50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8

TriggerHappy

TriggerHappy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,729
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
Yes
Slightly strange choice here I appreciate but I can't decide between the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G and the 85mm f/1.8 D. I'm looking at some fast glass that's probably going to be sitting on my body the majority of the time. Currently that role is taken by the 105mm f/2.8 over my 17-55mm f/2.8 so I suppose my preference is for the longer focal lengths but for the same money I can go 2/3rds of a stop faster and get an AF-S lens. Do I go for the newer, faster lens or do I go for the focal length I'd probably prefer? This will be used for portraits and just about everything else. So in my shoes, with £300 in hand, where does your money go?

Current cameras are a D200 and an F5 and I have the future intention of going FF.
 
50mm. I shoot portraits and the 50mm is superb


stew
 
The 50mm is my favourite lens, but am also thinking of getting the 85mm too, as that length will be better for close ups and outdoor portraits.

As you use the 105mm, 85mm sounds your best bet and that is ideal for FF. (more money but the 105mm DC could be an option?)

I rarely use these wide open, would you really need the extra stop?
 
IMO the 85 is much better for portraits, the 50 let's a bit too much background in for my liking. The 1.8-1.4 difference is virtually negligeble.

I have the 50 AFS and the 1.8 D and the 85/1.4 and for memorable images that really look special, you can't beat the 85.

The 50s tend to produce snapshots rather than portraits.... In my hands anyway.
 
loplyg said:
The 1.8-1.4 difference is virtually negligeble.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that with 85 being a longer focal length, even at 1.8 the DOF is significantly less than 50mm at f/1.4.
 
I'm in a similar situation right now. I want a good portrait lens and I'm torn between the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 to sit on top of my new FF. Not much experience myself so will be reading comments with interest.
 
I use a 50 f/1.4 on full-frame; it's a match made in heaven! Very addicting.
 
trencheel303 said:
Not to mention that with 85 being a longer focal length, even at 1.8 the DOF is significantly less than 50mm at f/1.4.
Click to expand...

Actually, the DOF is the same for different focal lengths used at the same aperture when the camera to subject distance allows the subject to fill the frame to the same extent.
 
gnom said:
I use a 50 f/1.4 on full-frame; it's a match made in heaven! Very addicting.
Click to expand...

Wish I felt the same... my 50mm and I are going to have a big fall-out soon I think :nono: :lol:


photon said:
Actually, the DOF is the same for different focal lengths used at the same aperture when the camera to subject distance allows the subject to fill the frame to the same extent.
Click to expand...

indeed it is...
 
photon said:
Canon build quality (for that particular focal length)?
Click to expand...

I'll let Trencheel answer for himself; but out of curiosity, what about the build quality did you find to not be up to par given it's price-range etc?
 
f/1.4 would see some use especially with the D200 where I avoid going over ISO 400 most of the time (1000 is the absolute max and takes some real care to get a reasonable image). The main reason for considering the 50mm was the much reduced blue/purple fringing at wider apertures and the faster, quieter AF.

To test my use of the 50mm focal length I'm going to set my 17-55 there and not touch the zoom ring and see if we get along. I think the 85mm will be my preference though. Particularly given that I'll be moving towards FF in a year or two.
 
to answer gnom and photon;

the build quality could be a lot better (being on the front of a 1Ds just makes it seem even more poor), and the seriously cr@p AF, heck the 18-55 IS kit lens did a better job and any other 'real' USM lens I have tried just blows it away.

The focal length is a pretty good all rounder on FF and the image quality is lovely, the rest leaves a load to be desired.

I have never used a Nikon 50mm though so unfortunately this is not relevant to the discussion.
 
Personally, I'd go for the 50mm 1.4 over the 85mm 1.8.

I've had the AF-S and now use the G version. Both are superb. The main reason I upgraded is the internal focus on the G, better for the lens and camera when using my Lee Filters kit - no squidgey whining from the focus motor with all that weight. ;)

Definitely one of my favourite lenses ;)

Here's a bunch of recent portraits I took with the 50mm G.
 
trencheel303 said:
to answer gnom and photon;

the build quality could be a lot better (being on the front of a 1Ds just makes it seem even more poor), and the seriously cr@p AF, heck the 18-55 IS kit lens did a better job and any other 'real' USM lens I have tried just blows it away.

The focal length is a pretty good all rounder on FF and the image quality is lovely, the rest leaves a load to be desired.
Click to expand...

Interesting; makes me wonder if we're talking about the same lens. :)

Of course the build quality will be a bit of a compromise, slightly better than the 1.8, a bit "worse" than the 1.2L. But other than that I have not noticed any of what you mention; I find the AF to be quick and quiet, and accurate.

Though to be honest I hardly ever use the AF; I generally have a very specific purpose for the lens - so when I use it I'm generally in (M) and with the lens pre-focused.
 
Get both? They different beasts, if they are the same then everyone would get the cheaper one.

I much orefer the 85 on portraits, MUCH.
 
I got both.
The 85mm does better portraits, however, the 50mm 1.4 is faster, and most of the time, you can't use the 85mm indoor, esp with your D200 crop body :)
 
gnom said:
Interesting; makes me wonder if we're talking about the same lens. :)

Of course the build quality will be a bit of a compromise, slightly better than the 1.8, a bit "worse" than the 1.2L. But other than that I have not noticed any of what you mention; I find the AF to be quick and quiet, and accurate.

Though to be honest I hardly ever use the AF; I generally have a very specific purpose for the lens - so when I use it I'm generally in (M) and with the lens pre-focused.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I do push the lens to some quite extreme circumstances in low light. However, considering both an 18-55 IS and Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 run circles around it in terms of AF performance in all conditions, I found it odd. The lens performs a little better than the 50mm f/1.8 which quite frankly was preposterous when it came to AF. Add to this that the 50mm f/1.2L is known for its focus shift, and I'm considering eating some humble pie and agreeing with daugirdas - who frequently asserts on here that all of Canon's 50s are a pile of proverbial poopy.

I do like the photos that my 50 takes, but it's just not quick enough to AF, and since I could do with a weathersealed lens I'm considering selling up, grabbing an 17-40 and then I will get an 85 f/1.8 as my 'creative' lens. At least they both have ring USM and know how to focus :lol:
 
if portrait if what you are after, then I think the 85mm can't be beaten. Use it with a d3 and it's absolutely gorgeous! usage with a crop sensor body while indoor will be pretty much limited!
 
This entirely rests on which focal length you are more comfortable using.
If you don't know already you might try looking up your favorite photos (of your own stuff) and looking at the focal length in the exif data.
If you tend toward the longer focal length go with the 85. Shorter then go with the 50.
not sure if there is any quick way to do this, maybe if you're good with a bit of scripting?

As for speed, I've shot in some hopelessly dark clubs with nothing faster than a f1.8 sometimes an f2.8 and still managed it. There's always a way to get the shot!

and don't blow your savings!
-Barry
 
trencheel303 said:
In all honesty, I do push the lens to some quite extreme circumstances in low light. However, considering both an 18-55 IS and Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 run circles around it in terms of AF performance in all conditions, I found it odd. The lens performs a little better than the 50mm f/1.8 which quite frankly was preposterous when it came to AF. Add to this that the 50mm f/1.2L is known for its focus shift, and I'm considering eating some humble pie and agreeing with daugirdas - who frequently asserts on here that all of Canon's 50s are a pile of proverbial poopy.

I do like the photos that my 50 takes, but it's just not quick enough to AF, and since I could do with a weathersealed lens I'm considering selling up, grabbing an 17-40 and then I will get an 85 f/1.8 as my 'creative' lens. At least they both have ring USM and know how to focus :lol:
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear about your experiences. I haven't really pushed it in low light, so cant really comment. And by the sounds of it I shouldn't either as it might change my view of it! ;)

Your frustration definitely hint that it's time to change lens. :) Though if you do lots of low-light stuff won't the 17-40 be slightly too slow?

Anyway - to the OP; sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. Any further discussions on canons 50s can be sent in PM instead. :)
 
trencheel303 said:
In all honesty, I do push the lens to some quite extreme circumstances in low light. However, considering both an 18-55 IS and Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 run circles around it in terms of AF performance in all conditions, I found it odd. The lens performs a little better than the 50mm f/1.8 which quite frankly was preposterous when it came to AF. Add to this that the 50mm f/1.2L is known for its focus shift, and I'm considering eating some humble pie and agreeing with daugirdas - who frequently asserts on here that all of Canon's 50s are a pile of proverbial poopy.

I do like the photos that my 50 takes, but it's just not quick enough to AF, and since I could do with a weathersealed lens I'm considering selling up, grabbing an 17-40 and then I will get an 85 f/1.8 as my 'creative' lens. At least they both have ring USM and know how to focus :lol:
Click to expand...

I have seen people say they rate the Sigma 50mm f1.4 over both the Canon and Nikon, but it's more ££ and this is purely based on hearsay...
 
I have both, and since buying the 85, i've rarely used my 50! Kind of wanting a 35mm to accompany them both now :D
 
Syk3 said:
I have both, and since buying the 85, i've rarely used my 50! Kind of wanting a 35mm to accompany them both now :D
Click to expand...

I shoot pretty much all my work at 35mm and 85mm.

I have a Siggy 50mm 1.4 which is magic but it doesn't get as much use.

Out the 3 I like the 85mm the best.

Cheers
BK
 
Best of both worlds.. Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX? if only because I'm really curious how they will perform when they finally start to arrive..
 
BKphotography said:
The Sigma is a lot better.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say it's better per se.

It's different. At this level of perfection "better" is very subjective.

The Sigma produces butterier, more blurry backgrounds - but less spectacular, dazzling night time pics. The Nikon makes vibrant, organic pictures reliably.

Sharpness is neither here nor there, the Sigma has a smidge of an advantage but the Nikon focuses more accurately, and that matters a LOT @ 1.4.

Different, tis all. Neither is better.
 
loplyg said:
It's hard to say it's better per se.

It's different. At this level of perfection "better" is very subjective.

The Sigma produces butterier, more blurry backgrounds - but less spectacular, dazzling night time pics. The Nikon makes vibrant, organic pictures reliably.

Sharpness is neither here nor there, the Sigma has a smidge of an advantage but the Nikon focuses more accurately, and that matters a LOT @ 1.4.

Different, tis all. Neither is better.
Click to expand...

The Sigma is sharper wide open the bokeh is indeed smoother if you have a good copy... I do.

Have both... the Nikon never gets any use now.

So yeah I'd say it was better!
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top