 Angela Fairless |
Lens Question: 50mm Vs. 85mm I just bought a Canon 50mm 1.4 USM lens and really like it, but I am now reading how wonderful the 85mm f/1.2L USM is. While more expensive and what is recommended for the 1Ds Mark II, would the images be much different on my 20D from this type of lens? Anyone have this lens and use it with the 20D? Is it worth the big $$$$? I could exchange the one I just bought.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Angela, the 50mm lens on your 20D has an equivalent focal length of 80mm, which is a very good length for portraits. The 85mm lens, which is a great length for portraits on 35mm cameras and full-frame digitals like the 1ds Mark II, has an equivalent focal length of 136mm on the 20D. This makes it on the long end for portraits. Still good for head shots, but you'll need room to back up quite a bit for groups of more than two people. I'm assuming you're looking for a portrait lens, but you may have something else in mind. I have the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM lens, and I love it. I bought it because my 85mm f1.8 lens was a little long for group portraits. If you want to try a longer lens, you could save about $1200 and get the 85mm f1.8 instead of the f1.2. It's not an L series lens, but it has the same good quality construction as the 50mm f1.4 lens. In one review that I read comparing the two, the f1.8 lens actually was found to focus faster than the more expensive lens. This is probably due to the larger, heavier glass elements in the f1.2L.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Norbert Maile |
Absolutly true. I think the slower focus is due to the motor being external on the 1.2. It would still be my choice if I was using it for weddings though, but not for sports. You need to let as much light in as possibl;e for weddings and maybe also portraits if using available lighting or natural light rather than flash. It comes down to you and what you want from it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
I have the 85mm f/1.8 lens. I use it for available-light wedding photography, and for portraits when I need a wide aperture. I did not want to spend that much more on a f/1.2. The extra stop would help in dark churches (I use 800-speed film for available light), but with your digital you could just crank up your ISO to 1600 if necessary. Here's a suggestion: How about keeping your 50mm f/1.4, and getting an 85mm f/1.8 for about $300. The thing to keep in mind is everything Norbert said, plus the fact that the f/1.2 is heavier, takes larger and more expensive filters, and itself costs alot more. Get it only if it would work better for you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||