Do I need a Canon 50mm f1.8 for portraits...

You do have it covered, but the nifty fifty is a bargain!
 
get a another lens first
the holga lens can be quite nice, and is under a tenner or was :)
 
i would get somehting longer to be honest, in saying that the 50mm 1.8 is fantastcially sharp
 
I sold my one when I bough the Tamron 17-50 non vc, so I would say no.

I also have the 35mm and the 55-200 but these no longer get any use since I have bought the 17-50.
 
You don't 'need' anything specific, you don't 'need' an 85. Sure, they're great for portraiture, but on a cropped sensor as you have, 50mm is just fine. The tamron 17-50 is a nice lens for it too. That's what I used 90% of the time when I was on DX bodies. I sold my old 50mm prime soon after buying it too. 2.8 is enough, and the lens is just as sharp at 50mm as a prime. An 85 would compliment this and give you more options, but I wouldn't stress over it. Start saving :)
 
Had both and the 85 was awesome for portraits. A few of which can be seen on my Flickr link below. Always found the 50mm a bit 'close' and this was on a crop body.
 
You've made your mind up, but I'll add my name to the '50mm on a crop isn't what you need' camp.

Personally, I think it's a rubbish focal length on a crop sensor, too long for general use, too wide for portraits.

The only reason I've kept mine is that it's worth so little, and it'd come in handy if I went full frame.
 
I bought one and it's lovely and sharp although a bit clunky compared to USM or L lenses.

Honestly it lives in the cupboard. It doesn't even have a permanent home in any of my camera bags as I have 50mm covered elsewhere and very seldom do I need f1.8.

If it's very lucky it may get a trip out once or twice a year.
 
Last edited:
I have a 50mm for my Nikon D7000 and a pair of legs. Love it to bits and it does the job that I want it to.
But then I'm not much good at photography!:nikon::jaffa:
 
I shoot crop and gave my 17-50 Tammy a run out on Monday, it's now back in the cupboard. :LOL:

35 and 85mm primes are my favoured lenses and go most places with me when shooting, along with a speedlight and a set of triggers. My photography has mainly become portraiture of late so it all fits in a little bag now rather than a backpack. I only keep my 17-50 for my boxing work and if it wasn't for that I'd sell it.
 
Just to add to the mix, the 50mm is still an approriate focal length for contextual portraits, capturing people in their environment such as just a 'standard' head and shoulders shot. For example, a pianist sitting at the piano. Longer focal lengths flatten the perspective of the nose and are flattering but you also need the space to use them in, both the 50mm (dynamically sharp)and the 85mm are good for portraits but for different reasons. An aperture of f/1.8 is going to give you a very pleasing shallow depth of field and is also a benefit in low light such as candle light etc, which in addition, will also give a bokeh effect.
 
85 is fantastically wonderful, but I got rid of mine, opted for the 50mm 1.4 which is smooshy wooshy. (that means a good thing) :) I didn't much care for the 1.8 if I'm honest - cheap build and noisy, and interfered with the wonderful shutter sound of my camera. It's a girl thing...
 
I'm cheap and noisy, it's a man thing. But I do have a feminine side which helps with my photography.
 
50mm is faster focussing. But Tamrons IQ is very good, so I would a different focal length not already covered
 
Phil V said:
You've made your mind up, but I'll add my name to the '50mm on a crop isn't what you need' camp.

Personally, I think it's a rubbish focal length on a crop sensor, too long for general use, too wide for portraits.

The only reason I've kept mine is that it's worth so little, and it'd come in handy if I went full frame.
Click to expand...


A 60mm would be better on DX sure, but a 50 does the job just fine. I'm not a big fan of 50mm personally, well, I use FX now and have a 35 and an 85 and just wouldn't get much use out of a 50.

I had a 60mm macro for a while that I much preferred. Would have suggested that but it wasn't the question. You can pick up a 60mm 2.8D pretty cheap used. I loved mine. Only passed it on after I got the 105.
 
Cagey75 said:
A 60mm would be better on DX sure, but a 50 does the job just fine. I'm not a big fan of 50mm personally, well, I use FX now and have a 35 and an 85 and just wouldn't get much use out of a 50.

I had a 60mm macro for a while that I much preferred. Would have suggested that but it wasn't the question. You can pick up a 60mm 2.8D pretty cheap used. I loved mine. Only passed it on after I got the 105.
Click to expand...
For 'portraits', I'd say 85mm minimum, but 135 was always my go to portrait lens on film. :)
 
Thanks again folks. I do also have my canon 55-250 but its not that fast at f4-5.6. But I have spent a load on gear this year and even a used 85mm might end up with me only being allowed beans on toast until Xmas next year lol
 
Last edited:
So the 85 is a good buy, just getting back into it all, I had the 70-200 so I guess 85 would cut the mustard, I used to have the canon 5d FF but I have just invested in a 700d wow what a difference.

What kind of price am looking at for a good second hand 85.
 
Phil V said:
For 'portraits', I'd say 85mm minimum, but 135 was always my go to portrait lens on film. :)
Click to expand...

135mm would be my choice on 35mm film, I presume it would be the same on FF, 80/85mm on a crop.

Used with a slim ring (tube), It knocks the dof down.

This used to be referred to as a big head set up, it's good for isolating the subject from the background.

Rhodese.
 
Party pooper mode ON...

Wide aperture primes are lovely but INVHO portraits don't always suit wafer thin DoF and once you start stopping down the shot could be taken with almost any lens (like a 17-50mm?) For example with APS-C and 50 - 85mm and at wide apertures you're DoF will be thin, if going for a head and shoulder or even half body shot that you'll be lucky to get a persons head in the DoF at f5.6-8.

Wide aperture primes are lovely but the shallow DoF look can be overdone and personally I mostly like to get a persons head in the DoF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
woof woof said:
Party pooper mode ON...

Wide aperture primes are lovely but INVHO portraits don't always suit wafer thin DoF and once you start stopping down the shot could be taken with almost any lens (like a 17-50mm?) For example with APS-C and 50 - 85mm and at wide apertures you're DoF will be thin, if going for a head and shoulder or even half body shot that you'll be lucky to get a persons head in the DoF at f5.6-8.

Wide aperture primes are lovely but the shallow DoF look can be overdone and personally I mostly like to get a persons head in the DoF.
Click to expand...

Persons head in the Depth of Field ?
Thin Depth of Field ?

That doesn't make any sense to me if the head / face is in focus then a large aperture (shallow depth) is going to blur the background and give separation from the subject.

If your can't get all the features / head in focus at f/5.6 as you suggest then you're too close to the subject and need to move back.

If your saying portraits with shallow DoF are overdone, it's a classic portrait technique that separates the background from the subject. A good portrait is always interesting in my opinion.
 
woof woof said:
Party pooper mode ON...

Wide aperture primes are lovely but INVHO portraits don't always suit wafer thin DoF and once you start stopping down the shot could be taken with almost any lens (like a 17-50mm?) For example with APS-C and 50 - 85mm and at wide apertures you're DoF will be thin, if going for a head and shoulder or even half body shot that you'll be lucky to get a persons head in the DoF at f5.6-8.

Wide aperture primes are lovely but the shallow DoF look can be overdone and personally I mostly like to get a persons head in the DoF.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I would rather have all the subject in focus. The reason I asked is because I thought as a prime it it might be a better quality, as in sharper.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Persons head in the Depth of Field ?
Thin Depth of Field ?

That doesn't make any sense to me if the head / face is in focus then a large aperture (shallow depth) is going to blur the background and give separation from the subject.

If your can't get all the features / head in focus at f/5.6 as you suggest then you're too close to the subject and need to move back.

If your saying portraits with shallow DoF are overdone, it's a classic portrait technique that separates the background from the subject. A good portrait is always interesting in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That makes sense too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top