50mm f1.4 + 85mm f1.8 v 80-200mm f2.8

fontmoss

fontmoss

Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Following on from my thread regarding the wider end of things, what about the longer end? I'd like to get some portrait work (ideally paid at some point) and of course this is far more about the person pulling the trigger than the lens on the other side but all things being equal, what would people prefer to work with?

The 80-200 is a pretty versatile lens, great quality and great range but marginally slower (!) than the 2 primes, heavier and min focus distance of 1.5m.

The primes are faster, potentially better IQ (?) and arguably easier to lug about but less versatile (have to change between them) and more limited in range.
 
Tricky one....all nice lenses and as far as iq goes, I don't think there would be a lot in it (although I've not owned the 50...yet :nuts:), but if I had to chose I think I'd go for the 80-200....
 
To be fair, I think the zoom would complement the prime lenses. Pretty much any of the downsides of each lens can be mitigated by moving to be honest!
 
it'd be on dx, as you know with an eye on fx but realistically this is a dx question. I should probably add I would hopefully in time own all of the above (much like yourself sdb!) and this is more about the immediate future and working with them.

Pretty much any of the downsides of each lens can be mitigated by moving
Click to expand...

like moving back and forth?
 
Don't forget to chuck the Sigma 50-150 into the mix. Maybe too big an investment for a DX lens . . .
 
I have a 85mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 and both are very good portrait lenses.
It really comes down to where you intend taking your pictures.
If its outdoors with plenty of space then the 85mm or the 80-200 will bo fine as you can move far enough away from your subject.
Indoors is another matter though. I would only be using the 50mm and there have been times I could do with something even wider.

Carl
 
ok cool, yeah with dx i feel the 50 might be a good bet, thereby getting yourself a 70mm f1.4 for not too much cash :) and as carl point out indoors/outdoors is an interesting point. Although without lighting i imagine it'll be predominantly outdoors
 
I have both the 50mm f1.4 + 85mm f1.8 Nikon lenses, and use them for 60-70% of my portraits, with the vast majority of the rest done with the 24-70mm f/2.8. Brilliant lenses, can't wait to try them out on film...
 
totally missed photon's post! ive just sold my 50-150 ;)

i think ill go with primes, i never got on amazingly well with the sigma, not sure why (new owner is very happy with it) and 80-200 was really because i feel like i should have something at the long end, plus from what ive seen its an awesome lens. ill mull it over whilst have alook at prices etc and folk can feel free to flame me :O

EDIT: RDH great minds think alike (simple ones seldom differ)
 
ok think im going to pull the trigger on a 85 and 50 if anyone thinks its a bad idea say now or forever hold your peace
 
fontmoss said:
ok think im going to pull the trigger on a 85 and 50 if anyone thinks its a bad idea say now or forever hold your peace
Click to expand...

That's the most decisive post I've seen from you when it comes to next steps. ;)

Go for it. :)
 
LMAO!

my decisiveness is often tempered by a lack of funds but having said that, its pretty decisive for me :D
 
Which 50mm f/1.4 are you looking at, fontmoss? The Nikkor, or the Sigma :naughty:. The Sigma has really great bokeh you know ;).

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix, to see if I can break your decisive streak :D!

;)
 
fontmoss said:
ok think im going to pull the trigger on a 85 and 50 if anyone thinks its a bad idea say now or forever hold your peace
Click to expand...

Don't do it!

Go for a 24-70 or 80-200 zoom, dending on whether you're likely to be doing groups or not. Primes are too restrictive for the modern style of portraiture and unless you've got a second (or third) body to fix a range of primes on zooms give you a much more fluid approach to portraiture.

Really shallow depth of field is overrated IMVHO, and f:2.8 is plenty wide enough.
 
Opinions opinions..., personally I disagree with NorthernNikon. I have a 70-200 and the 50 and 85mm f1.8s (canon user) and TBH the zoom stays in the bag. I'm actually thinking of selling it. The primes are much smaller and lighter - the canon 70-200 2.8 at least is a pretty substantial bit of kit.

With the 85mm f1.8 on I can also crop to a 5MP 135mm F2.8 (roughly) if needed.
 
sdb123 said:
What do you mean by this (just interested really)?
Click to expand...

Okay, tradition portraiture was quite staid, the photographer set the subject's pose, invariably a static one, and would shoot away, often on a tripod, and so a prime was fine. Shoots wouldn't last that long, with the photographer not putting too many films through.

These days, people are looking for a far more dynamic style, one where the subjects are captured being relaxed and having fun. Digital often means that shoots last much longer, which in itself dictates more variety in the shots.

Portraiture is all about connection, firstly between the photographer and the subject, then secondly between the viewer and the photograph.

Using a zoom takes away some of the constraints a prime lens puts upon the photographer. Sure you can 'zoom' with your feet, but that brings attention to you and what your doing. Sure you'll lose a stop or so, but at f:2.8 you're shooting plenty fast enough, while the difference in depth of field will only make a difference in one shot in a thousand, if that.
 
oh now you tell me!

ive stuck a couple of offers on a 50 (nikkor af-d) and an 85, if they come through ill be very happy and if not then ill perhaps reconsider the 80-200. i think however the primes suit me better, ultimately its a very personal thing and i may find i want to go to a zoom but ill have a bash with the primes first probably. i understand what you mean by trad portraiture etc but you just have to look at ryan brenizer (sp?) to see its possible to use zoom or prime to great effect.
 
cheers, really i want the same line up as sdb, theres a 80-200 coming up fpr sale soon but im not sure i can stretch to it right now (plus i reckon itll be a bit long on crop sensor)
 
I think using predominantly primes is excellent fun, and I think you've made a great choice. It really makes you think a bit more about your shots, and I find not having the convenience of a zoom lens to be quite challenging. Are you getting the 1.8 or 1.4 primes?

Edit: Just read the title (50 1.4, 85 1.8) -- nice choice. I'd probably have the 85 1.8 if I hadn't spotted mine in Mifsuds used. Still, I expect I'd still be coveting the 1.4 version !
 
I'd go with NN and get the 80-200, especially if you can find an AF-S version. I tend to use it less than my 24-70 and 85/1.4 but gradually I'm falling in love with my 80-200 again.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top