Anyone having experience with Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens?

[rml]

My friend told me to get this for portrait shot, is this the right one?

I have Canon Xti

 

[ElFenix]

no personal experience. everyone who has one seems to love it, though. iirc it's slightly sharper than the 85L at the same apertures.

 

[996GT2]

If you have an XTi, also consider the 50mm f/1.8 "Plastic Fantastic," which is equivalent to a 80mm lens when mounted on an XTi. You may find that 85mm is too long for portrait shots on an XTi, since an 85mm lens on an XTi acts like a 135mm lens on a full frame or film body. Still within the portrait range, but you need to be standing farther back than with the 50mm f/1.8.

 

[rml]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens is like $80 but the 85mm f/1.8 USM is over $200.

Is the $80 lens really beat the sharpness of the $200 lens?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: rml
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens is like $80 but the 85mm f/1.8 USM is over $200.

Is the $80 lens really beat the sharpness of the $200 lens?

Both lenses are very sharp. The 50mm f/1.8 is one of Canon's best cheap lenses and exceeds the optical quality of many $1000+ zoom lenses because a prime lens is much easier to make and design. It's cheap because a 50mm design is very simple; also, the f/1.8 lens is mostly built with plastic, with a dinky DC autofocus motor.

If you have $250 to spend you should also consider the 50mm f/1.4 USM, which adds a micro USM motor for quieter focusing (still not ring USM though), better build quality, an 8 bladed aperture for better bokeh than the 50mm f/1.8, and a faster maximum aperture of f/1.4.

 

[rml]

996GT2, thanks for the advice

 

[foghorn67]

The 85 1.8 is a gift from the gods. I had the 50 1.8, but lent to a lady at church who shoots all the baptisms and what not. I don't miss it at all.
You are going to have to figure out if you can deal with 85mm on a crop body. If you can (requires backpedaling a bit), you will be rewarded by one of the best lenses in Canon's line-up. The only fault of it is a bit of CA, however that is really easily correctable. It's pin sharp, the AF is the bees knees, and the bokeh is creamy smooth compared to the 50 1.8.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
iirc it's slightly sharper than the 85L at the same apertures.

No, the 85 f/1.8 is 'soft' compared to the 85 f/1.2 at the f/1.8 aperture. However, you're comparing two totally different set of optics, focal length aside.

I will echo everything 996GT2 said. Excellent, accurate, and detailed info! The 50 f/1.4, new, is around the $300 mark, depending on where you shop. Remember, non-L series lenses don't come with lens hoods, so you may want to look into that. I always put on the lens hoods to help protect the front element from being bumped, scratched, or anything like that. Additionally, it does serve its purpose as reducing the amount of flare from the sun or other lights in and near the frame's edge.

To answer the OP's question, the 85 f/1.8 is a great portrait lens, but sometimes you don't always have the room available to take certain shots. At least with the 50 f/1.8 for only $80, you can afford to get a little closer to your subjects. The 50mm length is great for full and half-body shots while the 85mm is spectacular for head and shoulder type shots. This is true for full-frame and 1.3x crop cameras, but 1.6x crop, like yours, you may want to opt for the 50mm and see how that goes. It is a very capable piece of glass...and lots of plastic.

FYI, I have both lenses.

~Travis

 

[soydios]

The 85mm focal length is great for portraits when using a full-frame camera, such as 35mm film or the Canon EOS-1Ds series, Nikon D3/D700, or Sony A900.

The 50mm lens on your 1.6x-crop camera provides the same angle of view as an 80mm lens on a full-frame camera.

 

[angry hampster]

I found it to be too long on my 20D when I owned it. I tend to always shoot wide though -- I now don't own any lenses longer than 70mm with my 5D. However, it is a brilliant lens to use. Very sharp, extremely fast and accurate focusing, and very good contrast. Its sister lens, the 100mm f/2, is slightly better at handling chromatic aberrations and purple fringing.

 

[randomlinh]

I loved the 85/1.8 when I had it.. fast as hell, sharp... wonderful. The only problem I had was it was very awkward to use on my crop. It was too long to use indoors, and just a bit odd outdoors. But given that, I do regret selling it. Thinking of going back to primes, but I am torn w/ zoom convenience.

 

[ivan2]

I have a takumar 50mm 1.4 for that purpose... crazy sharp from 2.8 up. I agree that for 1.6 crop you should be looking at 50mm as portrait.

 

[foghorn67]

All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

It's the same angle of view, so yes, it actually will.

The depth of field is still calculated from the actual focal length, however. So a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 1.5x/1.6x crop body will have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens and the depth of field of an 80mm lens set at f/2.8.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67
All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

It's the same angle of view, so yes, it actually will.

The depth of field is still calculated from the actual focal length, however. So a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 1.5x/1.6x crop body will have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens and the depth of field of an 80mm lens set at f/2.8.

what? care to revise your statement? Not talking about angle of view.
For an extreme example. Try using a 28 or 30mm lens for a 50mm replacement on a crop body. Notice that you still have the same perspective distortion as you would using one of those lenses on a FF.
-edit-this is called "perspective compression". It's the reason portraits have more than one portrait lens, even in the studio. They can see fit on how much they want to flatten out things that stand out, like noses.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67
All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

It's the same angle of view, so yes, it actually will.

The depth of field is still calculated from the actual focal length, however. So a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 1.5x/1.6x crop body will have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens and the depth of field of an 80mm lens set at f/2.8.

what? care to revise your statement? Not talking about angle of view.
For an extreme example. Try using a 28 or 30mm lens for a 50mm replacement on a crop body. Notice that you still have the same perspective distortion as you would using one of those lenses on a FF.
-edit-this is called "perspective compression". It's the reason portraits have more than one portrait lens, even in the studio. They can see fit on how much they want to flatten out things that stand out, like noses.

Unfortunately I don't have a full-frame camera on which to demonstrate this. Can anybody test this?
I hate to cite Ken Rockwell, but it's the best comparison I could find: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...ll-frame-advantage.htm
Note that in the first and second roll-over example images, where the focal length is adjusted between sensor sizes to keep the same angle of view, that the perspective (ratio of sizes of objects at different distances) doesn't change when the angle of view is kept constant.
But in short, it's the angle of view that matters.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67
All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

It's the same angle of view, so yes, it actually will.

The depth of field is still calculated from the actual focal length, however. So a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 1.5x/1.6x crop body will have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens and the depth of field of an 80mm lens set at f/2.8.

what? care to revise your statement? Not talking about angle of view.
For an extreme example. Try using a 28 or 30mm lens for a 50mm replacement on a crop body. Notice that you still have the same perspective distortion as you would using one of those lenses on a FF.
-edit-this is called "perspective compression". It's the reason portraits have more than one portrait lens, even in the studio. They can see fit on how much they want to flatten out things that stand out, like noses.

Unfortunately I don't have a full-frame camera on which to demonstrate this. Can anybody test this?
I hate to cite Ken Rockwell, but it's the best comparison I could find: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...ll-frame-advantage.htm
Note that in the first and second roll-over example images, where the focal length is adjusted between sensor sizes to keep the same angle of view, that the perspective (ratio of sizes of objects at different distances) doesn't change when the angle of view is kept constant.
But in short, it's the angle of view that matters.

You don't need a FF to test this. Slap a 30 or a 28mm on your crop and notice the distortion. Now imagine the opposite if going north of 50mm. 50mm is the closest to a normal non-distortion perspective. So 35 extra mm gives you weeeee bit more compression. It's subtle, but it's there.

 

[angry hampster]

Non-distortion perspective? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
Non-distortion perspective? What is that supposed to mean?

fck, aren't you in college?
Okay, I have been up since 330 AM. how about non-distorted?

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67
All you guys are missing something. 50mm on a crop body is like an 85mm on FF only in focal length only.
It won't give you the subtle flattening effect of a telephoto.

It's the same angle of view, so yes, it actually will.

The depth of field is still calculated from the actual focal length, however. So a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 1.5x/1.6x crop body will have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens and the depth of field of an 80mm lens set at f/2.8.

what? care to revise your statement? Not talking about angle of view.
For an extreme example. Try using a 28 or 30mm lens for a 50mm replacement on a crop body. Notice that you still have the same perspective distortion as you would using one of those lenses on a FF.
-edit-this is called "perspective compression". It's the reason portraits have more than one portrait lens, even in the studio. They can see fit on how much they want to flatten out things that stand out, like noses.

Unfortunately I don't have a full-frame camera on which to demonstrate this. Can anybody test this?
I hate to cite Ken Rockwell, but it's the best comparison I could find: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...ll-frame-advantage.htm
Note that in the first and second roll-over example images, where the focal length is adjusted between sensor sizes to keep the same angle of view, that the perspective (ratio of sizes of objects at different distances) doesn't change when the angle of view is kept constant.
But in short, it's the angle of view that matters.

You don't need a FF to test this. Slap a 30 or a 28mm on your crop and notice the distortion. Now imagine the opposite if going north of 50mm. 50mm is the closest to a normal non-distortion perspective. So 35 extra mm gives you weeeee bit more compression. It's subtle, but it's there.

I'm well aware of the effect you're talking about: with a wideangle near objects look bigger and far objects look smaller (exaggerate depth), while with a telephoto near and far objects look similar in size (flatten depth). What I'm saying is that the focal length range definition of wideangle, normal, and telephoto changes with image sensor or film format, because it's dependent on the angle of view.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: angry hampster
Non-distortion perspective? What is that supposed to mean?

fck, aren't you in college?
Okay, I have been up since 330 AM. how about non-distorted?

Rectilinear vs. fisheye. We're both talking rectilinear; I have almost zilch experience with fisheyes.

 

[angry hampster]

I have never experienced distortion with a 28 or 35mm lens on either a full frame camera or a crop aside from slight barrel or pincushion with cheap lenses. What the hell are you guys talking about? Are you takling about distortion of facial features with a wide lens? It has to do with subject distance, not focal length. People can look perfectly normal when shot with a fisheye lens as long as they're centered in the frame and more than a few feet away.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
I have never experienced distortion with a 28 or 35mm lens on either a full frame camera or a crop aside from slight barrel or pincushion with cheap lenses. What the hell are you guys talking about? Are you takling about distortion of facial features with a wide lens? It has to do with subject distance, not focal length. People can look perfectly normal when shot with a fisheye lens as long as they're centered in the frame and more than a few feet away.

ugh, just do a comparison of your own.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: foghorn67


ugh, just do a comparison of your own.

? A subject placed equidistant from a camera with a 70mm lens will not be any more distorted than with a 28mm lens, assuming both share quality glass.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: foghorn67


ugh, just do a comparison of your own.

? A subject placed equidistant from a camera with a 70mm lens will not be any more distorted than with a 28mm lens, assuming both share quality glass.

the inherit properties of wide angle lenses take the assumption right out of it.
You don't need that many elements in prime telephoto lenses. Also notice the curvature in those elements are much greater for correction in wide angle lenses.

Again, there is paper world, and there is real world.