50mm or 85mm?

[Sabaki]

So I already own (and love!) the Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS but I'm weighing up adding a bokeh monster to my kit bag too

Thing is, I would prefer the 85mm but it is so close in focal length to the 100mm which had me thinking of considering a 50mm.

Which way would you guys go if you already own a 100m? 50mm or 85mm?

 

[Kit.]

So I already own (and love!) the Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS but I'm weighing up adding a bokeh monster to my kit bag too

Thing is, I would prefer the 85mm but it is so close in focal length to the 100mm which had me thinking of considering a 50mm.

Which way would you guys go if you already own a 100m? 50mm or 85mm?

You already have a bokeh monster, 400/5.6. No full frame 50mm lens will match it. 85/1.2 will. 85/1.4 will be close.

 

[Sabaki]

So I already own (and love!) the Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS but I'm weighing up adding a bokeh monster to my kit bag too

Thing is, I would prefer the 85mm but it is so close in focal length to the 100mm which had me thinking of considering a 50mm.

Which way would you guys go if you already own a 100m? 50mm or 85mm?

You already have a bokeh monster, 400/5.6. No full frame 50mm lens will match it. 85/1.2 will. 85/1.4 will be close.

Ha! Point taken but difficult to use a 400mm in a small environ or studio =))

 

[BeenThere]

So I already own (and love!) the Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS but I'm weighing up adding a bokeh monster to my kit bag too

Thing is, I would prefer the 85mm but it is so close in focal length to the 100mm which had me thinking of considering a 50mm.

Which way would you guys go if you already own a 100m? 50mm or 85mm?

You already have a bokeh monster, 400/5.6. No full frame 50mm lens will match it. 85/1.2 will. 85/1.4 will be close.

If you are focused at or near infinity to get what you want in the frame, then everything beyond your subject is also in focus. Where’s the bokeh in that?

 

[Kit.]

You already have a bokeh monster, 400/5.6. No full frame 50mm lens will match it. 85/1.2 will. 85/1.4 will be close.

If you are focused at or near infinity to get what you want in the frame, then everything beyond your subject is also in focus. Where’s the bokeh in that?

For 400/5.6, that "near infinity" will be about one kilometer away. Which means that everything closer than 500m to you will be unsharp.

You normally (not always, but normally) use it to focus closer than that.

 

[PavelR]

You did not mention maximum aperture of proposed FL lenses. I prefer the background separation and IQ of 135/2 over 85/1.2 II. I owned 50/1.4, but there is no corner sharpness... I can not comment 50/1.2 - I do not have personal experience with it. (IQ of 85/1.8 is pretty bad on the contrast highlights - even on f2.8 ~ cars / jewelry.)

 

[Durf]

you may want to consider the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2

 

[stevelee]

I used the 50mm f/1.4 for portraits with my T3i, but have found no need for it on my 6D2. I don't shoot a lot of portraits, so for now the 100mm 2.8 macro works for now as my 85mm surrogate on the 6D2 if I want a fairly blurry background. Otherwise, the appropriate range of the 24-105mm kit lens works just great for portraits, especially when I want the environment as part of the composition, though not necessarily 100% in focus. As for the 50mm on crop focus, obviously for a portrait with a blurry background, corner sharpness is not a real consideration.

My other frequent use for shallow depth of field is for pictures of blossoms back in the woods, especially dogwoods. In this picture the blooms stand out not only because of their color, but also the focus.

It is not the best example, since it was taken with the kit lens at 105mm f/5.6. I have since purchased the 100-400mm zoom that will do that type of thing better at the same aperture because of longer focal length. And blowing up the JPEG crop as this board does makes the blooms look a little fuzzy but over-sharpened at the same time, so you have to imagine the effect a bit.

 

[Random Orbits]

85mm. It is a different use case than macro. If you're dealing with single subject portraiture, the 85mm will help limit the field of view (compared to the 50mm) which will help arranging the background behind the subject easier. I have only a 8 ft wide backdrop system and using a longer FL reduces having to eliminate the background in post especially with 2 or more subjects (which is why I usually opt for the 70-200 instead of the 24-70 if I can get away with it). The 100L works ok for portraiture in a pinch, but having an additional two stops of aperture/DoF to trade is very useful. The 100L can frame tighter just because it is a macro has a better max mag ratio.

 

[NancyP]

First of all - what are you photographing? Pick appropriate focal length for your subject, then go for fast aperture. You have a huge number of choices: 50 or 85 f/1.2 or f/1.4, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8.

 

[DZY]

First of all - what are you photographing? Pick appropriate focal length for your subject, then go for fast aperture. You have a huge number of choices: 50 or 85 f/1.2 or f/1.4, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8.

I was dealing with the blur-focal-aperture myths a little while ago when I expanded my lens line. What I found was you have to know (sort of) how far is you object AND the background. The absolute blur is based on object distance, the separation of the background, f length and f/ number. The relative blur (respect to the entire frame) adds the angle of view into the chart. Basically, the closer the object, the shorter f is used; the closer the background, the shorter f is needed. BUT, the shorter f is used, the crowed the frame COULD be (because of the large angle of view). When f and f/ are known, the RATIO of the object size to the separation distance determine the blur.
For 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, at head shot (1ft) and 5ft in front of the background (1:5), 100/2 and 50/1.4 have same amount of blur, and 85/1.8 is 3.5% better of the blur size. So they are the same, but 100/2 should be more appealing because the background is less messy.
Here are the ratio-cut for these three lens of absolute blur on a crop sensor:
at 1:12, 100=85=14% more blur than 50
at 1:5, 100=50=3.5% more than 85
at 1:4, 50=85=4% more than 100
Keep in mind the relative blur which is the look-like blur that I think matters to the final feeling has to do with the background cleanness. (ex. bushes vs wall).
I tested this finding with my 20/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4 and 200/2. So I can tell you it all depends on the situation.

David

 

[Kit.]

I was dealing with the blur-focal-aperture myths a little while ago when I expanded my lens line. What I found was you have to know (sort of) how far is you object AND the background. The absolute blur is based on object distance, the separation of the background, f length and f/ number. The relative blur (respect to the entire frame) adds the angle of view into the chart. Basically, the closer the object, the shorter f is used; the closer the background, the shorter f is needed. BUT, the shorter f is used, the crowed the frame COULD be (because of the large angle of view). When f and f/ are known, the RATIO of the object size to the separation distance determine the blur.

I find it simpler to think in the terms of the absolute aperture in the object plane and the ratio of distance to object plane to distance to background plane.

When the ratio is 1 (the "background" is the object in focus), the blur is 0. When the ratio is 0 (the background is at infinity), the blur has the size of the absolute aperture (i.e. is of the size of the entrance pupil as it were put directly behind the object, as close as possible). In-between it's the absolute aperture multiplied by (1 - ratio).

In this approach, you don't need to care about what happens at the image plane (or anywhere else behind the entrance pupil), as long as you know that the image of the scene you are shooting fits onto you sensor.

 

[peterzuehlke]

you didn't mention the canon 100mm f/2.0, a very nice lens wide open. If you need IS (like the 100L my go to lens for a long time) then you may want the 85mm IS or without IS the Sigma 85 (don't own one) or the 85mm Tamron 1.8 IS own it, love it. I think 50mm is too wide most of the time, though i just bought the 45mm 1.8 IS Tamron and it is taking some shots away from my Canon 35mm IS.

 

[Sabaki]

Hi Nancy P

I'm looking to delve into portraiture and looking for a lens that will allow me to knock the background out altogether

My logic is telling me that a 85mm would be the right selection but I'm concerned about redundancy due to 85mm being close to 100mm

 

[stevelee]

Hi Nancy P

I'm looking to delve into portraiture and looking for a lens that will allow me to knock the background out altogether

My logic is telling me that a 85mm would be the right selection but I'm concerned about redundancy due to 85mm being close to 100mm

Yes, 85mm is much closer to 100mm that it sounds. If you are using a crop-sensor camera, a 100mm or even 85mm lens will put you a little too far away from the subject. The 50mm will be better for an individual, and much better for multiple people.

On a full-frame camera, 85mm is about ideal for individual portraits, but as you say, 100mm is about the same thing. The way to make the background blurry is to put a lot of distance between the subject and the background and open up the lens as wide as it goes. That's the gist of the data you've been given above.

 

[Larsskv]

In your position, I would go for the 50L. I am very aware that it is criticized for quite a few weaknesses, but every time I use mine I get pictures I am very happy with. They look sooo great that I am more than willing to live with some CA and an out of focus shot every once in a while.

The 85mm are nice as well, but close to your 100mm and less versatile than the 50.

Actually, I keep an extra set of lenses at a vacation house, and the only lens I have two of is the 50L.

Stay away from the Sigma 50 ART. It is sharp, but it has terrible background separation.

 

[docsmith]

I own the 100 f/2.8 L IS macro. Amazing portrait lens. Then I also own the Sigma 50A and 70-200 f/2.8 II, both of which I also use for portraits


Ultimately, I find the 100 L and 50A to be a very good combination for portraits, yet I do sometimes want something a bit faster for the portraits I do shot (senior/baby/kid pics for myself and friends).


Right or wrong, I have subscribed to the various "holy trinity" of lenses. For primes, I tends to see two commong "holy trinities":

• 24 mm, 50 mm, and 135 mm
• 35 mm, 85 mm, and 135 mm

Part of the reason I do not own a prime trinity myself is that I have found that the 100 mm L is in the "good enough" territory between the 85 mm and 135 mm. If I was to justify the 85, there is very little difference in the perspectives, but the light gathering ability of faster glass plus blur of a faster lens is tempting. At 135 mm, a focal length I love, there is a bit more separation in terms of perspective, and a bit over a stop advantage in terms of aperture (135 Art).

That is a long way of saying, If you are looking for a compliment to the 100 L, would recommend the 50 mm over the 85 mm. The 50 mm can be used for waist up, and even shoulder up if you get closer. Step back and you are getting couples, whole bodies and small groups. If you want a single lens to do all portraits, essentially replacing the 100 L for portraits with a lens with more blur and faster aperture, then I'd recommend a 85 prime.

Good luck!

 

[Ozarker]

Personally, I would sell the 100mm and get the new 85mm f/1.4L IS and wait for the upcoming 135 f/2L IS. That's if portraits are your thing.

 

[Kit.]

Personally, I would sell the 100mm

But that's the only macro lens the OP has, or?

 

[stevelee]

Did we ever find out whether the body is FF or APS-C? If the former, then 85 or 100 mm is good; if the latter, then 50mm is about right.