Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

jockwav

jockwav

Messages
6,085
Name
James (Retired)
Edit My Images
No
Who uses this lens in combo with the canon 50D,would like your thoughts on how good this lens is as i am thinking of getting it.:)(y)
 
I do.
It's my favourite lens, its fast (at 1.8, albeit a little soft at that aperture). I use it with 'tubes' to do macro work and aperture for aperture its sharper than my 100 2.8 macro i..e if they are both at f3.5 the 85 is sharper, if I stop both down 2 stops there's no difference in IQ but of course they will then be at different apertures.

I have tried it on a 10d, 400d and my 50d, the 50d does it justice.
I also tweaked the micro adjustment to get the focus spot on.

Love it, buy it if you want that focal length, you wont be dissapointed.

Matt
 
Thanks for that Matt,i am seriously thinking about looking for one now.:)(y)
 
Don't own one but have used one on my 50D on a number of occasions. Great lens for the price if this is the focal length that you are after.
 
Cheers for that m8,:)(y)
 
1/250 f3.5 100% crop shooting distance 4.5m

 
Hi Matbin,
That is great news about the macro capabilities of this lens.
I have one but was considering selling it to get the 100 macro.

Could you possibly point me in the right direction to get the right 'tubes' to get this quality you speak of.

Thanks
Grif
 
grifter09 said:
Hi Matbin,
That is great news about the macro capabilities of this lens.
I have one but was considering selling it to get the 100 macro.

Could you possibly point me in the right direction to get the right 'tubes' to get this quality you speak of.

Thanks
Grif
Click to expand...

I have a set of 3rd party tubes from a local dealer, they dont autofocus when combined together, but do so when used individually,which is a bit of a nuisance, Canon ones are very expensive. No name on the ones I have, so they must be proud of what they have made :)

The 100 2.8 macro is much more flexible as it can be used as a macro and/or as a portrait lens but its not as 'fast', so its swings and roundabouts, plus it can be used to create a magnification that is variable based on distance from subject, the tubes have a fixed magnification per tube.

Which one you chose depends on what you want to do the most of.
The 3rd party ones are 13/21/31mm.
The shot above isnt a macro shot its just a crop from a shot from 4.5m away.
I'll post a macro tomorrow from the 85mm
 
Thanks Matt.
I see a big difference between the pricing of tubes, particularly between Canon, Kenko and other 3rd party.
Will investigate further.
Thanks for info.
Would love to see sample in your own time.
 
Here is a hand held example from my 50D and 85/1.8 at 1/125, f/2.0, 400 ISO. 1/125 was pushing my luck a bit but the result is acceptably sharp.
20091009_220450_4704_LR.jpg


100% crop....
20091009_220450_4704_LR.jpg


It is also a great lens for sports/action - 1/800, f/2.0, 200 ISO....
20090301_120058_4919_LR.jpg


As well as great performance it is also small, light and inconspicuous. The big complaint with this lens is usually about purple fringing in areas of strong contrast. My first copy was a real let down in that area and I swapped it. The second copy is much better. I like the lens.
 
From what I've seen of it it's an absolutely cracking lens!
I'll admit I prefer my f/1.2, but honestly the f/1.8 just can't be beaten for the price!
It really isn't that far short of it's much more expensive brother. And if you're into any kind of sports shooting it's the best choice anyway.
 
I had one....it is an AWESOME lens!!!!!!!!!!
 
Just bought one myself for my 7d, waiting patiently for itnow. Got mine from kerso, at least £30 cheaper than anywhere else i looked
 
I love this lens. Compliments my Canon 50 1.4. It focuses a lot lot quicker than the 50 and it focuses quiet too.
 
Had one myself, lovely sharp lens BUT if I was getting another prime now I would go for the 100mm f2 instead as, from what I read, it is sharper (even so slightly) than the 85mm f1.8
 
100m on a crop is a strange length though, bit too long for portrait, not long enough for wildlife and sports ---hmmmm I don't think I have any photos i've taken at 100mm
 
joescrivens said:
100m on a crop is a strange length though, bit too long for portrait, not long enough for wildlife and sports ---hmmmm I don't think I have any photos i've taken at 100mm
Click to expand...

That seems a very odd thing to say. What on earth makes 85mm any more correct than 100mm? Surely you use whatever focal length is correct for the perspective and framing you desire. I've just gone through my Lightroom catalogue of 6,500 images. I have 287 photos taken at exactly 85mm and 230 taken at exactly 100mm, but it's not like I don't shoot at other focal lengths near those figures.

20100121_093151_LR.jpg


Since 137 of those 287 were taken with my 17-85, all that means is that the lens was used at max focal length. It does not mean I would not have liked a little more length. Perhaps I really would have liked 100mm for most of those shots.

Of course, the converse may also be true - I've shot a lot with my 100-400. At times I have used it at 100mm, but it might be true that I would have preferred 90mm, or even 85mm. The point is, you shoot with whatever you have available and make the best of it. If what you really want is a 120mm prime, for whatever reason, then the 100mm would be the better choice. If what you really want is an 80mm prime then I guess the 85mm is the better choice. If in doubt, get the 85mm, because at least you can crop to get an FOV equivalent to 100mm. You cannot do the reverse.

By the way, as far as sports is concerned, for indoor sports even 85mm may be too long. I tried my hand at basketball last week, with my 7D and 70-200. Even at 70mm I was struggling to get enough width at times.

Here's a quick candid "portrait", shot with with a 40D at 200mm. Do you think 200mm was a problem? Should I have set the lens to 85mm and then run up towards the subject for the shot? If I had set the lens to 100mm instead of 85mm would the shot have looked worse?

20080615_140955_5686_LR.jpg
 
Thats just my opinion, whether it seems odd to you or not, lol.

Thats great that you have so many taken at 100mm. When I check my focal lengths I have 0 taken at 100mm. When it comes to portraits that focal length is considered optimum because of the perspective for the subject. Also when indoors it would be difficult to get far enough away from the subject at 100mm on a 1.6 crop.
 
grifter09 said:
Thanks Matt.
I see a big difference between the pricing of tubes, particularly between Canon, Kenko and other 3rd party.
Will investigate further.
Thanks for info.
Would love to see sample in your own time.
Click to expand...

1st one 85mm f1.8 lens plus a 13mm tube f22


2nd one 100mm (macro) no tubes f22



3rd one 85mm f1.8 plus 31mm tubes f8


4th one 100m macro no tubes f8


30% crops, straight out of the camera.

HTH

Matt
 
tdodd said:
That seems a very odd thing to say. What on earth makes 85mm any more correct than 100mm? Surely you use whatever focal length is correct for the perspective and framing you desire. I've just gone through my Lightroom catalogue of 6,500 images. I have 287 photos taken at exactly 85mm and 230 taken at exactly 100mm, but it's not like I don't shoot at other focal lengths near those figures.


Since 137 of those 287 were taken with my 17-85, all that means is that the lens was used at max focal length. It does not mean I would not have liked a little more length. Perhaps I really would have liked 100mm for most of those shots.

Of course, the converse may also be true - I've shot a lot with my 100-400. At times I have used it at 100mm, but it might be true that I would have preferred 90mm, or even 85mm. The point is, you shoot with whatever you have available and make the best of it. If what you really want is a 120mm prime, for whatever reason, then the 100mm would be the better choice. If what you really want is an 80mm prime then I guess the 85mm is the better choice. If in doubt, get the 85mm, because at least you can crop to get an FOV equivalent to 100mm. You cannot do the reverse.

By the way, as far as sports is concerned, for indoor sports even 85mm may be too long. I tried my hand at basketball last week, with my 7D and 70-200. Even at 70mm I was struggling to get enough width at times.

Here's a quick candid "portrait", shot with with a 40D at 200mm. Do you think 200mm was a problem? Should I have set the lens to 85mm and then run up towards the subject for the shot? If I had set the lens to 100mm instead of 85mm would the shot have looked worse?
Click to expand...
you have a real bee in your bonnet about this don't you lol, it's just my opinion, you don't need to go all out to try and prove me wrong ;) let it go man! :D
 
Some good replies there,still doing a lot of reading on this lens.:)(y)
 
Thanks very much for that Mattbin.

1&2 is a real toss of a coin.
I could be wrong but I think I notice an ever so slight difference in terms of sharpness between 3&4 despite them both being at f8. This could be in some way linked to light levels as there seems to be slightly less light falling on the fourth one (not sure if in practise this would have an impact on sharpness or indeed perceived sharpness).

But really all in all thats pretty impressive out of the 85mm with a tube.
By the way, I ordered a set of tubes on ebay for £5 delivered from China.
I figured lets try the cheapest option first.
I don't need auto focus anyway as I shoot primarily video (am i allowed mention that term here? :).
Will report back on them if anyone is interested.
 
Yes grifter that would be good if you would.:)(y)
 
grifter09 said:
Thanks very much for that Mattbin.

1&2 is a real toss of a coin.
I could be wrong but I think I notice an ever so slight difference in terms of sharpness between 3&4 despite them both being at f8. This could be in some way linked to light levels as there seems to be slightly less light falling on the fourth one (not sure if in practise this would have an impact on sharpness or indeed perceived sharpness).

But really all in all thats pretty impressive out of the 85mm with a tube.
By the way, I ordered a set of tubes on ebay for £5 delivered from China.
I figured lets try the cheapest option first.
I don't need auto focus anyway as I shoot primarily video (am i allowed mention that term here? :).
Will report back on them if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

My pleasure, as you say there is virtually no difference so if you want a cheap way into macro and have an 85mm the tubes make a lot of sense.
When the wife and I go on a macro shoot together I let her use 'my' 100/2.8 and I am happy to use the 85/tube combo as I know the results are going to be almost identical.

Matt
 
I think it is a very natural looking shot,excellent.:)(y)
 
Cheap tubes don't autofocus.

I've bought a set of Kenko DG AF Auto extension tubes which DO autofocus etc and they're cheaper then the Canon ones.

I got them on here for approx £75.00.

They are great especially when used in conjunction with the "Nifty Fifty."
 
:)Probably in the region of around £ 200-£250
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top