85mm vs 50mm

[BintyMcFrazzles]

Currently, I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (AKA the "nifty fifty"). It's snazzy super little lens for the price (£70), and has served me fine for the past couple of years. However, I am looking at upgrading to a better lens. I do have a limited budget, and I am only an amateur.
I am looking at the following:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM http://biSPAM/1MRx1UA
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM http://biSPAM/1BCJ3ur
Any other suggestions for similar lenses would be appreciated. (But bare in mind, my maximum budget is no more than £300 MAX, so there is no point in suggesting something upward of that, no matter how good it is).

The one obvious difference is the aperture. But does 1.4 vs 1.8 make a LOT of difference?
Also, I have looked around on websites, and there seems to be very little to no difference between 85mm and 50mm in some minds, but not in others.

I do prefer a fixed zoom, but it's not absolutely necessary. And it doesn't have to be Canon.

Any tips and thoughts would be greatly received.

 

[AdamTudor]

What camera is it for? As you need to take into account the crop factor. Do you need more reach then the 50mm provides?

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

What camera is it for? As you need to take into account the crop factor. Do you need more reach then the 50mm provides?

Hi Adam, thanks for the reply.

It's for my Canon 600D.

It's for portraits, both close-up and further away (but not far away). I don't really understand crop factor, I'm afraid! (Sorry to sound dim).

Just looking at crop factor now......

 

[AdamTudor]

so your camera has a crop factor of 1.6, so essentially on a full frame 35mm sensor the equivalent would be 1.6 x focal length. so a 50mm on a full frame would be 50mm, a 50mm on a crop would be the equivalent of 80mm on a full frame. It is still 50mm but the sensor crops the picture by 1.6x so you just end up with a more zoomed in picture. would it be instead of your current 50mm or as well as? do you have any other lenses?

edit: im sure someone will be along soon to explain it a bit better

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

so your camera has a crop factor of 1.6, so essentially on a full frame 35mm sensor the equivalent would be 1.6 x focal length. so a 50mm on a full frame would be 50mm, a 50mm on a crop would be the equivalent of 80mm on a full frame. It is still 50mm but the sensor crops the picture by 1.6x so you just end up with a more zoomed in picture. would it be instead of your current 50mm or as well as? do you have any other lenses?

I've just been reading about crop factor, and it is rather complicated! Thanks for helping, I think I am getting it.

I have a Macro lens, and the standard canon lens, plus a 18 to 200mm. The lens I am looking at would be replacing the 50mm f/1.8 that I have. Reading about crop factors, does this then mean that I would have more "zoom"/crop with an 85mm due to my crop factor? So to get close-ups I would have to be further away with the 85mm?
(Sorry, I am in the process of wanting to learn more about portraits).

 

[AdamTudor]

yeah thats a long the right lines, so the 85mm on your camera would be similar to a 135mm on a full frame camera, set your 18-200 to 85 mm, and see if what that focal length is like for you, you might decide its too long and you prefer the 50mm

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

yeah thats a long the right lines, so the 85mm on your camera would be similar to a 135mm on a full frame camera, set your 18-200 to 85 mm, and see if what that focal length is like for you, you might decide its too long and you prefer the 50mm

I am siding with the 85mm at the moment, as it does give me the option to take portraits from further away, and it still does give me the option of using my current 50mm. My macro is 100mm, so it would be nice to have something in between. But I do like the thought of a f/1.4. However, at 85mm, the 1.8 would give a narrower DOF than at 50mm. DECISIONS!!!

Thanks, Adam, I've learned something new!

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

What I don't get, is why cheap lenses are built for full frame cameras? I mean, if I bought a body for £1k plus, I wouldn't be buying cheap(ish) lenses for it! Just a thought.

 

[AdamTudor]

because not everyone is professional and needs the build quality. is there anything wrong with the image quality of your 50mm 1.8? thats EF mount and is cheap.

 

[jockwav]

I have the 85mm 1.8 & it is an excellent lens.

 

[ancient_mariner]

What I don't get, is why cheap lenses are built for full frame cameras? I mean, if I bought a body for £1k plus, I wouldn't be buying cheap(ish) lenses for it! Just a thought.

They aren't. There are many older designs of full frame lenses around, possibly updated with modern coatings, that will work fine with both formats and not require careful and expensive re-designing. Also an f1.8 lens needs less precise and difficult engineering than an f1.4, and may also be made of cheaper materials to reduce the cost of construction. And finally, it may be much more profitable to sell 'pro' lenses with a big markup.

f1.8 vs f1.4 - irrespective of focal length (since you already have a 50 f1.8) there is a difference in image quality, with (IME) images being a touch sharper with the 1.4 lens. It also gives greater scope for shots requiring very shallow depth of field, and this is the greatest benefit of such a lens, though I very rarely use my 50 f1.4 fully open because image quality drops away too much.

85 vs 50 - the 85 may be better for isolating your subject from the background, and will also have reduced distortion of features in portraits compared to a 50mm lens. Some portrait photographers use up to 200mm lenses on FF for these reasons.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

because not everyone is professional and needs the build quality. is there anything wrong with the image quality of your 50mm 1.8? thats EF mount and is cheap.

Very true.

Nothing wrong with the image quality on the 50mm, but it does have some little irritants. The build quality isn't great, it does feel plasticy, and the manual focusing ring is small and fiddly.......plus I can get the 85mm for £11 a month! LOL

I have the 85mm 1.8 & it is an excellent lens.

Thanks, James. Do you find you have to step quite far back for portraits? That is one of my concerns with the 85mm (although I am going to look through my variable lens at 85mm to check for distance). I mostly like to take close-up portraits, though.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Why don't you try your zoom at 85mm and see how that works for a practical test?

 

[odd jim]

Currently, I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (AKA the "nifty fifty"). It's snazzy super little lens for the price (£70), and has served me fine for the past couple of years. However, I am looking at upgrading to a better lens. I do have a limited budget, and I am only an amateur.
I am looking at the following:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM http://biSPAM/1MRx1UA
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM http://biSPAM/1BCJ3ur
Any other suggestions for similar lenses would be appreciated. (But bare in mind, my maximum budget is no more than £300 MAX, so there is no point in suggesting something upward of that, no matter how good it is).

The one obvious difference is the aperture. But does 1.4 vs 1.8 make a LOT of difference?
Also, I have looked around on websites, and there seems to be very little to no difference between 85mm and 50mm in some minds, but not in others.

I do prefer a fixed zoom, but it's not absolutely necessary. And it doesn't have to be Canon.

Any tips and thoughts would be greatly received.

You prefer a fixed zoom?!

The 85mm f1.8 is a great portrait lens, I use it on both cropped and full frame bodies, can't rate it highly enough!

I've not used the 50mm f/1.4, purely because the f/1.8 is (optically) so good, and mine has held together in all the years I've owned it! TBH going from the f/1.8 to the f/1.4 will only gain you faster, quieter focusing and better build quality.

I'd go for the 85mm

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

They aren't. There are many older designs of full frame lenses around, possibly updated with modern coatings, that will work fine with both formats and not require careful and expensive re-designing. Also an f1.8 lens needs less precise and difficult engineering than an f1.4, and may also be made of cheaper materials to reduce the cost of construction. And finally, it may be much more profitable to sell 'pro' lenses with a big markup..

Of course. I stand corrected.

f1.8 vs f1.4 - irrespective of focal length (since you already have a 50 f1.8) there is a difference in image quality, with (IME) images being a touch sharper with the 1.4 lens. It also gives greater scope for shots requiring very shallow depth of field, and this is the greatest benefit of such a lens, though I very rarely use my 50 f1.4 fully open because image quality drops away too much.

85 vs 50 - the 85 may be better for isolating your subject from the background, and will also have reduced distortion of features in portraits compared to a 50mm lens. Some portrait photographers use up to 200mm lenses on FF for these reasons.

Thanks, Toni. Your comments have been very useful! I didn't realise distortion was a thing to consider, and was wondering why my nose looked bigger on some selfies, I just thought it was the way I posed! As you say about the f/1.4, I don't know if I would use it that often, as f/1.8 seems to be as large as I like, and sometimes can give a little too much narrow DOF.

I've read a few more reviews, and it seems the 85mm is better build quality, which is one of the reasons I am wanting to upgrade.

Think I have 90% made my mind up.

Thanks everyone for your very useful comments, I haven't been on the site for a couple of months, and I forgot how great you all were!

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

Why don't you try your zoom at 85mm and see how that works for a practical test?

Yep, gonna do that.



edit.......Just done it, and it's great!

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

You prefer a fixed zoom?!

The 85mm f1.8 is a great portrait lens, I use it on both cropped and full frame bodies, can't rate it highly enough!

I've not used the 50mm f/1.4, purely because the f/1.8 is (optically) so good, and mine has held together in all the years I've owned it! TBH going from the f/1.8 to the f/1.4 will only gain you faster, quieter focusing and better build quality.

I'd go for the 85mm

Thanks, I'm 90% convinced for the 85mm now.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

It also means I have a different focal length at 85mm, and still have the option to use my cheap 50mm if needed.

Happy shopping for me tomorrow! (OH's pay day, but don't tell him).

 

[AdamTudor]

I have one and it's a great lens. Although I'm selling all my canon stuff soon keep an eye on the classifieds

 

[jockwav]

Very true.

Nothing wrong with the image quality on the 50mm, but it does have some little irritants. The build quality isn't great, it does feel plasticy, and the manual focusing ring is small and fiddly.......plus I can get the 85mm for £11 a month! LOL


Thanks, James. Do you find you have to step quite far back for portraits? That is one of my concerns with the 85mm (although I am going to look through my variable lens at 85mm to check for distance). I mostly like to take close-up portraits, though.

Yes you do need a bit of distance if you want a full length portrait but for head & shoulders you don,t, it,s a great lens.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

Yes you do need a bit of distance if you want a full length portrait but for head & shoulders you don,t, it,s a great lens.

Thanks. That's was I was thinking, I tried my 18 to 200mm at 85mm to see what kind of zoom it would give.

 

[ABTog]

I had the Canon 50mm f1.8, it's great for the price, nothing really to knock it. But, I got hold of a Canon 50mm f1.4 and I love that. The build quality is so much better, focusing is much faster (very important with events and kids) and the wider aperture is handy to have. However, when I tested the 2 lenses side by side, I found little difference in actual image quality.
Here's a non-scientific comparison shot I did:

Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 vs f1.4 @ f1.8 by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

As for the Canon 85mm 1.8, it's one I've been pondering for a while too. It's meant to be one of the best and sharpest non-L lenses that Canon make. Only you can know if you'll make use of it.
I would say though, that as you already have a 100mm f2.8 lens, that you probably don't need a long portrait lens because that 100mm lens will do the job nicely. Try it out on some portraits.

I would also put a spanner in the works and say that maybe you should try either a 35mm or 30mm lens instead of replacing the 50mm. As discussed above, the 50mm will give you an equivalent view of an 80mm on full frame. So if you went for a lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, it'll give you the equivalent view of 48mm (near enough 50mm) on full frame. And 50mm on full frame is supposed to be the natural viewing angle of the eye, so images are pleasing to the eye.
The Sigma 30mm is also quite a good all round lens, wide enough for using in small spaces, f1.4 for use in low light, well built and good image quality too. You can pick up the older version for about £200 s/h.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

I had the Canon 50mm f1.8, it's great for the price, nothing really to knock it. But, I got hold of a Canon 50mm f1.4 and I love that. The build quality is so much better, focusing is much faster (very important with events and kids) and the wider aperture is handy to have. However, when I tested the 2 lenses side by side, I found little difference in actual image quality.
Here's a non-scientific comparison shot I did:

Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 vs f1.4 @ f1.8 by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

As for the Canon 85mm 1.8, it's one I've been pondering for a while too. It's meant to be one of the best and sharpest non-L lenses that Canon make. Only you can know if you'll make use of it.
I would say though, that as you already have a 100mm f2.8 lens, that you probably don't need a long portrait lens because that 100mm lens will do the job nicely. Try it out on some portraits.

I would also put a spanner in the works and say that maybe you should try either a 35mm or 30mm lens instead of replacing the 50mm. As discussed above, the 50mm will give you an equivalent view of an 80mm on full frame. So if you went for a lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, it'll give you the equivalent view of 48mm (near enough 50mm) on full frame. And 50mm on full frame is supposed to be the natural viewing angle of the eye, so images are pleasing to the eye.
The Sigma 30mm is also quite a good all round lens, wide enough for using in small spaces, f1.4 for use in low light, well built and good image quality too. You can pick up the older version for about £200 s/h.

Thanks for that, Tog. I'll have a look!

 

[pingu666]

if you go 50mm the sigma 1.4 kinda beats everything else

but 60mm f2 tamron macro is really nice on crop for portraits imo, and its a macro too, so dual use

 

[pingu666]

if you use flash than a sigma dp3 would be a possible, only 2.8, but crazy sharp, and super high flash sync.

about twice as sharp as a 600d perhaps, atleast 50%

 

[ABTog]

if you use flash than a sigma dp3 would be a possible, only 2.8, but crazy sharp, and super high flash sync.

about twice as sharp as a 600d perhaps, atleast 50%

You're confusing matters by suggesting a completely different sort of camera there. The DP3 might be sharp, but she's asking about a lens for her Canon 600D, not a new camera.

 

[odd jim]

if you use flash than a sigma dp3 would be a possible, only 2.8, but crazy sharp, and super high flash sync.

about twice as sharp as a 600d perhaps, atleast 50%

Lol, Why do you keep telling people to buy this camera as an answer to everything? :d (and BTW sharpness is mostly dictated by the lens so you can't say a body it's "twice as sharp as a 600d).

It's really not good at anything other than base ISO landscapes.

The Foveon sensor isn't a portrait photographers friend and couldn't be less suited to the job!

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

if you use flash than a sigma dp3 would be a possible, only 2.8, but crazy sharp, and super high flash sync.

about twice as sharp as a 600d perhaps, atleast 50%

I don't like to really use flash, plus I don't want a completely new camera! And it only goes down to f/2.8, anyway. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

if you go 50mm the sigma 1.4 kinda beats everything else

but 60mm f2 tamron macro is really nice on crop for portraits imo, and its a macro too, so dual use

I did looks at the sigma 1.4mm, but it had too many bad reviews. I know you can't 100% rely on reviews, but it's a good indication.

 

[woof woof]

I did looks at the sigma 1.4mm, but it had too many bad reviews. I know you can't 100% rely on reviews, but it's a good indication.

I used to have both the Sigma 50 and 85mm f1.4's and I thought they were both very good lenses, the 85mm being possibly the better. Personally I'd find 85mm a bit long on APS-C for general use but for occasional use and portrait it'd be a good choice.

As you already have a 50mm and a 18-200mm you're in a good position to decide if you like the 50 and 85mm focal lengths but maybe f1.4 doesn't make a great deal of difference over f1.8.

Pingu thinks that a Sigma DP is the answer to life, the universe and everything and I feel the same about old manual lenses... and if you have a bit of gear lust one thing you could do spend a bit less on some of these old manual lenses. You could pick up a manual 50mm f1.4 for maybe £60 and an 85mm for in the region of £200. Add a £10 adapter. Manual focus wont be great with a Canon DSLR but for portraits speed may not be an issue and if you decide that you like the 85mm focal length or the f1.4 of the 50mm you could sell the manual lenses and not lose too much, if anything, and invest in some more expensive AF lenses. I tried my manual Olympus Zuiko lenses on my Canon 5D and they worked well.

However, unless you want to shoot at wide apertures I'm not sure that spending hard earned money on primes is 100% justified as you already have lenses which should do a reasonable job when shooting portraits. Just a thought

 

[MartynK]

f1.4 is about 2/3 of a stop faster than f1.8, which isn't a great deal in practical terms, but gives you a little more speed and a slightly narrower depth of field if you're shooting at full aperture. Most lenses perform better when they're stopped down a bit though, and an f1.4 will usually be faster than an f1.8 when it reaches its sweet spot too. The Canon f1.4 is also better built than the budget f1.8, and focuses faster, but it's not in L lens territory.

I'd make the decision based on the focal length, if I had a choice between the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8. Which is going to be more useful to you? You already have 50mm covered, and 85mm gives you roughly the same field of view as 135mm on full frame, which is a classic combination.

To be frank, and this is just my personal opinion, 50mm isn't very useful on a crop body. It's just too long for a walk about, and too short for a telephoto. The Canon f1.8 does get you a fast prime at a low price this which is its only real selling point, but I wouldn't want to spend more to replicate the focal length. The f1.8 85mm has an excellent reputation as a portrait and short telephoto lens, and is in more or less the same price bracket as the f1.4 50mm. I'd go for it.

Fast 50mm primes were the 'standard' lens, often sold with the camera, back in the 35mm film days; but have largely been replaced by short zooms now. If you want something similar for a crop body, I'd look at an f1.4 30mm or thereabouts.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

I used to have both the Sigma 50 and 85mm f1.4's and I thought they were both very good lenses, the 85mm being possibly the better. Personally I'd find 85mm a bit long on APS-C for general use but for occasional use and portrait it'd be a good choice.

As you already have a 50mm and a 18-200mm you're in a good position to decide if you like the 50 and 85mm focal lengths but maybe f1.4 doesn't make a great deal of difference over f1.8.

Pingu thinks that a Sigma DP is the answer to life, the universe and everything and I feel the same about old manual lenses... and if you have a bit of gear lust one thing you could do spend a bit less on some of these old manual lenses. You could pick up a manual 50mm f1.4 for maybe £60 and an 85mm for in the region of £200. Add a £10 adapter. Manual focus wont be great with a Canon DSLR but for portraits speed may not be an issue and if you decide that you like the 85mm focal length or the f1.4 of the 50mm you could sell the manual lenses and not lose too much, if anything, and invest in some more expensive AF lenses. I tried my manual Olympus Zuiko lenses on my Canon 5D and they worked well.

However, unless you want to shoot at wide apertures I'm not sure that spending hard earned money on primes is 100% justified as you already have lenses which should do a reasonable job when shooting portraits. Just a thought

Some useful ideas there. Thanks, Alan. I have been thinking about getting some old manual lenses.
The reason I like the prime lenses, is because of the fixed aperture at f/1.8. Whereas it seems you have to spend A LOT to get a fixed aperture for a variable zoom lens. My 18 to 200mm lens is a great lens, but the aperture only goes down to f/3.5 and isn't fixed if you zoom.

f1.4 is about 2/3 of a stop faster than f1.8, which isn't a great deal in practical terms, but gives you a little more speed and a slightly narrower depth of field if you're shooting at full aperture. Most lenses perform better when they're stopped down a bit though, and an f1.4 will usually be faster than an f1.8 when it reaches its sweet spot too. The Canon f1.4 is also better built than the budget f1.8, and focuses faster, but it's not in L lens territory.

I'd make the decision based on the focal length, if I had a choice between the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8. Which is going to be more useful to you? You already have 50mm covered, and 85mm gives you roughly the same field of view as 135mm on full frame, which is a classic combination.

To be frank, and this is just my personal opinion, 50mm isn't very useful on a crop body. It's just too long for a walk about, and too short for a telephoto. The Canon f1.8 does get you a fast prime at a low price this which is its only real selling point, but I wouldn't want to spend more to replicate the focal length. The f1.8 85mm has an excellent reputation as a portrait and short telephoto lens, and is in more or less the same price bracket as the f1.4 50mm. I'd go for it.

Fast 50mm primes were the 'standard' lens, often sold with the camera, back in the 35mm film days; but have largely been replaced by short zooms now. If you want something similar for a crop body, I'd look at an f1.4 30mm or thereabouts.

Exactly my thoughts. The nifty fifty is an awesome lens for the price, I love it. But it isn't any good for "walking around", whereas the 85mm would give a small amount of telephoto.

Discussing it with OH, and on here, it seems the 85mm is the way to go. Afterall, I have the 50mm lens already, and looking at the quality of the 50mm f/1.4, there isn't a lot of difference in photo quality, it's only the build that is better. Whereas an 85mm is a whole new lens!


Thanks again, everyone. You've been fab!!

 

[ABTog]

You mention fast zooms....
For the crop sensor you have options like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS which is very good but even a second hand copy is £400ish. But it would be much much better than your 18-200mm.
Sigma and Tamron also make similar lenses for less money.
Tamrons 17-50 f2.8 can be found with or without VC (vibration reduction) second hand £250-300.
Or there's Sigma's 17-50 f2.8 OS (optically stabilised).
I have the slightly older Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro which can be found for about £160-200. Which is a good budget option and I find it plenty sharp enough and a good walkabout lens.

Buying old manual lenses is one way to try the focal length out, but spending £200 on a manual 85mm lens seems daft if you can buy the Canon 85 f1.8 for about the same.

Have you thought about hiring one to try out?

 

[woof woof]

Buying old manual lenses is one way to try the focal length out, but spending £200 on a manual 85mm lens seems daft if you can buy the Canon 85 f1.8 for about the same.

Have you thought about hiring one to try out?

Buying into old lenses does need thought and personally I'm not a fan of manual focus with Canon DSLR's unless the subject is big in the frame and focus is therefore relatively easy to judge.

One advantage of old manual lenses is that you can use them on other bodies whereas a Canon lens is less flexible although these days adapters with aperture control may be available.

I still think that the idea of buying primes for portraits is a little dubious... unless you want to shoot at wide apertures but then there's little depth of field and personally when taking a portrait I'm probably going to want the whole head sharp or at least a large portion of it and at 85mm that may well mean apertures that an f3.5-5.6 zoom can match and give good performance at.

 

[pingu666]

the sigma 50mm 1.4 art is the super fancy make oem glass look stupid one

 

[Sir SR]

The 85 mm on a crop is cracking - I used my 85 f1.4 on my D90 and loved it.

The canon 85 is supposed to be great.

I loved my 50 mm on the d90, not so keen on it on the d800 (ff)

Go for it!

The 85 f1.4 will be my next lens purchase I suspect!

 

[MartynK]

Buying into old lenses does need thought and personally I'm not a fan of manual focus with Canon DSLR's unless the subject is big in the frame and focus is therefore relatively easy to judge.

I agree. I do use my old MF Nikkor f1.4 50mm and f2.8 28mm on a canon crop body with an adapter sometimes, but that's mainly because I like them and don't have a very fast modern prime. I get good results, but it's much easier on the F2 and FM, with the big/bright VFs and focus aids of that era.

One word of caution for the OP, avoid the Canon FD lenses if you want to go down this route. They're usually cheap, but won't focus to infinity without a correction lens in the adapter, which doesn't do anything for the image quality. I've heard of people in the US machining the mount to adapt it to EOS, but I don't know how successful this is, or if anyone in the UK is doing it.

 

[BintyMcFrazzles]

You mention fast zooms....
For the crop sensor you have options like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS which is very good but even a second hand copy is £400ish. But it would be much much better than your 18-200mm.
Sigma and Tamron also make similar lenses for less money.
Tamrons 17-50 f2.8 can be found with or without VC (vibration reduction) second hand £250-300.
Or there's Sigma's 17-50 f2.8 OS (optically stabilised).
I have the slightly older Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro which can be found for about £160-200. Which is a good budget option and I find it plenty sharp enough and a good walkabout lens.

Buying old manual lenses is one way to try the focal length out, but spending £200 on a manual 85mm lens seems daft if you can buy the Canon 85 f1.8 for about the same.

Have you thought about hiring one to try out?

I wouldn't want to spend £200 on a manual lens, it's too much. As you say, the Canon 85, f/1.8 is a better choice.

I can't afford the £400 for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS......I wish!

I still think that the idea of buying primes for portraits is a little dubious... unless you want to shoot at wide apertures but then there's little depth of field and personally when taking a portrait I'm probably going to want the whole head sharp or at least a large portion of it and at 85mm that may well mean apertures that an f3.5-5.6 zoom can match and give good performance at.

The reason I want the 85mm is for the 1.8 aperture and narrow DOF. My Canon lens 18 to 200mm at 85mm cannot go down to even near that, and does not give the DOF I want, I've tried.

One word of caution for the OP, avoid the Canon FD lenses if you want to go down this route. They're usually cheap, but won't focus to infinity without a correction lens in the adapter, which doesn't do anything for the image quality. I've heard of people in the US machining the mount to adapt it to EOS, but I don't know how successful this is, or if anyone in the UK is doing it.

Thanks. Yes, I know you need an adaptor. I'm approaching the old manual lenses with caution!

The 85 mm on a crop is cracking - I used my 85 f1.4 on my D90 and loved it.

The canon 85 is supposed to be great.

I loved my 50 mm on the d90, not so keen on it on the d800 (ff)

Go for it!

The 85 f1.4 will be my next lens purchase I suspect!

Yes, I've given it a lot of thought, and read the reviews. I know you can't 100% rely on them, but they're a good guide. I'm ordering it tomorrow!

85mm 1.4? Ooooo, sounds fab!!!

 

[Sir SR]

I wouldn't want to spend £200 on a manual lens, it's too much. As you say, the Canon 85, f/1.8 is a better choice.

I can't afford the £400 for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS......I wish!



The reason I want the 85mm is for the 1.8 aperture and narrow DOF. My Canon lens 18 to 200mm at 85mm cannot go down to even near that, and does not give the DOF I want, I've tried.



Thanks. Yes, I know you need an adaptor. I'm approaching the old manual lenses with caution!



Yes, I've given it a lot of thought, and read the reviews. I know you can't 100% rely on them, but they're a good guide. I'm ordering it tomorrow!

85mm 1.4? Ooooo, sounds fab!!!

I have a manual 85 f1.4 - have a look at my samyang album on Flickr - but really want an AF one. I bought mine for 300 new but an af version will be between 600-1100 depending on which I go for. A long wait yet.....

 

[Raptor Mike]

I had the Canon 50mm f1.8, it's great for the price, nothing really to knock it. But, I got hold of a Canon 50mm f1.4 and I love that. The build quality is so much better, focusing is much faster (very important with events and kids) and the wider aperture is handy to have. However, when I tested the 2 lenses side by side, I found little difference in actual image quality.
Here's a non-scientific comparison shot I did:

Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 vs f1.4 @ f1.8 by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

As for the Canon 85mm 1.8, it's one I've been pondering for a while too. It's meant to be one of the best and sharpest non-L lenses that Canon make. Only you can know if you'll make use of it.
I would say though, that as you already have a 100mm f2.8 lens, that you probably don't need a long portrait lens because that 100mm lens will do the job nicely. Try it out on some portraits.

I would also put a spanner in the works and say that maybe you should try either a 35mm or 30mm lens instead of replacing the 50mm. As discussed above, the 50mm will give you an equivalent view of an 80mm on full frame. So if you went for a lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, it'll give you the equivalent view of 48mm (near enough 50mm) on full frame. And 50mm on full frame is supposed to be the natural viewing angle of the eye, so images are pleasing to the eye.
The Sigma 30mm is also quite a good all round lens, wide enough for using in small spaces, f1.4 for use in low light, well built and good image quality too. You can pick up the older version for about £200 s/h.

Good quality?? But it's made those people look plasticy. Sorry, some one had to