Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Maxunderground news unavailable

The choice..
EF 50mm f1.2
4 votes
EF 85mm f1.2
6 votes

First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  [03]  Go to the next page  Last page
Let's say you had an interesting choice to make...
show user profile  soontekk
Let's say you own a Canon Eos camera.
You like low light, shallow depth, artistic images, landscapes and portraits.
What would you choose ?
And why ?

melting ur brainz!
/ FOS4 / FO2 / Blurb / Twitter / Facebook / Vimeo /

read 695 times
9/29/2011 6:10:28 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:10:28 PM)
show user profile  Nik Clark
My brother has the 85mm F1.2 and he loves it. It takes amazing pictures.

But, you do need to be quite a distance from the subject (which can actually be a good thing). Personally, I think I'd go for the 50mm, as it has a wider FOV. I love my (much cheaper) 50mm.

I miss taking photos. All I have is a cheap 50mm now, since my expensive Canon lens died just out of it's warranty. Boo hoo.

read 691 times
9/29/2011 6:13:17 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:15:24 PM)
show user profile  Error404
Depends on what camera you have.

If you have a full chip camera, I'd go for the 85. If you have a 1.6x cropped chip camera, i'd go for the 50. if you have a 1.3x crop, Idonno, toss up I guess, probably the 50.

For me, the 85 on a 1.6x crop camera might be a bit long for general shooting, but it's just long enough on a full chip camera. the 50 on a cropped camera would act similar to the 85 on a full chip.

I have the 85/1.2 (first generation) on a full chip 1Ds2, and I love it dearly. It really is a nice chunk of glass. I've never shot with the 50, but it looks like a similar design. -

read 682 times
9/29/2011 6:21:19 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:35:34 PM)
show user profile  Dr. Jim
Kurt....if you have to ask?....You're missing the whole point.
It's all situational.......
read 657 times
9/29/2011 6:43:22 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:43:22 PM)
show user profile  StevegeK
landscapes = wide. So for that I'd go for a 28mm or lower. Actually a 28mm Pentax lens with proper adapter might be more your cup of tea.

As for portraits, it depends indeed on the camera. Why does it need to be 1.2? 1.4 is fine too.. the money in price is HUGE tho.

My Free Textures!
My Portfolio

My photolog.

read 656 times
9/29/2011 6:44:17 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:44:17 PM)
show user profile  reeves1984
mmmm I bet that 1.2 is nice, 50!

Simon Reeves - VFX Artist & Blog
twitter <-- I work here

read 646 times
9/29/2011 6:54:39 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 6:54:39 PM)
show user profile  Error404
>> landscapes = wide. So for that I'd go for a 28mm or lower. Actually a 28mm Pentax lens with proper adapter might be more your cup of tea.

Actually, I like using my longer lenses for landscapes quite a bit. To me landscape does not automatically = wide lens, or not even most of the time in my opinion. When I'm just out hiking and snapping photos, I'll usually just bring a wide just because it doesn't weigh as much or take up as much room. But if I'm setting out to really take landscape photos, I bring a 28, 135, and 400 (with a doubler, to make 800 if I want). And sometimes a 50 or 85.

With longer lenses, you can find lots of nice compositions that don't look similar to each other without moving from your position because you are only looking at a small slice of the landscape infront of you. I like picking out compositions with a longer lens for landscapes rather than a wider lens. I do shoot with the wider lens, but not all of the time or even most of the time if I have longer lenses with me. Maybe that's just me though :)

Here's one at 800mm and one at 135mm (if I remember correctly), facing the same general direction, and about 10 minutes apart. If all you had was a wide lens with you, both shots would look like the same location but different cloud arrangement. But with the longer lenses, you can pick and choose your compositions so that they don't even look similar at all. -

read 635 times
9/29/2011 7:47:22 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 7:52:24 PM)
show user profile  soontekk
i have to agree with Daniel,

lately i tend to capture landscapes with my 70-200 to get like the ones posted.

i am used to my 50mm 1.4 which is fun and nice but a bit dull
i wonder how the longer 85 would feel like so i'll have to wait for the test

still, i have time, it won't be untill next year before i decide on which on i'll get

melting ur brainz!
/ FOS4 / FO2 / Blurb / Twitter / Facebook / Vimeo /

read 617 times
9/29/2011 8:17:28 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 8:17:28 PM)
show user profile  Dub.
I have both and a 5DII and I'd probably say the 85mm

the 50mm is more of a "blah" focal length. (still useful enough to own though)

read 598 times
9/29/2011 9:28:11 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 9:28:11 PM)
show user profile  Error404
as far as focal length, set your 70-200 to 85, and you'll get a feel for how the focal length feels. Granted, it'll be alot different holding the camera with that big zoom, but that might give you an idea how you like the focal length difference from 50 to 85. -

read 579 times
9/29/2011 11:57:21 PM (last edit: 9/29/2011 11:58:34 PM)
show user profile  soontekk
did that with my 24-105 to feel the difference between 50-85
50=boring as fook
85=argh i need more room

melting ur brainz!
/ FOS4 / FO2 / Blurb / Twitter / Facebook / Vimeo /

read 576 times
9/30/2011 12:04:18 AM (last edit: 9/30/2011 12:04:18 AM)
show user profile  Error404
work those feet, back up! Manual zoom -

read 575 times
9/30/2011 12:09:08 AM (last edit: 9/30/2011 12:09:21 AM)
show user profile  Sylverstalker
I'd say that if you already have the 50mm 1.4 go for the 85. It is a nice portrait length for a FF camera if that is what you are shooting with.

read 567 times
9/30/2011 1:28:36 AM (last edit: 9/30/2011 1:28:36 AM)
show user profile  Bobbyboy
Well here's the thing, they have to suit your needs, if you need a wider lens then the 50mm will suit you better and for portraits the 85mm (assuming you are using FF)
But and it is a big but, the 85mm f1.2 is a highly regarded lens, for its beautifully rendered shallow DOF (and lets face it, in todays world of iso 50 million, you dont spend a fortune on a lens for half a stop of extra light), and good sharpness across the frame even from wide open.

The 50mm on the other hand is known to have some pretty but ugly bokeh at times and the boarder resolution is pretty much no existent till about f2.8 - f4

Focal length aside, the 85 is in my opinion much better value for money

read 552 times
9/30/2011 2:25:18 AM (last edit: 9/30/2011 2:25:18 AM)
show user profile  nm8r
Personally, I wouldn't think of having either lens in my lens lineup. I would rent them if I wanted to use either. Their price vs the f/1.8 versions of either 50mm or 85mm don't seem to justify the expense. At $1,549.00 for the 50mm f/1.2 and $2,099.00 for the 80mm f/1.2 I don't think it's money as well spent as any of the fixed focal length L- glass f/2.8 zooms - unless you have those already and money is no object.
If you had this range of zooms - EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM / EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM /EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM or similar f/2.8 versions and some f/1.8 primes that would be a great pro kit.
Of course in the end, how you spend your money is up to you.
Just think - how often would you be at f/1.2 when shooting landscapes? There would be a difference in sharpness at f/8 but would be slight.
For portraits, if you can justify the expense then the 85mm from experience is an amazing lens though.
read 546 times
9/30/2011 3:05:47 AM (last edit: 10/4/2011 6:12:37 AM)
First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  [03]  Go to the next page  Last page
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window