50mm or 85mm for outdoor portraits?

Which one?

  • Sigma 50mm f/1.4

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • Sigma 85mm f/1.4

    Votes: 12 54.5%

  • Just use existing f/4 zoom lenses

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Total voters
    22
D

danski

Messages
470
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I'm trying to decide which prime to buy either the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 - my thinking is that this will be predominantly used outdoors for portraits and nature shots (flowers/still life), trying to be as creative as possible with the bokeh. Trouble is, I'm not sure which is going to be the better focal length.

I've got both lengths covered with my existing zooms (24-105 L f/4 & 70-200 L f/4) so I guess I could go out there and do some test shots, but also wanted to get people's views as to which is the better one for the usage mentioned above.

The lens will be coupled up with my 7D so obviously need to take into account the 1.6x crop factor.

So, opinions/recommendations please.
 
i have a similar lens line up to you - the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 and whilst these are incredibly versatile and do great portraits, the wide f1.4 aperture of the sigma adds a wonderfully intangible quality to the photograph.

in my view, the 85 1.4 is probably the better lens over the sigma 50, optically, at least in the corners but there isn't much in it. colour and contrast a great. it is VERY VERY sharp at f5.6

if you need a greater working distance, then the 135 f2 is also a lens you should consider too for a similar price and has similar performance. optically, it may be slightly sharp but there isn't much in it.

the sigma 1.4 really surprised me with it's optical performance though, i posted a few of my own shots in the people and portraits forum: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=283597 and there are a couple of crops. it really is very sharp, even wide open.

for all the uses you mention, it won't disappoint. for portraits it truly excels and with flowers and sill life it will blur the background into a wonderful creamy smooth blur.

i can't wait for the spring so i can get out and get some shots blossoms and daffodils isolated in a sea of bokeh.
 
Last edited:
I decided to buy both recently. I also have the 24-105 and a 5D mkii. I know this isn't much help, but my situation meant that I had the budget for the Canon 50mm 1.2. After speaking to quite a few photographers and looking through my portrait photography I realised that if I was going to use primes I might as well get 2 for the same price, as using only 50mm would be too limiting.

I am extremely happy with both lenses. Extremely sharp, and relatively quick focusing on both.

I know this doesn't really answer your question, but my suggestion would be to get both if you can.
 
Last edited:
Dunno about portraits but for flowers and still life I went for the Siggy 150mm f2.8. I have the 50mm f1.4 and it's a great lens but not something I'd reach for if I wanted a flower shot and as much as the 85mm tempts I think that a longer macro would suit better maybe?
 
Flowers + portraits = 100mm macro without a doubt

70-200 at 135-200mm is clearly up for the job too.

Then I don't see why you don't consider Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM which is excellent by all accounts and very affordable.
 
Portraits require preferably a longer focal length. So an 85 f1.4 is ideal especially on a crop camera!

Yes the 50 is nice..... But with the space afforded to you outside, the 85 is the better for portraits. A macro lens would however be better for flowers as it allows you to focus closer.

THe 70-200 at longert lengths is a fantastic portrait lens too.
 
An issue outdoors with wide apertures is wind (er...as in weather, not beans or mushy peas related) as DoF is paper thin and any camera / photographer or subject movement leads to focus errors. F1.4 is ok for a nice stable shot when camera and subject are perfectly still or when the subject size in the frame hides any noticeable focus errors but is going to be challenging.
 
Sigma and 50/50 QC?

Oh dear.

I've read things like this so many times I do wonder if I'm the luckiest person on the planet.
 
woof woof said:
An issue outdoors with wide apertures is wind (er...as in weather, not beans or mushy peas related) as DoF is paper thin and any camera / photographer or subject movement leads to focus errors. F1.4 is ok for a nice stable shot when camera and subject are perfectly still or when the subject size in the frame hides any noticeable focus errors but is going to be challenging.
Click to expand...

Although the Sigma is f1.4, it doesn't mean you have to shoot at that all the time :)

85mm is a great f/l whether at f1.4 or f8 so you can choose where to place the aperture depending on the situation you are in.

Cameras also have very sophisticated tracking for moving subjects (some better than others). So long as you know how, it's there to be taken
 
have a look at the zeiss 50 and 85,m/f but both nikon and canon have all the electronic contacts so can use in all modes
 
Yes interesting. Still a fair bit more expensive though.
 
thesmileyone said:
I want the Sigma 85mm 1.4 but the QC at Sigma isnt great so its 50/50 if you get a decent lens.

Will probably end up with the £1600 85G at some point.

Learnt on everything so far that if you buy cheap you buy twice, inc tripod, head, camera grip, lenses, filters, bags.
Click to expand...

I had exactly the same thoughts. After reading numerous bad reviews of both the 50mm (back focussing issues) and 85mm (lenses reported too soft), I came to the conclusion that the bad reviews were genuine. However... I also realised that of all the photography equipment I have bought, I have never written a good review of the items I have been happy with. Now I know this is a massive generalisation, however, logically thinking - the people who have purchased faulty items are annoyed and want to vent their anger on the Internet, where as the people who are genuinely happy with the equipment they have purchased would be less likely to write about it on the Internet.

This may or may not be true. I decided it was worth the risk and ordered the 50mm from Warehouse Express and bought the 85mm from a Jacobs store. I have had no problems whatsoever. Shooting at f1.4 can result in back focusing issues if you move your hands a fraction of an inch after focusing, but this is part of the reason there are so many bad reviews regarding this matter.
 
Last edited:
It seems as though opinion is divided here, but 85mm (or longer) seems to be the general recommendation. I had thought about the Canon 100mm f/2 or f/2.8 Macro but considered that the Sigmas would be better when it came to 'bokehliciousness'. Thoughts?

I did take some shots of my son last summer using my 70-200 f/4 which came out super sharp and tbh with a nicely blurred background - I've since upgraded this to the IS version but yet to use it in anger, so maybe that's worth a try before jumping in.

However, there is a strange urge in me to discipline myself and start using a prime to force me into stopping and thinking a bit more about the photo before I take it. Confused
 
EOS_JD said:
Although the Sigma is f1.4, it doesn't mean you have to shoot at that all the time :)

85mm is a great f/l whether at f1.4 or f8 so you can choose where to place the aperture depending on the situation you are in.

Cameras also have very sophisticated tracking for moving subjects (some better than others). So long as you know how, it's there to be taken
Click to expand...

My point was that for the uses mentioned f1.4 would be used how many times? few I'd imagine, and that a longer macro might be a more useable option.

PS. I also just do not believe that Sigma only make one good lens in two. I do believe that there are bad Sigma lenses shipped but that they get far too much internet air time with stories of poor quality being repeated by people who've never had any first hand experience. They come with a warranty, use it.
 
Last edited:
I see your point - could be argued either way really. Also macros generally focus slower so something to be aware of.

i agree with your point regards QC though. Don't think they would be in business if QC was as low as 50/50!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top