What’s Your Preference?

allyanderson · #1 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 04:17 AM

I have a Canon 50mm f1.4 and I love it! However, I have recently seen a lot of talk about the 85mm for use with portrait photography....and how photographers like it more than the 50mm.

Can someone who owns an 85mm tell me why I would want an 85mm? Cause I am seriously considering it....but would like some first hand accounts. Thanks!

Samanax · #2 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 04:42 AM

I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM but I really don't do portraits. What I like about it is the focal length, the sharpness and how the DOF is a little more narrow at a given aperture than my EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I get a nicer background blur with this lens.

But what I really want to get is the EF 135mm f/2.0L USM lens...a friend of mine told me this lens produces really silky smooth bokeh.

LoveDSLR · #3 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 04:56 AM

I have the 85 f/1.2 L II--one of Canon's best portrait lenses.

You can check out samples at Canon EF 85mm F1.2 L USM (II) Lens Sample Photos and Specifications.

sybren · #4 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 07:03 AM

A comment on the title: there is no 85mm f/1.4, only 1.8 and 1.2. And the 1.2 is expensive

I have the 85mm f/1.8, and I love it! It's got a really nice framing when you put it on a 1.6x crop body. It's easy to fill the frame with your model's head and still stay far enough from the model to keep her comfortable. This has nothing to do with knowing or liking each other - even my girlfriend found it to be more pleasant when I was photographing from a bit further away. It gives her a bit more room to breathe. This is compared to me shooting the long end of my 17-55mm f/2.8.

RustySterling · #5 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybren

I have the 85mm f/1.8, and I love it! It's got a really nice framing when you put it on a 1.6x crop body. It's easy to fill the frame with your model's head and still stay far enough from the model to keep her comfortable. This has nothing to do with knowing or liking each other - even my girlfriend found it to be more pleasant when I was photographing from a bit further away. It gives her a bit more room to breathe. This is compared to me shooting the long end of my 17-55mm f/2.8.

I agree. I love my 85 1.8 and so does my wife. With shorter lenses she really freaks out when I get close to her to take the kind of photos I want. With the 85 I can keep my distance and she doesn't have a clue that I'm filling the frame with her face.

I also use the 85 as a walking around lens quite a bit. It and my 50 1.8 and my 28 1.8 are my favorites of all the lenses I have. I still like the 24-105L but I really prefer my primes these days. (I just got the 28 this week and I'm really loving the FOV.)

inkista · #6 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybren

A comment on the title: there is no 85mm f/1.4...

Well.... there is the Zeiss ZE Planar 85 f/1.4 for Canon EOS mount. Which is less expensive than the 85L, (but not by much) and manual focus to boot. But if you're into the Zeiss thang....

The 85 f/1.8 is completely analogous to the 50mm f/1.4: it has a similar build, appearance and operation, and the USM is lightning fast. With a longer focal length, you obviously have a larger working distance, but you also have a bit more out of focus blur at similar apertures and compositions. Longer lenses overall tend to have better performance than shorter ones.

For example, here's the MTF charts for the 50mm f/1.4 (left) and the 85/1.8 (middle) and the 135/2L (right)

The horizontal scale is from the center of the lens to the edge of the frame in mm.
The vertical scale is contrast modulation, or how much of the original light was transferred. The higher up the line is, the better the performance. So, air or an idea lens, would be a horizontal line at the top of the chart.

The black lines are wide open (so remember the 50's at a disadvantage at f/1.4 vs. f/1.8), and the blue lines are at f/8. Thick lines are contrast. Thin lines are resolution (subjective sharpness). The solid vs. dashed is diagonal direction, and the closer those two lines are, the smoother the bokeh will be.

sybren · #7 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkista

Well.... there is the Zeiss ZE Planar 85 f/1.4 for Canon EOS mount. Which is less expensive than the 85L, (but not by much) and manual focus to boot. But if you're into the Zeiss thang....

Heh, I just never thought about looking at other brands ;-)

But... you'll never guess... I'm not into the Zeiss thang...

inkista · #8 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybren

Heh, I just never thought about looking at other brands ;-)

But... you'll never guess... I'm not into the Zeiss thang...

Probably a good thing. I'm waaay too tempted by manual focus glass these days.

I did also want to state that while you continually see the 85/1.8 recommended as a portrait lens, there are two other candidates you may also want to consider if you're looking at lower cost longer fast primes. There's also the EF 100 f/2 USM (not to be confused with the 100/2.8 Macro), and the EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus. From reports and samples, both the 100/2 and the 135/2.8 can rival the 135L for sharpness and bokeh (although not so much on contrast and color, which is why the L glass is still worth the money) at about a third the price.

OsmosisStudios · #9 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkista

The horizontal scale is from the center of the lens to the edge of the frame in mm.
The vertical scale is contrast modulation, or how much of the original light was transferred. The higher up the line is, the better the performance. So, air or an idea lens, would be a horizontal line at the top of the chart.

The black lines are wide open (so remember the 50's at a disadvantage at f/1.4 vs. f/1.8), and the blue lines are at f/8. Thick lines are contrast. Thin lines are resolution (subjective sharpness). The solid vs. dashed is diagonal direction, and the closer those two lines are, the smoother the bokeh will be.

Finally a concise and detailed explanation of MTF charts. I knew that the higher and flatter, the better, but that's about it.

How about that 135 f/2L, then, eh? Holy crap...

inkista · #10 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Finally a concise and detailed explanation of MTF charts. I knew that the higher and flatter, the better, but that's about it.

The Luminous Landscape article I linked to taught me everything I know on MTF charts.

Nikon does their MTFs a bit differently. They only show wide-open performance (no f/8 lines), and they use red for contrast and blue for resolution instead of thick and thin.

AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D

(which is pretty comparable to the 135L in performance; although given that different test methods are probably used, you shouldn't head-to-head MTFs from different companies).

And, of course, MTFs don't show anything about distortion or CA control.

Quote:

How about that 135 f/2L, then, eh? Holy crap...

Oh, hell, you should see the EF-S 60 macro.