I am stuck between the 50mm f1.2 ($1,549) and the 85 mm f1.2 ($2,099). Outside of the obivous 35mm further reach, what makes the 85 so much better?
578411
What camera bodies do you currently own and for what type of shooting?? For portrait, people love the 85, some even say they prefer the 100mm. I own the 50L, the only thing I can say is that shooting at f1.2 takes practice, and the auto focus is a bit slower than most other modern day lens with AF.
578412
its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first I just keep it along with the 85. its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first... » Read More its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first I just keep it along with the 85. « Show Less
1908363
The focus on the copy I had was really slow and was too slow for chasing kids around. If you need a fast focusing lens you might look at the 50 1.8g. I found the 85 to be a little long on a cropped sensor camera and like the 50 better. The optics on this lens are amazing and you will be thrilled in that area. It is a great lens especially for the money and the focus speed and focal length are mostly personal preference. If you are looking for a lens where you can stand back a ways and still get the shot or want to fill the frame with a headshot this is a great lens.
2035888
There is no 85 f:2 made by Canon. There is the 85 f:1.8 and the 85 f:1.2.. I have both of these lenses and they work well with the EOS1d mark III.. Were you thinking different manufacturer?
838888
I have not owned that lens so I can not tell you. I would say that the 85 can be occasionally slow to focus in comparison to my 50 1.8d.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
1114925
The 15-85 is a BETTER lens for optical quality and IQ. The fact that it is wider is a bonus.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
1346884
The 50mm f/1.4 doesn't offer enough of an image quality boost over the 50mm f/1.8 to justify buying it. The 85mm f/1.8 offers faster ring type USM focusing, the 50mm f/1.8 does not. The 85mm f/1.8 has a rich and creamy bokeh that is as good or better than the 50mm f/1.4. While still being a great traditional portrait lens, the extra reach of the 85m f/1.8, makes it great for concerts, plays, and gymnasium sports. I like to say the 85mm f/1.8 is the lens that every parent should own (and anyone who wants to sell photos to parents too).
32351
Get the biggest (smallest f-stop) lens you can afford. If you get "close to the action" a 50mm ish is adequate. If you shoot from your seat in the middle of the theater, go 85mm ish. In my opinion (worth next to nothing) money on two f1.x fixed lenses is better spent than on an f2.x zoom.
1346889
I use the 50mm f/1.4 for almost everything. Although it is harder to get objects from far away, it is amazing what you can get out of it. The shallow depth of field is just top notch.
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
1150129
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken; I own the 24-105mm f/4L, but am looking for the best option for the extra focal length that makes portraits and candids really pop! As far as I can tell, even though the 200mm f/2.8 is well-built, people seem to have an almost religious zeal for the 135mm, making it all the more attractive.