Good Portrait Lens???

D

Dimension

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there,

I am now looking to purchase a good fast portrait lens. I have read that the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MK1 is great and reasonably priced, however I have noticed a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens for sale.

Would I notice the difference? Is it worth the extra money?

What are the main differences between the two?

Does anyone have one for sale on here?

Is the MK1 better than the MK2 of the F1.8 lens?

This is for my 450d and I am very new to DSLR photography but any help is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Andy :thumbs:
 
The differnence between thr two is one has a maximum aperture of f/1.8, the other f/1.4.

Also the f/1.4 has USM, so will focus faster and quieter.

The f/1.4 would be great for very shallow DOF, and for very low light stuff, and the f/1.8 would be good for the same, just not to the same degree. Both are excelent lenses.

Is it worth the money?? Well if you want an f/1.4 lens yes, if you dont, then no. Only you can decide that really.

You could always buy the f/1.8, and if you find it isnt doing what you want it too, you can sell it for very little loss and buy the f/1.4.
 
Whether to go for the F1.4 or F1.8 is as much a budget issue as anything else. I could afford the F1.4 so I went for that. There's also an F1.2 50mm lens but that comes with an eye-watering price tag.

Tom's advice above is probably the way to go. Unless you're fairly flushed with cash, start off with the F1.8
 
I have been speaking to a friend and he said to go straight to the F1.4 if I can afford it so now all I need is to hunt one down.

Andy
 
You wont go wrong with the 50mm 1.4, it's a cracking lens, but don't discount the Canon 85mm 1.8 - that would be my choice if it was mainly for portraiture. 85mm gives a better working distance from your subject and it's less intimidating for your sitters than working up close with a 50mm lens.
 
CT said:
You wont go wrong with the 50mm 1.4, it's a cracking lens, but don't discount the Canon 85mm 1.8 - that would be my choice if it was mainly for portraiture. 85mm gives a better working distance from your subject and it's less intimidating for your sitters than working up close with a 50mm lens.
Click to expand...

Cedrics spot on the 85mm 1.8 would be best
Regards
Richard
 
Well I did have the 85mm 1.2L, but it wasn't getting used enough so it had to go, but it's an awesome lens - very shallow DOF when used wide open for a quite flattering result, and getting bitingly sharp as you stop down and DOF increases. The 85mm 1.8 is probably 95% as good at a fraction of the price.
 
The 85mm f1.2L is a lovely bit of glass, I have to admit, but the price is eye-watering compared to the f1.8. Half the time the DOF is so shallow at 1.2, I ended up shooting at 1.8 anyway :shrug:
 
hearing a lot of good things abouthe new sigma 85mm 1.4, i read one comparison that it is the closest to the 1.2 you can get at half the cost
 
The nice thing about f/1.2 is if you can see, there's enough light to shoot handheld. Slight exaggeration, but not much. ;)

Didn't know there was a 1.4 version of the 85mm Joe?

I love my 50mm for general available light stuff, but for portaiture you're pretty much sticking the lens up your subject's nose unless you're going for 3/4 length shots. The other thing is the short working distance leaves you little room to set up lighting in a studio type set-up.
 
Ah sorry Joe -that's me speed reading.... Sigma not Canon. :)
 
CT said:
The nice thing about f/1.2 is if you can see, there's enough light to shoot handheld. Slight exaggeration, but not much. ;)
Click to expand...

I'd say that was pretty accurate - I used to use it to shoot bands in local pubs, and some of them were real dingy flea-pits :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
I'd say that was pretty accurate - I used to use it to shoot bands in local pubs, and some of them were real dingy flea-pits :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL. eez true. That's why I love me 50mm 1.2L. It's OK for portraits but the 85mm was really better for that.
 
I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I have nothing bad to say about it, it's a bit soft at f1.4 but sharpens up quick and is sharper than the Canon wide open from what I've read.

I'm not into portrait myself but looking at images on line and in galleries I get tired of head shots and wonder if a 17-50 / 24-70mm might give more scope for composition rather than yet another tight head shot.
 
IMO the canon f/1.4 fifty is not worth the comparitively huge premium over the 1.8 version.
 
trencheel303 said:
IMO the canon f/1.4 fifty is not worth the comparitively huge premium over the 1.8 version.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree there Trench - the 1.4 has more aperture blades for nice round oof specular hghlights whereas with the 1.8 you get those hexagonal vomity ones. :gag: Build quality is also in another league, but I suppose it's all relative and it depends how much these things bother you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top