50mm or 85mm (Page 7): That 850 sounds tremendous. When not dealing with inside light - the ‘fast 50’ is very awesome. For my inside shooting I have a 24-85. The range is great but if...

reddoted Loc: Melbourne, Florida

That 850 sounds tremendous. When not dealing with inside light - the ‘fast 50’ is very awesome. For my inside shooting I have a 24-85. The range is great but if you are younger than I or have a lens stabilizer lens you can do well.

Light being canary in the coalmind I believe if you have a good flash system and are proficient with it expect great shots of your loved ones

Happy Xmas.

Laura

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

ralf wrote:

My preference for a single high-quality lens to go... (show quote)

I have the Siggy 50 1.4 for my Canons - it is super. Agree on it being big and hvy, but it delivers beyond anything in its class, in my opinion.

Delta1502

I was able to purchase the 85mm f/1.8 for $379.00 at Abesofmaine about a month and a half ago. Since I have been tied into the local Harley-Davidson dealerships I have been shooting Santa and his helpers at the dealerships and I love the 85mm. For portraits you can back off a little and get great shots. The 50mm f/1.8 is much less money and it is also on my list of lenses to purchase for the wider angle and closer shots. The f/1.4 is more money for both lenses but I am happy with the f/1.8

CO

Stabilization can help a lot for hand held shots. I took this photo with my Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens at 1/30 second shutter speed.

1/30 second with VC on
1/30 second with VC on...

(Download)

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

They are both great. Sharp as a tack. Consider the 70-200 f/2.8 FL. Great all-around lens.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I knew a pro photographer, who used a Nikon D810 with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits. He did not have the newer version, 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR. But that previous model was still very good enough.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

mas24 wrote:

I knew a pro photographer, who used a Nikon D810 with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits. He did not have the newer version, 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR. But that previous model was still very good enough.

I am not a pro.
The new FL is reported to be much better than the previous 70-200; but I have to say that with the older 70-200, I have taken many great outdoor, sharp shots of my grandkids. I believe that the the FL must be better. but based upon my experience, I have to wonder why.
Perhaps if I owned the FL. it would come together.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

My daughter and family came over for Christmas dinner and presents. She put the 50mm 1.8D that I gave her to use on her D7500 to take pictures. What a great lens in ambient light. The photos came out nice and bright. One thing I forgot to mention was its abilitity to focus closely. I didn't look up just how close, but it works well. Also, at 50mm, the lens sees what we see. It's been awhile since I've used this lens since I have the 24-80, but I'm now wondering why I gave it away!! Note: focus noise was really not discernible on mine. However, mine was the previous model which has the aperture ring and not the current model.

My advice. Get one of them.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Kmgw9v wrote:

I am not a pro.
The new FL is reported to be much better than the previous 70-200; but I have to say that with the older 70-200, I have taken many great outdoor, sharp shots of my grandkids. I believe that the the FL must be better. but based upon my experience, I have to wonder why.
Perhaps if I owned the FL. it would come together.

I was blown away by the increased clarity of the new 70-200 FL ... having moved up from my D810 to my now D850 ..., the added megapixels catches every mistake .., shake and blur times 46+ megapixels ..., the slight % Increase in clarity With the New FL 70-200 and precision of that lens seems to be a perfect marriage .. I enjoy being able to crop using the D850 and the new 70-200 FL and still have a tack sharp shot.

I have shot wedding portraits with my 80-400 and even my 200-500 with my D850 as a distant stand back shooter outdoors with great success .., I can see where my new 70-200 FL will fit right in ..

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Gene51 wrote:

There is nothing that you can do with a 50mm or 85... (show quote)

I’m going to jump in here to express my opinion. My favorite portrait lens is actually the 135/1.8 from Sigma OUTDOORS, where I can back up far enough for the shot. For inside group shots, I actually use either a 16-35/2.8 OR a 35/1.4. So neither of the two primes that the OP is considering.

But, since the OP already owns the 24-70 and 70-200, I would recommend the 85/1.8 for inside portraits because it is so much smaller and lighter than the 70-200. For those group shots, use the 24-70.

Angmo

Recommended lenses for high res cameras like the D850

http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-blogs/the-d850-blog/the-best-lenses-for-the.html

aellman Loc: Boston MA

CHG_CANON wrote:

It depends. I have both 50s and 85s, but for me, I 'see' in the 35 to 50mm range more naturally. Others will feel more natural a bit further back from the subject that 85mm affords in candid settings. If you have zoom lenses that cover these prime lengths, you can test a bit for which focal length you prefer. Either lens will produce excellent results.

In the film word of SLRs, 50mm was considered a "normal" lens because it supposedly imitated the field of view and perspective of the human eye. If you buy into that, a 50mm would also be "normal" for a full-frame DSLR. >Alan

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Dr.Nikon wrote:

I was blown away by the increased clarity of the n... (show quote)

New 70-200 FL over $2000. 50mm 1.8 of either variety fairly inexpensive. I think the OP is thinking budget at this point.