asamimasa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I picked up a 85 a few months back, and it's got a significantly higher learning curve than any other kind of lens. Several more variables you need to keep track of, and messing around with them may result in enough distance shift that you end up out of focus and need to repeat a few steps; this gets more and more frustrating the farther you deviate from distant, stagnant subjects (i.e. landscapes). On a tripod, much easier. But who uses tripods for typical portraits as of late?
They're really at home in landscape and product/still shots. The 45 and 85 are both 1:2 macros. I've messed around with a 45 for a short while, but I did end up preferring the 85. Focal length is entirely up to what you plan to use it for; they're all blisteringly sharp, so it wouldn't be wise to pick one based on optics alone.
If you're looking to make the blurry effect you see in a lot of portraits, it might be worth your while to save $600-1000, pick up the 85 1.8G instead, and just do it in PP (I know, I know, I've gone and said the taboo phrase). Blurring is something that can be easily done in post and perhaps with greater control even, but control over the plane of focus to keep something like a plate of food entirely in focus without stopping down to f/40 and above isn't replicable unless you focus stack, which isn't realistically possible without a tripod setup.
On an unrelated note, I'm in the same boat as you. College student (comp. engineering isn't even remotely close to photography), but spending perhaps too much time on the hobby 
|
