

zelseman wrote in post #8683567
I shoot a lot of portraits in the range of 75-100mm. I find that most of my headshots and 3/4 length are around that focal length. And an extremely sharp lens is important for any kind of work, especially portraiture.


Shutter speeds are too slow at 2.8 in most gyms in the local confrences. And after looking at EXIF from the indoor sports i have attempted, I shoot between 55 and 115ish.

Sounds perfect for your sports then. Your title said "must have for portraits", though,so I just wanted to point out that it will likely not be THAT much better than what you have already for portraits.

i personally dont think anything is a must have, i think that you need to take a look at your work and decide if you think it would make it a little bit better

zelseman wrote in post #8683171
I searched through the forums and I have also studied the lens archive for this lens, but I have yet to make a decision. I do mostly portrait work as a "part time pro" if such a thing exists. However, I want to be able to shoot indoor sports and I find the 50 f/1.8 to be too short.
I already have:

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 50 f/1.8

I have found the 70-200 range is good for most of the work that I do, but I feel like I am missing a peice of glass there. The 50mm of the nifty and the tamron is too short a lot of the time.

Is the 85 f/1.8 a suitable lens to fill this "gap"?
I found one for $300 in good shape that is local so I am really considering it.

In short, do you feel you could live without your 85mm for paid portrait work?

You have a 15x22mm camera. The ubiquitous recommendation of the 85mm is for the 24x36mm format, on which it's a medium-short telephoto. The 50mm is the equivalent lens for your camera, and you've got that.

For portraits, the 70-200 goes as long as you ought to go, save special effects. The 17-50 goes about as short as you need to go, save special effects.

You should be able to shoot any portrait with what you have. Where have you found any particular bottlenecks?

RDKirk wrote in post #8684317
You have a 15x22mm camera. The ubiquitous recommendation of the 85mm is for the 24x36mm format, on which it's a medium-short telephoto. The 50mm is the equivalent lens for your camera, and you've got that.

For portraits, the 70-200 goes as long as you ought to go, save special effects. The 17-50 goes about as short as you need to go, save special effects.

You should be able to shoot any portrait with what you have. Where have you found any particular bottlenecks?

Sharpness is a big concern, and the lenses I have now are pretty sharp, but a "go-to", extremely sharp lens is missing from my bag. The 50mm is too jumpy on the focus for me unless im in bright sunlight. The Tamron is sharper than my previous walk around (sigma 24-60), but I find the 2.8 limiting for sports.
I think I have settled on it, if the pictures play out, I'll probably buy it.