Love the 85mm f1.8 looking for shorter lens

Either of the other 2 Canon 50mm primes are great.

I have both lenses. I had the 1.8 for a couple years. Recently got the 1.4 for my 5D and 30D. I now keep the 1.8 with my Xti backup gear. The main difference is not image quality so much as build quality. Since most all lenses are a bit sharper stopped down slightly, the 1.4 has a edge because it is max shap at F1.8 (stopped down 1/3 stop). And the 1.8 needs to be stopped down to F2 to get max sharpness. But both are very acceptably sharp wide open.

The 1.4 has USM AF focus motor which is sweet. It's very fast and has full time manual focus override FTM. This is a handy feature if you use a EeS precision focus screen for manual focus with min DOF.

The mount is metal as oppesed to plastic on the 1.8 version. And it takes a hood without a screw on adapter.

Bottom line, the F1.8 is about the same on image quality less the extra half stop. But the 1.4 version has several ovarall quality features that I believe make it desireable. You have to decide if $80 for excellent image quality is right for you or if $300 for excellent built quality and features as well is appropriate.

Canon D5 full frame so the lens works as it it is supposed to work.

Lost me Ronald. I have a 40d.

Bob, I have the 50mm1.8, I like it. But, I was wondering how the canon 50mm 1.4 compares to the canon 85mm 1.8.

I used both 50mm lenses and bought the 50mmF1.4. I also own the 85mmF1.8, and use them both extensively on a 20D.

There are several threads on the 1.8 vs 1.4: suffice to say I got the 1.4 because:

1. it is f1.4 and I do use the extra two-thirds of a stop.

2. it has FTMF

3. it has, like the 85/1.8 eight blades: the 50/1.8 has only five

Yeah I have written before that the 50/1.4 is a great F2 prime, meaning it is crisp at F2 and beyond, but value for money it is no slouch at 1.4 either.

If you are strapped for cash the 50/1.8 produces fine images. . . but IMO the 50/1.4 is one of best non L value for money Primes: the 85/1.8 is the best . . . However some will say otherwise.

WW

PS

FYI near the end of the thread, the 50mm open at F1.4 (and a bit of subject movement, too), the wharf is the 50mm, also:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QEPr

I'd recommend trying the 50/1.8 first as it stupidly cheap and thus represent an incredible value for money. Sure, the 50/1.4 is better but – at least IMHO – the difference is not worth the added price. That said, I'm sure that many others will say the opposite.... :-)

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Hi Yakim

``stupidly cheap`` . . . I like that phrase.

The new Sigma 50/1.4 looks really good.

So then, the 1.4 is about the same as the 1.8 picture quality wise. I should take my 50 and my 85 and shoot the same lighting/subject and see if I like them just the same. If so then I don't need the 1.4, if not, I should look elsewhere maybe the Sigma 1.4?

Couple of suggestions for you in ascending order of price. The 35mm 2.0 lens is very good, much better than it's price. The 50mm 2.5 macro lens is probably the sharpest of the Canon 50's, doubles for a good portrait lens on the 40D and does macro 1:2 as well as an all around 50mm lens. The usefulness of a zoom is not to be overlooked. The Tamron 17-50mm or the spectacular Canon 17-55mm IS lens are both very versatile image producers. Good luck!

Adam:

Oh, ok now I get it. The 50 1.4, in my experience, is about identical to the performance of the 85 1.8 with the exception of the difference in max aperture and of course the focal length. AF speed, sharpness, contrast, color all excellent. build quality and feel are also the same.

I see a place for both lenses in that the 50 is great for full or 3/4 portraits and the 85 is good for in close head shots and head and shoulders.

But if you already have the 50 1.8 that may be all you need. You have to decide for yourself on those subjective factors.

As an aside there was a question about "works like it should" or something like that. It's just that I use these on a 5D and the focal length is what the name states, 50 and 80 respectively. But when you put them on a 40D, due to the smaller sensor crop factor the 50 becomes an 80 and the 80 becomes a 128. Still useful portrait lenses either way.

You may also find this discussion and the links from it useful:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QCgB

40D is a small sensor. 5D is full frame. 85 to 90 is a perfect lens for portraits on full frame. The 85 acts like a 135 on a small sensor.

If you are willing to settle for 2.8, then one of the Canon 60 macros will be great on a 40 D as a portrait lens. If you want 1.8 on crop sensor, there is no solution except a bigger sensor and you will not have to be across the room.

Canon or Nikon have never supported a good fast portrait lens for small sensor cameras. The portrait lenses are all holdovers from film cameras or the pro Canon/nikon cameras.

Bob, You got it. I think I might have issues with my 50 f1.8 (long story includes dropping and banging around) I Like it, but I don think I see the same results as my 1.8. Colors and overall "feel" of the photos. I'll play around a little more to see if it was just a user error or the lens. I'm far from a pro here.

Thanx for every ones input.

I got you now Ronald. thanx

Gil, I have heard of Macros as portrait. I may look down that road I like macro work in the winter so i would use it 2 ways

I have the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4. Really enjoy them both. BUT, the 50 has been in for repair once for broken AF and will be going in again soon. I seem to remember some threads on photo.net or elsewhere discussing the repair-prone nature of the 50mm. You may want to research it.

I do remember some thing about that. The focus ring comes undone or some thing like that. But If I dont let the kids play hockey with it It should be ok, right?

I really like the 50mm on my Eos 3, but find the FOV just a little tight on my 20D. You'd might like something a little shorter than a 50 also.

Hi Adam,

Get the 50/1.4. You won't regret it.

For me, that lens with the 85/1.8 are the "yin and yang" of portrait lenses on my 1.6X crop cameras (like your 40D). Very complimentary to each other. (Get the matching lens hoods, too.)

The 50/1.4 is not perfect. It's past due for an update but the folks at Canon seem to give more attention to their consumer zooms and super L-Series, than to the good old standby primes some of us old farts still like to use.

I'd like to see the 50/1.4 get ring-type USM, there have been some reports of the old style USM it uses failing when it's manually focused a lot. (OTOH, my copy was bought used 6 or 7 years ago and is still going strong, despite a lot of use... knock on wood.).

No, I don't think the 50/1.8 is it's equal in terms of IQ. The 8-bladed aperture of the f1.4 gives nicer bokeh, which I find very important for portraiture. The f1.8 is also less resistant to flare. There's a website comparing the two under some difficult lighting conditions and it's obvious the f1.4 handles some of the tricky stuff better.

There's also a world of difference in terms of build quality, although the f1.4 certainly isn't an L-Series.

I had high hopes for the new Sigma 50/1.4. Still, it's currently about $200 more than the Canon, and I've seen some serious chromatic aberration examples that concern me. Maybe it's just the new lens jitters and they are working out some quality control issues.

At the very least, perhaps the Sigma will wake up the Canon folks and get them working on a version II of the 50/1.4.

By the way, I also use the 28/1.8 and find it a very good compliment to the 85mm and 50mm lenses. The 28mm is my "normal" lens and needs to be used carefully to avoid wide angle distortion in portrait situations, but is quite useful as a sort of "environmental" portrait or group portrait tool.

I haven't compared the 28mm head to head with the Canon 35/2 or the Sigma 30/1.4, which would be a couple alternatives. A lot of folks rave about the Sigma lens. The 32/2 is said to be quite good in terms of IQ, but lacks USM and uses 52mm filters, which none of my other lenses do. And, it's a little long for a "normal", on 1.6X crop, for my tastes.

I like that the 28, 50 and 85 all share 58mm filters (and so does my 100/2.8 macro, which I often carry with these lenses).

I have to note, on full frame/film I rarely use either a 28mm or 50mm. These just aren't my favorite focal lengths. For me, they really came into their own with the crop sensor cameras and I'm sure glad I picked them up when I had the chance to do so years ago.

I would get the 50 mm f/1.8 MARK-I from eBay (used). I had the mark-ii but returned it back to store and opted for mark-1 as the built quality is much better, has distance scale, metal mounts and optically equal to mark-ii.

50/1.8 and 50/2.5cm have terrible bokeh.

I've seen images from at least half a dozen different copies of the Sigma 50 f/1.4 all of which are clearly superior to the Canon 50 f/1.4 for sharpness, vignetting, and corner performance on full frame and none of which suffered any noticeable CA. A copy with CA would seem to be an exception rather than the rule. There have been reports of focus problems (always difficult to evaluate with a lens as fast as this) in a couple of instances, but there have also been examples of excellent AF performance in both One Shot and AI Servo modes. Perhaps the Canon 50 f/1.2 L is a little better, but it suffers from focus shift (focus point moves as the lens is stopped down), and it costs twice as much.

If money is no object canon 85mm 1.2 is an awesome lens. I took some casual head shots in a party and people are still asking me for prints. Ambient light and it does the magic.

50/1.4

I use the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 35/1.4 for about 90% of my work.

I love the 85mm f1.8 as well and used it on film bodies before buying my 5D. I both own the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, they produce similar images, even if the bokeh of the f1.4 is better and its construction too. But I would hardly recommend the f1.4: mine had problems with its AF motor several times and I'm not the only person to say this. It seems that you should be very very careful with it. Especially, never put the lens upside down when you stock it.

I've got to say I'm very careful with my gear, and while none of the 85mm f1.8, 35mm f2 (great lens by the way) never had problems, I've already sent the 50mm f1.4 twice for reparation which cost me each time more than the price of the 50mm f1.8! As time goes by, the AF of the 50mm f1.4 tends to get slower and slower and grip. I've read several posts on forums with people having the same complain...

An extra half stop isn't very attractive, because on digital bodies you can just up the iso, right?

So the real question is, do you want the slimmer depth of field that an extra half stop gives you. It depends on your style of photography. I would suggest that you go to the store, play with 1.4's depth of field and think if it is worth the extra $$$

Neither of 50mm lenses you mentioned will give you as slim a depth of field as the 85mm at f1.8

The much cheaper option is to buy a used film body and use it only when you want the really slim dof.

>> 50/1.8 and 50/2.5cm have terrible bokeh.

I agree that the 50/1.4 has better bokeh than the 50/1.8 but I would not rate the 50/1.8 bokeh as terrible.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

I saw a couple of people mention the 35mm f2 as another good lens, and I agree. I own that one too. I am a scatter brain at times when I see the possibility of buying a new lens. I did not even think of putting this lens through the ropes and see how it compares.

With that said, while I was putting that away the other day and it dropped to the floor, now it will not focus manual or auto. :(

This will be my first test with my insurance company and see what they pay for. Does canon charge just to look at the lens?

Yakim, I am sure you just do that so I will comment again . . . gee I (still) love that shot!

WW

Hi William,

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad that you like it.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

>> would not rate the 50/1.8 bokeh as terrible

It is really distracting in my opinion, it can be advantage of course in some cases.

Uh oh, it's turning into a bokeh whoring thread.... ( have yet to attempt the dumb hearts myself )

Check out the 35 1.4. It's a little hard to get but on the 40D its a 56mm and it's tack sharp.

The 35/1.4 is a great lens (I have an orphaned one.....) but it is not in the same price category. If anything, the new Sigma 50/1.4 is looking very promising according to the first reviews. Great wide open sharpness and excellent bokeh.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

"Uh oh, it's turning into a bokeh whoring thread.... ( have yet to attempt the dumb hearts myself )"

Yeah, we should never discuss any area of the image that doesn't fall directly beneath the AF sensor. Even if, perhaps, it constitutes 90% of the image. Lens manufacturers should probably just do away with the larger apertures anyway. We should have preset lenses, with fixed f16 apertures. Auto ISO for exposure control only....

I like the bokeh and the optics of the 1.8, here's an example. That being said, I can NOT get the darn thing to focus in low light.

>> That being said, I can NOT get the darn thing to focus in low light.

If we exclude lenses with ring USM and IF design, the 50/1.8 is the quickest lens I had in low light AF. For reference, the 50/1.4 was about equal and the 100/2.8 USM is even worse.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

-->"If we exclude lenses with ring USM and IF design, the 50/1.8 is the quickest lens I had in low light AF. For reference, the 50/1.4 was about equal and the 100/2.8 USM is even worse."

Maybe it's just my copy of the lens, but it hunts the *entire focus range near to far in dim light back and forth several times, especially if the focus distance is under 5 feet or so, but in bright light it locks quickly? Who knows, but it did this on my Elan 7 body also. This is what scares me from getting the 35 f/2 which I really want, but not if it doesn't focus faster than the 50.

I've seen very nice bokeh from the 50/1.8. And, also, some that's not so good. Perhaps it's fairer to say that the 50/1.8 is just more inconsistent in that regard. But, that's true of a lot of lenses, including Leica Summicrons, which are almost almost praised for that characteristic.

I'd advise you to get the 50/1.4. But, test it. Swap it if you're not happy with the sharpness at f2 and smaller. Mine is very good after you get out of 1.4, and fantastic by f2. As for focus speed, since it's my main lens, it's the standard. Anything faster than it, i can consider fast. Anything slower, i consider slow. I don't think there's anything wrong with the speed once it acquires something to latch onto. But, it's not the best lens in terms of being able to latch onto something.

Hi Scott,

The only reason I sold the 35/2 is its slow AF but the 50/1.8 was much quicker. I had the chance to test the equivalent Nikon lenses on D200 and funnily enough, the results were similar. It may be a copy thing but I had two copies of the 50/1.8 II and both were the same.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

The economy-quality solution? Get the nifty 50 for a $100 and then check out the 28mm f/2.8 (also a good deal). Cheers...Bill