50mm vs 85mm on FF for portraits & group portraits?

[JRPhotos]

At this time, Canon does not offer any 50mm or 85mm with good value for money. I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and hated the contrast and sharpness when used in F2 or more open. Now I am very pleased with the Sigma 50Art.

To complement the great 35L II, the Canon 85mm F1.8 seems pretty decent when used in F2 or more closed. I preferred the Canon 100mm F2 for my purposes.

terrible advice. the 50L is super sharp if used properly. who cares about contrast? RAW & LR are your friends.

Yea 50L does rock, the worst advice here but then again its a forum so take it with a grain of salt.

I'm really surprised that the OP wants a 50 or 85 for group portraits. A prime would really be a waste as the DOF would limit the size and depth of people stacking if it's needed for low light. If it's not needed for low light there are much better suited lenses for such a task. In this circumstance I would and often do use a 16-35 f/4 as even in low light with a group most people can stand still long enough for a good shot with an appropriately large enough DOF. In my business, weddings and portrait photography the 16-35 has become indispensable.

I primarily used the 35 for couples and single photos but have used it in the past for groups with success but for large groups I typically switch over to the 24-105 and sacrifice the shallow depth of field due to the positioning if everyone.

The 85 1.2L II will arrive this Thursday for me to test. I used my Canon 100MM Macro L lens for portrait session last night and really liked how the bokeh came out but was a little limited being at 100 so I'm hoping that the 85 will be better. If it's not, I'll consider the 50. I had rented the 50 1.2 on my Canon 7D a few years ago and found it very difficult to get any tact sharp photos in a timley fashion with the slow auto-focus.

 

[Don Haines]

It may come down to personal preference, but I found (on a crop camera) that 30mm seemed best for groups, 50mm for individuals, 100 for head shots, and 600mm was to be avoided at all times

 

[Pookie]

At this time, Canon does not offer any 50mm or 85mm with good value for money. I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and hated the contrast and sharpness when used in F2 or more open. Now I am very pleased with the Sigma 50Art.

To complement the great 35L II, the Canon 85mm F1.8 seems pretty decent when used in F2 or more closed. I preferred the Canon 100mm F2 for my purposes.

terrible advice. the 50L is super sharp if used properly. who cares about contrast? RAW & LR are your friends.

Yea 50L does rock, the worst advice here but then again its a forum so take it with a grain of salt.

I'm really surprised that the OP wants a 50 or 85 for group portraits. A prime would really be a waste as the DOF would limit the size and depth of people stacking if it's needed for low light. If it's not needed for low light there are much better suited lenses for such a task. In this circumstance I would and often do use a 16-35 f/4 as even in low light with a group most people can stand still long enough for a good shot with an appropriately large enough DOF. In my business, weddings and portrait photography the 16-35 has become indispensable.

I primarily used the 35 for couples and single photos but have used it in the past for groups with success but for large groups I typically switch over to the 24-105 and sacrifice the shallow depth of field due to the positioning if everyone.

The 85 1.2L II will arrive this Thursday for me to test. I used my Canon 100MM Macro L lens for portrait session last night and really liked how the bokeh came out but was a little limited being at 100 so I'm hoping that the 85 will be better. If it's not, I'll consider the 50. I had rented the 50 1.2 on my Canon 7D a few years ago and found it very difficult to get any tact sharp photos in a timley fashion with the slow auto-focus.

The 85L is a killer lens... enjoy it. Probably not a good idea to rent as you'll want to keep it

One of my favorites for work and play...


So many people talk smack about the 50L but at least in my hands it delivers consistently... also another great choice but you may want to hold off until v2. Not that v1 is bad at all, i love it actually for all things from close ups to distance. Nice carry size to when you can only use one but need low light.

This was shot at f/1.6...

 

[d]

...and 600mm was to be avoided at all times

;D

 

[yungfat]

I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.

Hi DannyPwins, just asking, I thought many people have abandoned 17-40 f/4 go with the 16-35 f/4?
You might be the owner of 17-40, wish to know your thoughts on this lens.Thank you.

 

[DannyPwins]

I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.

Hi DannyPwins, just asking, I thought many people have abandoned 17-40 f/4 go with the 16-35 f/4?
You might be the owner of 17-40, wish to know your thoughts on this lens.Thank you.

I've personally never used it, but from the reviews I've read the 16-35 f4 is a great lens. Sharper all around than the 17-40, especially at the corners. I have the 17-40 f4 and it's fine for my needs. I shoot mainly events and assist in occasional videos for a young youtube star. The ultra wide-angle lenses are fun (at their widest angle) because they give you a unique look..focusing closely while getting a lot of background with your subject. You probably won't do too many shots like that often. I personally love them because I can shoot groups in tight spaces when I need to. The 17-40 is a lot cheaper though, almost half the price from canon refurb store (I buy almost all my lenses there). Here's a website I found that does a great comparison of both lenses. http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

Looking over my post I may have gotten a little distracted..lol.
I think the 17-40 is still a great lens, especially for the price now. I would get the 16-35 f 2.8 iii if I could afford it though. I didn't like my experience with the 16-35 f2.8 ii.

 

[Pookie]

I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.

Hi DannyPwins, just asking, I thought many people have abandoned 17-40 f/4 go with the 16-35 f/4?
You might be the owner of 17-40, wish to know your thoughts on this lens.Thank you.

I've personally never used it, but from the reviews I've read the 16-35 f4 is a great lens. Sharper all around than the 17-40, especially at the corners. I have the 17-40 f4 and it's fine for my needs. I shoot mainly events and assist in occasional videos for a young youtube star. The ultra wide-angle lenses are fun (at their widest angle) because they give you a unique look..focusing closely while getting a lot of background with your subject. You probably won't do too many shots like that often. I personally love them because I can shoot groups in tight spaces when I need to. The 17-40 is a lot cheaper though, almost half the price from canon refurb store (I buy almost all my lenses there). Here's a website I found that does a great comparison of both lenses. http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

Looking over my post I may have gotten a little distracted..lol.
I think the 17-40 is still a great lens, especially for the price now. I would get the 16-35 f 2.8 iii if I could afford it though. I didn't like my experience with the 16-35 f2.8 ii.

I own both the 16-35 f/4 IS and 16-35 f/2.8 II, also the 17-40 and 11-24. The 16-35 f/4 is the winner in my book as it is ridiculously sharp with little distortion. Unlike the 11-24 which can distort the foreground very strongly. I rarely use the 11-24 as when I want that much distortion I usually go for a fisheye.

The 17-40 cannot compete with these lenses... great lens but it's long in the tooth and nowhere near as sharp as the current offerings. I keep it to put on bodies that do scud work where I don't really care if it takes a dive. Not sure I'll get the new 16-35 f/2.8 though as I like the IS and for wide angles I rarely use the 2.8.

 

[suntoryboss_]

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?

 

[Pookie]

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?

Probably my second favorite lens behind the 85L... but the OP specifically asked about the 50 and 85. I would and do actually take the 135L over the 200 f/2 most of the time (both lenses were gifts from my wife ). So much easier a carry.

 

[Random Orbits]

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?

Too long for the OP. He's trying to replicate the FOV of a 35 on APS-C to FF. 50 is closer, 85 is a little longer. 135 is too long.

 

[d]

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?

Probably my second favorite lens behind the 85L... but the OP specifically asked about the 50 and 85. I would and do actually take the 135L over the 200 f/2 most of the time (both lenses were gifts from my wife ). So much easier a carry.

Whoa, how do you get a wife like that!?!

 

[Pookie]

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?

Probably my second favorite lens behind the 85L... but the OP specifically asked about the 50 and 85. I would and do actually take the 135L over the 200 f/2 most of the time (both lenses were gifts from my wife ). So much easier a carry.

Whoa, how do you get a wife like that!?!

I lucked out

 

[Baba_HT]

I love the 50mm on my 5dmk3 for portraits and daily shots. I always have 35 prime but want to add the 85 also. I think the 24mm is too wide for portraits. too much distortion

8)