50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?

[codewizpt]

Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?

[wayno]

(2)

[wayno]

In that I went down that route and have no qualms at all. The Siggy is tack sharp and luscious where it counts.

[Random Orbits]

Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?

If you're happy with your 50, get a 85 next.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Why not consider the Canon 85mm f/1.8?

[untitled10]

I love my 85 1.8, the saving could go towards more glass, maybe its worth consideration?

[verysimplejason]

If it were me, I'd get a 70-200 or 17-40(16-35) just to be a little bit flexible before I get an 85.  Anyway, you know what you need most.   

[PavelR]

Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?

Having 1.3x with the same lenses and question some time ago.
I owned 85/1.8 and upgraded to S 85/1.4.  (C1.8 = too much violet fringing and inconsistent AF)

[codewizpt]

I had both the 17-40 and 70-200 F4 non-is and sold them to get my primes.

If it were me, I'd get a 70-200 or 17-40(16-35) just to be a little bit flexible before I get an 85.  Anyway, you know what you need most.   

[robbymack]

Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?

1) how often do you shoot wide open on the 50, if a lot then the L would be a nice upgrade, if you're more or less at f2 or smaller all the time then there is little advantage in the L

2) a good lens indeed (caveat I don't own it), but the 85 1.8 is just as good IMHO and costs a lot less plus just be careful not to shoot wide open in high contrast or you get purple fringing, but even that is easily correctable in post and gone by f2.2. 

3) due to money sounds like it's not really an option, but if you can afford it it's one of the pieces of glass you will likely hold on to for a long time. 

[RS2021]

All things considered, EF 85 f1.8 sounds like the best compromise.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

All things considered, EF 85 f1.8 sounds like the best compromise.

+1.

[TexasBadger]

85 1.8. Great lens at a great price.

[Plato the Wise]

I have the 50L and 85L and have shot with the 85 1.8.

If you have the 50 1.4 and you can afford the 85L - I would definitely recommend the 85L. It is such an awesome lens for portraits and the 85L blows away the 85 1.8 in color and contrast. People forget sometimes that sharpness is only one part of what makes a lens awesome.

And of course there is the bokeh!

[wayno]

I've owned and used the 85 1.8 for a couple of years and it is indeed a very good lens but the Sigma 85 1.4 is another beast altogether. Suggest it is a more marked IQ and visual impact lens vs the 85 1.8 than the 50 1.2 is vs the 50 1.4.
The 85 1.4 has a considerable x- factor to its output - much like the 85L however I think the 85L is somewhat slow and specialized whereas the Sigma is just more versatile and very very close in IQ etc