JD750 Loc: SoCal

I have an 85mm, f1.8 and I use it for portraiture. It’s great for that.

So a question for those who have a fast 85mm lens, what do you use it for?

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I have that lens as well. I use it principally for portraiture. It's a very nice lens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's a great focal length for landscapes, especially the hiking through variety. Alas, they typically have a longish minimum focus distance, like in the 30+ inch range. So, when you find a great flower on that hike, it's hard to fill the frame from 30-inches. Be sure to bring an extension tube to pop on to focus onto something small and close.

BebuLamar

I have an old 85mm f/2 which I don't think a fast lens. I use it often for a lot of things. Certainly I would use it and the 135mm f/2.8 for portrait but I rarely do portraits.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thank you for that info and yes mine definitely does not focus close. Great idea about the extension tube!

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I do Olympus in which I have the 45mm 1.8 which in FF terms is an equiv. to a 90mm 1.8. Prob. one of the best Oly lenses, BUT if not doing portraits it sits in drawer a lot... Primes like this and the 85 2.0 are GREAT if you do a lot of closeups but for the avg. walk around guy, not so practical.. A good med. 2.8 zoom seems a whole lot more useful for non dedicated portrait use.

cascom Loc: Redmond

In the olden days, it was a great lens for dark gyms where a high shutter speed was required. It would be good for gymnastics or volleyball. Today my 70-200 2.8 zoom gets my vote.

pendennis

When I want a lightweight "carry around" lens, I carry my Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8. It's fast enough for most all available light, and it compresses a "normal" view by a factor of 2x. It's also a great "street" lens. For portraiture, I've always preferred something in the 105mm-class of lenses, though.

My "rule of thumb" was to use the 85mm for waist-up, and the 105mm for head/shoulder portraits.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That makes sense thank you!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I use my 85mm 1.4 for portraits. Very nice lens.

sxrich

I have the Nikon 85 1.8g - shoot it on a Nikon d750. Value wise, superb. I've also tested it extensively in different scenarios from close-up, to portraiture to events. My views may be different that others. Strengths: reasonably priced, very sharp, nice saturation. Weaknesses" Shooting an event, inside (50 people) in a rented hall, 60th birthday party - I took it off my camera! Went with my Nikon 24-70 2.8 nonVR. It wouldn't lock focus in low ambient light, low contrast images (people dancing with lights turned down). Too slow - when capturing moments is important. Then, another event. Wedding venue grand opening - invitation to wedding photographers - shooting a model, ambient light, close range with focus point on closest eye - AGAIN, struggling to lock focus. In nice bright light, it's great. I've also done close-up with it - very good. I don't adhere to "fill the frame" as your depth of field is reduced severely and I want both eyes in focus. If I want close up, I'll shoot my Tokina 100mm 2.8. Bottom line, a portrait lens that is a good one. But, it's still just a tool. Because of the 1.8, artistic. Compared to the Nikon 85 1.4, image rendition more 3d with the 85 1.4. Here are some pics.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

85mm is a very useful focal length for many purposes. I think it is backwards though to pigeonhole it by genre. Instead think of various subjects and then think about which focal lengths work for them. I happen to use a fast 85 for low light landscapes, but most of my subjects are landscapes.

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

Rodeo - when I first started in photography I went to a major rodeo feeling confident with my kit 18-300 zoom. Low light and dust killed all hope. Luckily I had 85 1.8. Keeping the aperture wide open, it saved the day even on a DX camera.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

This subject called for an 85. Too far away for a 50 and too large for 135.

(Download)

Seabastes

That lens was so great for portraits I actually wore out two of those Nikon models on assignments back in the days when I shot 200 days year as a freelancer magazine photographer. I don't remember if it was the faster of the two.The other was a Nikon 35 MM which I think was a 1.8 but those years are past. Now I enjoy two mirror less Panasonics that are like the old rangefinder Nikon models of the early 1960's but on steroids but the menu is so complicated that old age has me using the simplest settings.