datousteve wrote:
I'd like to pick up one of these in the near future to play with the thin depth of field on a FF camera. From my limited experience so far, I can make generally make due with one or the other when I'm out shooting. Bringing the 35 + 50 (or 85) as a two lens combo is usually good for general shooting. Maybe the 135 if I'd really like some tight shots.
A question for those of you that have experienced both lenses: which one would you prefer if you could only keep one? The 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 II? ...Show more →
Steve,
For my taste, a two-lens combo of 35mm and 85mm and a two-kens combo of 50mm and 135mm would make more sense than that of 35mm and 50mm or 85mm and 135mm. So, if you want to get a more pronounced difference in the focal length effect, you can make your choice based on what you already have in your lens line-up. Hope this helps.
I sold my 50L but I would never sell my "Cannonball" 85L Mk I. If you want something special around 50mm checkout the Voitlander 40mm F2.0. Tiny lens with a close up diopter as an included accessory. Takes both 52mm and 39mm too. filterSuper sharp (er than the 50 1.4/1.8) MF and built better than/as well as the Zeiss/Leicas. For about $400 it's so small/light you can always have it with you.
I have both but if I had too choose no doubts I'd get the 85.
I'm starting to uses the 50 a lot more though and being a bit wider than the 85, it is more versatile.
Also it is of course much lighter and smaller, a great lens to keep on your full frame most times
I actually just sold my 50L in favor of the 135L. I already have the 35L, so I thought having a 35mm and 50mm primes in my bag were a bit unnessary. Plus, I wanted a little more reach since I am only covered up to 105mm (even though I primarily on shoot city/landscapes). So the 135L was ideal for me.
Don't get me wrong, when I had the 50L, it was a great lens. I got some fantastic shots from it.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Your right. I'm fairly new to primes (only been using them for the past year). Here are three shots I've taken with a friend's 85L. From my limited knowledge, I believe I could've taken very similar photos with the 50L if I were to get slightly closer. Is this not accurate? I understand the concept of compression but don't personally see that huge of a difference between the 50 and the 85.
jerrykur wrote:
I find the longer focal length to be more flattering in portraits.
Thanks for that insight. I think I'll end up doing some head to head comparisons (no pun intended ) and try to see which I personally prefer. Just wish I had a second FF body because I don't like mounting and unmounting the 85mmL in fear of scratching that humongous rear element.
datousteve wrote:
...I believe I could've taken very similar photos with the 50L if I were to get slightly closer. Is this not accurate?
Yes, that's true. OTOH, the distance between yourself and a human subject can be of high importance. In order to get a typical head and shoulders portrait with a 50mm lens (on FF), you have to get close enough that many subjects will feel that you're getting in "their" space, not to mention, in their face. It usually affects their comfort, and it's often readily apparent in the expression on their face.
I have both and they're excellent lenses for different purposes, subjects and effect. But if I really had to choose which is my favourite then it'd be the 85L II.
Sir_Loin wrote:
I have both and they're excellent lenses for different purposes, subjects and effect. But if I really had to choose which is my favourite then it'd be the 85L II.
This seems to be something that many have mentioned in this thread.
Can you please elaborate on the different
A) purposes,
b) subjects, and
c) effect?
Thanks for pointing out that the "personal space" issue. I had never thought about that because I see tons of people taking amazing photos of models with the 50mm. Come to think of it, they were more 3/4 body shots rather than head+shoulder shots. It is something to definitely consider.
For portraits and head shots my go-to lenses would be either the 85L or 100L ... or the 70-200L. I have personally never been a fan of standard lenses, so I would go with a 35 rather than a 50 ... although I ended up with the 24L instead.
datousteve wrote:
Thanks for that insight. I think I'll end up doing some head to head comparisons (no pun intended ) and try to see which I personally prefer. Just wish I had a second FF body because I don't like mounting and unmounting the 85mmL in fear of scratching that humongous rear element.
On a related note, I've heard that the 50mm L inherently back focuses a bit between f/2.0-f/2.5 but is accurate at 1.2 and 2.8 onwards. I've also heard that the focus by wire of the 85mm L II is slower than other lenses. I noticed it was slow but didn't seem like a problem unless your shooting something where you have to be quick on your feet (like a wedding).
Are there any other quirks about these lenses that one should be aware of before making the plunge?
I haven't noticed focus problems with my 50/1.2L. Maybe that's because I almost always shoot it wide open. I'm sure that I occasionally use it stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, but not often. If I know I'll be shooting at smaller apertures, I'll use a different lens.
The AF on my 85/1.2L II is slow in comparison with my other 'snappy' EF lenses, but it's not at all bad for tracking in AI Servo (1D-series), once it's locked on. IOW, if you can get initial focus on a moving subject, it's generally fast enough to track it, using 1D-series bodies.
jcolwell wrote:
I haven't noticed focus problems with my 50/1.2L. Maybe that's because I almost always shoot it wide open. I'm sure that I occasionally use it stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, but not often. If I know I'll be shooting at smaller apertures, I'll use a different lens.
The AF on my 85/1.2L II is slow in comparison with my other 'snappy' EF lenses, but it's not at all bad for tracking in AI Servo (1D-series), once it's locked on. IOW, if you can get initial focus on a moving subject, it's generally fast enough to track it, using 1D-series bodies.
+1, fast and shorter focal length seem to be trickier on lesser AF bodies but it is not the lens fault like other has mentioned. My 50L/85L works perfectly on 1Ds2 but expected less keeper when using them with 5D(1/2)
jcolwell wrote:
you have to get close enough that many subjects will feel that you're getting in "their" space, not to mention, in their face. It usually affects their comfort, and it's often readily apparent in the expression on their face
Very true. Once you have that happen to you as a photographer you don't soon forget it.
May 02, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I really like the 50mm focal length on Full Frame (1DS mk3) because I can contextualize the subject while still being able to isolate it by defocusing the background to my liking.
I had the 85mm f1.2L and its a technically better lens than any of the 50's. But The focal length is a tad too long to my liking although I could work with it.
I ended up using the 70-200mm IS quite a bit instead of the 85. So I sold the 85.
My choice now would be the 50mm f1.2L no question. I own the 1.4 and use it a lot (great from f2.8 up, good at f2 which is where I use it the most) although I wish it were better wide open (which the 1.2L is but the 1.2 is bad away from the center).
I now own the 35mm f1.4 and love it. I wish Canon made a 75mm that would be perfect.
I used to own Nikon gear and I absolutely loved the 60mm. Oh well. Can't have it all!
) and try to see which I personally prefer. Just wish I had a second FF body because I don't like mounting and unmounting the 85mmL in fear of scratching that humongous rear element.